Machine Learning is the study of methods for programming computers to learn. Computers are applied to a wide range of tasks, and for most of these it is relatively easy for programmers to design and implement the necessary software. However, there are many tasks for which this is difficult or impossible. These can be divided into four general categories. First, there are problems for which there exist no human experts. For example, in modern automated manufacturing facilities, there is a need to predict machine failures before they occur by analyzing sensor readings. Because the machines are new, there are no human experts who can be interviewed by a programmer to provide the knowledge necessary to build a computer system. A machine learning system can study recorded data and subsequent machine failures and learn prediction rules. Second, there are problems where human experts exist, but where they are unable to explain their expertise. This is the case in many perceptual tasks, such as speech recognition, hand-writing recognition, and natural language understanding. Virtually all humans exhibit expert-level abilities on these tasks, but none of them can describe the detailed steps that they follow as they perform them. Fortunately, humans can provide machines with examples of the inputs and correct outputs for these tasks, so machine learning algorithms can learn to map the inputs to the outputs. Third, there are problems where phenomena are changing rapidly. In finance, for example, people would like to predict the future behavior of the stock market, of consumer purchases, or of exchange rates. These behaviors change frequently, so that even if a programmer could construct a good predictive computer program, it would need to be rewritten frequently. A learning program can relieve the programmer of this burden by constantly modifying and tuning a set of learned prediction rules. Fourth, there are applications that need to be customized for each computer user separately. Consider, for example, a program to filter unwanted electronic mail messages. Different users will need different filters. It is unreasonable to expect each user to program his or her own rules, and it is infeasible to provide every user with a software engineer to keep the rules up-to-date. A machine learning system can learn which mail messages the user rejects and maintain the filtering rules automatically. Machine learning addresses many of the same research questions as the fields of statistics, data mining, and psychology, but with differences of emphasis. Statistics focuses on understanding the phenomena that have generated the data, often with the goal of testing different hypotheses about those phenomena. Data mining seeks to find patterns in the data that are understandable by people. Psychological studies of human learning aspire to understand the mechanisms underlying the various learning behaviors exhibited by people (concept learning, skill acquisition, strategy change, etc.).

Machine learning

Probability Distributions.- Linear Models for Regression.- Linear Models for Classification.- Neural Networks.- Kernel Methods.- Sparse Kernel Machines.- Graphical Models.- Mixture Models and EM.- Approximate Inference.- Sampling Methods.- Continuous Latent Variables.- Sequential Data.- Combining Models.

Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning

Data Mining Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques

Time Series Classification (TSC) is an important and challenging problem in data mining. With the increase of time series data availability, hundreds of TSC algorithms have been proposed. Among these methods, only a few have considered Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) to perform this task. This is surprising as deep learning has seen very successful applications in the last years. DNNs have indeed revolutionized the field of computer vision especially with the advent of novel deeper architectures such as Residual and Convolutional Neural Networks. Apart from images, sequential data such as text and audio can also be processed with DNNs to reach state-of-the-art performance for document classification and speech recognition. In this article, we study the current state-of-the-art performance of deep learning algorithms for TSC by presenting an empirical study of the most recent DNN architectures for TSC. We give an overview of the most successful deep learning applications in various time series domains under a unified taxonomy of DNNs for TSC. We also provide an open source deep learning framework to the TSC community where we implemented each of the compared approaches and evaluated them on a univariate TSC benchmark (the UCR/UEA archive) and 12 multivariate time series datasets. By training 8730 deep learning models on 97 time series datasets, we propose the most exhaustive study of DNNs for TSC to date.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10618-019-00619-1.pdf

Deep learning for time series classification: a review

We had previously shown that regularization principles lead to approximation schemes that are equivalent to networks with one layer of hidden units, called regularization networks 
. In particular, standard smoothness functionals lead to a subclass of regularization networks, the well known radial basis functions approximation schemes. This paper shows that regularization networks encompass a much broader range of approximation schemes, including many of the popular general additive models and some of the neural networks. In particular, we introduce new classes of smoothness functionals that lead to different classes of basis functions. Additive splines as well as some tensor product splines can be obtained from appropriate classes of smoothness functionals. Furthermore, the same generalization that extends radial basis functions (RBF) to hyper basis functions (HBF) also leads from additive models to ridge approximation models, containing as special cases Breiman's hinge functions, some forms of projection pursuit regression, and several types of neural networks. We propose to use the term generalized regularization networks for this broad class of approximation schemes that follow from an extension of regularization. In the probabilistic interpretation of regularization, the different classes of basis functions correspond to different classes of prior probabilities on the approximating function spaces, and therefore to different types of smoothness assumptions. In summary, different multilayer networks with one hidden layer, which we collectively call generalized regularization networks, correspond to different classes of priors and associated smoothness functionals in a classical regularization principle. Three broad classes are (1) radial basis functions that can be generalized to hyper basis functions, (2) some tensor product splines, and (3) additive splines that can be generalized to schemes of the type of ridge approximation, hinge functions, and several perceptron-like neural networks with one hidden layer.

