The author's preface gives an outline: "This book is about weakconvergence methods in metric spaces, with applications sufficient to show their power and utility. The Introduction motivates the definitions and indicates how the theory will yield solutions to problems arising outside it. Chapter 1 sets out the basic general theorems, which are then specialized in Chapter 2 to the space C[0, l ] of continuous functions on the unit interval and in Chapter 3 to the space D [0, 1 ] of functions with discontinuities of the first kind. The results of the first three chapters are used in Chapter 4 to derive a variety of limit theorems for dependent sequences of random variables. " The book develops and expands on Donsker's 1951 and 1952 papers on the invariance principle and empirical distributions. The basic random variables remain real-valued although, of course, measures on C[0, l ] and D[0, l ] are vitally used. Within this framework, there are various possibilities for a different and apparently better treatment of the material. More of the general theory of weak convergence of probabilities on separable metric spaces would be useful. Metrizability of the convergence is not brought up until late in the Appendix. The close relation of the Prokhorov metric and a metric for convergence in probability is (hence) not mentioned (see V. Strassen, Ann. Math. Statist. 36 (1965), 423-439; the reviewer, ibid. 39 (1968), 1563-1572). This relation would illuminate and organize such results as Theorems 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4 which give isolated, ad hoc connections between weak convergence of measures and nearness in probability. In the middle of p. 16, it should be noted that C*(S) consists of signed measures which need only be finitely additive if 5 is not compact. On p. 239, where the author twice speaks of separable subsets having nonmeasurable cardinal, he means "discrete" rather than "separable." Theorem 1.4 is Ulam's theorem that a Borel probability on a complete separable metric space is tight. Theorem 1 of Appendix 3 weakens completeness to topological completeness. After mentioning that probabilities on the rationals are tight, the author says it is an

Convergence of probability measures

In the last years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has achieved a notable momentum that may deliver the best of expectations over many application sectors across the field. For this to occur, the entire community stands in front of the barrier of explainability, an inherent problem of AI techniques brought by sub-symbolism (e.g. ensembles or Deep Neural Networks) that were not present in the last hype of AI. Paradigms underlying this problem fall within the so-called eXplainable AI (XAI) field, which is acknowledged as a crucial feature for the practical deployment of AI models. This overview examines the existing literature in the field of XAI, including a prospect toward what is yet to be reached. We summarize previous efforts to define explainability in Machine Learning, establishing a novel definition that covers prior conceptual propositions with a major focus on the audience for which explainability is sought. We then propose and discuss about a taxonomy of recent contributions related to the explainability of different Machine Learning models, including those aimed at Deep Learning methods for which a second taxonomy is built. This literature analysis serves as the background for a series of challenges faced by XAI, such as the crossroads between data fusion and explainability. Our prospects lead toward the concept of Responsible Artificial Intelligence, namely, a methodology for the large-scale implementation of AI methods in real organizations with fairness, model explainability and accountability at its core. Our ultimate goal is to provide newcomers to XAI with a reference material in order to stimulate future research advances, but also to encourage experts and professionals from other disciplines to embrace the benefits of AI in their activity sectors, without any prior bias for its lack of interpretability.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AI.

Federated learning (FL) is a machine learning setting where many clients (e.g. mobile devices or whole organizations) collaboratively train a model under the orchestration of a central server (e.g. service provider), while keeping the training data decentralized. FL embodies the principles of focused data collection and minimization, and can mitigate many of the systemic privacy risks and costs resulting from traditional, centralized machine learning and data science approaches. Motivated by the explosive growth in FL research, this paper discusses recent advances and presents an extensive collection of open problems and challenges.

Advances and Open Problems in Federated Learning

In recent years, deep neural networks have been successful in both industry and academia, especially for computer vision tasks. The great success of deep learning is mainly due to its scalability to encode large-scale data and to maneuver billions of model parameters. However, it is a challenge to deploy these cumbersome deep models on devices with limited resources, e.g., mobile phones and embedded devices, not only because of the high computational complexity but also the large storage requirements. To this end, a variety of model compression and acceleration techniques have been developed. As a representative type of model compression and acceleration, knowledge distillation effectively learns a small student model from a large teacher model. It has received rapid increasing attention from the community. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of knowledge distillation from the perspectives of knowledge categories, training schemes, teacher-student architecture, distillation algorithms, performance comparison and applications. Furthermore, challenges in knowledge distillation are briefly reviewed and comments on future research are discussed and forwarded.

Knowledge Distillation: A Survey

我的台灣, 看見心靈的故鄉 =2009林磐聳藝術與設計展

Several classic problems in graph processing and computational geometry are solved via incremental algorithms, which split computation into a series of small tasks acting on shared state, which gets updated progressively. While the sequential variant of such algorithms usually specifies a fixed (but sometimes random) order in which the tasks should be performed, a standard approach to parallelizing such algorithms is to relax this constraint to allow for out-of-order parallel execution. This is the case for parallel implementations of Dijkstra's single-source shortest-paths (SSSP) algorithm, and for parallel Delaunay mesh triangulation. While many software frameworks parallelize incremental computation in this way, it is still not well understood whether this relaxed ordering approach can still provide any complexity guarantees. In this paper, we address this problem, and analyze the efficiency guarantees provided by a range of incremental algorithms when parallelized via relaxed schedulers. We show that, for algorithms such as Delaunay mesh triangulation and sorting by insertion, schedulers with a maximum relaxation factor of k in terms of the maximum priority inversion allowed will introduce a maximum amount of wasted work of O(log n poly(k)), where n is the number of tasks to be executed. For SSSP, we show that the additional work is O(poly(k), dmax / wmin), where dmax is the maximum distance between two nodes, and wmin is the minimum such distance. In practical settings where n >> k, this suggests that the overheads of relaxation will be outweighed by the improved scalability of the relaxed scheduler. On the negative side, we provide lower bounds showing that certain algorithms will inherently incur a non-trivial amount of wasted work due to scheduler relaxation, even for relatively benign relaxed schedulers.