Regularization theory and neural networks architectures

The machine learning community adopted the use of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) in order to ensure the statistical validity of results. Many scientific fields however realized the shortcomings of frequentist reasoning and in the most radical cases even banned its use in publications. We should do the same: just as we have embraced the Bayesian paradigm in the development of new machine learning methods, so we should also use it in the analysis of our own results. We argue for abandonment of NHST by exposing its fallacies and, more importantly, offer better - more sound and useful - alternatives for it.

/pdf/time-for-a-change-a-tutorial-for-comparing-multiple-4p786w2yaz.pdf

Time for a Change: a Tutorial for Comparing Multiple Classifiers Through Bayesian Analysis

The statistical comparison of multiple algorithms over multiple data sets is fundamental in machine learning. This is typically carried out by the Friedman test. When the Friedman test rejects the null hypothesis, multiple comparisons are carried out to establish which are the significant differences among algorithms. The multiple comparisons are usually performed using the mean-ranks test. The aim of this technical note is to discuss the inconsistencies of the mean-ranks post-hoc test with the goal of discouraging its use in machine learning as well as in medicine, psychology, etc. We show that the outcome of the mean-ranks test depends on the pool of algorithms originally included in the experiment. In other words, the outcome of the comparison between algorithms A and B depends also on the performance of the other algorithms included in the original experiment. This can lead to paradoxical situations. For instance the difference between A and B could be declared significant if the pool comprises algorithms C, D, E and not significant if the pool comprises algorithms F, G, H. To overcome these issues, we suggest instead to perform the multiple comparison using a test whose outcome only depends on the two algorithms being compared, such as the sign-test or the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

/pdf/should-we-really-use-post-hoc-tests-based-on-mean-ranks-43bvts3neu.pdf

Should we really use post-hoc tests based on mean-ranks?

Air quality prediction in Milan: feed-forward neural networks, pruned neural networks and lazy learning

The statistical comparison of multiple algorithms over multiple data sets is fundamental in machine learning. This is typically carried out by the Friedman test. When the Friedman test rejects the null hypothesis, multiple comparisons are carried out to establish which are the significant differences among algorithms. The multiple comparisons are usually performed using the mean-ranks test. The aim of this technical note is to discuss the inconsistencies of the mean-ranks post-hoc test with the goal of discouraging its use in machine learning as well as in medicine, psychology, etc.. We show that the outcome of the mean-ranks test depends on the pool of algorithms originally included in the experiment. In other words, the outcome of the comparison between algorithms A and B depends also on the performance of the other algorithms included in the original experiment. This can lead to paradoxical situations. For instance the difference between A and B could be declared significant if the pool comprises algorithms C, D, E and not significant if the pool comprises algorithms F, G, H. To overcome these issues, we suggest instead to perform the multiple comparison using a test whose outcome only depends on the two algorithms being compared, such as the sign-test or the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Bayesian methods are ubiquitous in machine learning. Nevertheless, the analysis of empirical results is typically performed by frequentist tests. This implies dealing with null hypothesis significance tests and p-values, even though the shortcomings of such methods are well known. We propose a nonparametric Bayesian version of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test using a Dirichlet process (DP) based prior. We address in two different ways the problem of how to choose the infinite dimensional parameter that characterizes the DP. The proposed test has all the traditional strengths of the Bayesian approach; for instance, unlike the frequentist tests, it allows verifying the null hypothesis, not only rejecting it, and taking decisions which minimize the expected loss. Moreover, one of the solutions proposed to model the infinite-dimensional parameter of the DP allows isolating instances in which the traditional frequentist test is guessing at random. We show results dealing with the comparison of two classifiers using real and simulated data.

/pdf/a-bayesian-wilcoxon-signed-rank-test-based-on-the-dirichlet-55drfgnldc.pdf

Giorgio Corani

Papers

Time for a Change: a Tutorial for Comparing Multiple Classifiers Through Bayesian Analysis

Should we really use post-hoc tests based on mean-ranks?

Air quality prediction in Milan: feed-forward neural networks, pruned neural networks and lazy learning

Should we really use post-hoc tests based on mean-ranks?

A Bayesian Wilcoxon signed-rank test based on the Dirichlet process