Efficiency Guarantees for Parallel Incremental Algorithms under Relaxed Schedulers

The design and implementation of efficient concurrent data structures has seen significant attention. However, most of this work has focused on concurrent data structures providing good worst-case guarantees. In real workloads, objects are often accessed at different rates, since access distributions may be non-uniform. Efficient distribution-adaptive data structures are known in the sequential case, e.g. the splay-trees; however, they often are hard to translate efficiently in the concurrent case. 
In this paper, we investigate distribution-adaptive concurrent data structures, and propose a new design called the splay-list. At a high level, the splay-list is similar to a standard skip-list, with the key distinction that the height of each element adapts dynamically to its access rate: popular elements "move up," whereas rarely-accessed elements decrease in height. We show that the splay-list provides order-optimal amortized complexity bounds for a subset of operations, while being amenable to efficient concurrent implementation. Experimental results show that the splay-list can leverage distribution-adaptivity to improve on the performance of classic concurrent designs, and can outperform the only previously-known distribution-adaptive design in certain settings.

https://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2020/13081/pdf/LIPIcs-DISC-2020-3.pdf/

The Splay-List: A Distribution-Adaptive Concurrent Skip-List

Population protocols are a popular model of distributed computing, in which randomly-interacting agents with little computational power cooperate to jointly perform computational tasks. Inspired by developments in molecular computation, and in particular DNA computing, recent algorithmic work has focused on the complexity of solving simple yet fundamental tasks in the population model, such as leader election (which requires convergence to a single agent in a special "leader" state), and majority (in which agents must converge to a decision as to which of two possible initial states had higher initial count). Known results point towards an inherent trade-off between the time complexity of such algorithms, and the space complexity, i.e. size of the memory available to each agent. 
In this paper, we explore this trade-off and provide new upper and lower bounds for majority and leader election. First, we prove a unified lower bound, which relates the space available per node with the time complexity achievable by a protocol: for instance, our result implies that any protocol solving either of these tasks for $n$ agents using $O( \log \log n )$ states must take $\Omega( n / \rm{polylog} n )$ expected time. This is the first result to characterize time complexity for protocols which employ super-constant number of states per node, and proves that fast, poly-logarithmic running times require protocols to have relatively large space costs. 
On the positive side, we give algorithms showing that fast, poly-logarithmic convergence time can be achieved using $O( \log^2 n )$ space per node, in the case of both tasks. Overall, our results highlight a time complexity separation between $O(\log \log n)$ and $\Theta( \log^2 n )$ state space size for both majority and leader election in population protocols, and introduce new techniques, which should be applicable more broadly.

Time-Space Trade-offs in Molecular Computation

Renaming is a classic distributed coordination task in which a set of processes must pick distinct identifiers from a small namespace. In this paper, we consider the time complexity of this problem when the namespace is linear in the number of participants, a variant known as loose renaming. We give a non-adaptive algorithm with O( log log n ) (individual) step complexity, where n is a known upper bound on contention, and an adaptive algorithm with step complexity O((log log k)2 ), where k is the actual contention in the execution. We also present a variant of the adaptive algorithm which requires O( k log log k ) total process steps. All upper bounds hold with high probability against a strong adaptive adversary.We complement the algorithms with an Ω(log log n) expected time lower bound on the complexity of randomized renaming using test-and-set operations and linear space. The result is based on a new coupling technique, and is the first to apply to non-adaptive randomized renaming. Since our algorithms use O(n) test-and-set objects, our results provide matching bounds on the cost of loose renaming in this setting.

/pdf/randomized-loose-renaming-in-o-log-log-n-time-19t8gc0kny.pdf

Randomized loose renaming in o(log log n) time

The area of machine learning has made considerable progress over the past decade, enabled by the widespread availability of large datasets, as well as by improved algorithms and models Given the large computational demands of machine learning workloads, parallelism, implemented either through single-node concurrency or through multi-node distribution, has been a third key ingredient to advances in machine learningThe goal of this tutorial is to provide the audience with an overview of standard distribution techniques in machine learning, with an eye towards the intriguing trade-offs between synchronization and communication costs of distributed machine learning algorithms, on the one hand, and their convergence, on the otherThe tutorial will focus on parallelization strategies for the fundamental stochastic gradient descent (SGD) algorithm, which is a key tool when training machine learning models, from classical instances such as linear regression, to state-of-the-art neural network architecturesThe tutorial will describe the guarantees provided by this algorithm in the sequential case, and then move on to cover both shared-memory and message-passing parallelization strategies, together with the guarantees they provide, and corresponding trade-offs The presentation will conclude with a broad overview of ongoing research in distributed and concurrent machine learning The tutorial will assume no prior knowledge beyond familiarity with basic concepts in algebra and analysis

Dan Alistarh

Papers

Efficiency Guarantees for Parallel Incremental Algorithms under Relaxed Schedulers

The Splay-List: A Distribution-Adaptive Concurrent Skip-List

Time-Space Trade-offs in Molecular Computation

Randomized loose renaming in o(log log n) time

A Brief Tutorial on Distributed and Concurrent Machine Learning