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

Deposits of clastic carbonate-dominated (calciclastic) sedimentary slope systems in the rock record have been identified mostly as linearly-consistent carbonate apron deposits, even though most ancient clastic carbonate slope deposits fit the submarine fan systems better. Calciclastic submarine fans are consequently rarely described and are poorly understood. Subsequently, very little is known especially in mud-dominated calciclastic submarine fan systems. Presented in this study are a sedimentological core and petrographic characterisation of samples from eleven boreholes from the Lower Carboniferous of Bowland Basin (Northwest England) that reveals a >250 m thick calciturbidite complex deposited in a calciclastic submarine fan setting. Seven facies are recognised from core and thin section characterisation and are grouped into three carbonate turbidite sequences. They include: 1) Calciturbidites, comprising mostly of highto low-density, wavy-laminated bioclast-rich facies; 2) low-density densite mudstones which are characterised by planar laminated and unlaminated muddominated facies; and 3) Calcidebrites which are muddy or hyper-concentrated debrisflow deposits occurring as poorly-sorted, chaotic, mud-supported floatstones. These

Phd by thesis

Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) is a recently proposed search method that combines the precision of tree search with the generality of random sampling. It has received considerable interest due to its spectacular success in the difficult problem of computer Go, but has also proved beneficial in a range of other domains. This paper is a survey of the literature to date, intended to provide a snapshot of the state of the art after the first five years of MCTS research. We outline the core algorithm's derivation, impart some structure on the many variations and enhancements that have been proposed, and summarize the results from the key game and nongame domains to which MCTS methods have been applied. A number of open research questions indicate that the field is ripe for future work.

/pdf/a-survey-of-monte-carlo-tree-search-methods-2mj9olkdni.pdf

A Survey of Monte Carlo Tree Search Methods

https://iridia.ulb.ac.be/IridiaTrSeries/link/IridiaTr2011-004.pdf

The irace package: Iterated racing for automatic algorithm configuration

It has been widely observed that there is no single "dominant" SAT solver; instead, different solvers perform best on different instances. Rather than following the traditional approach of choosing the best solver for a given class of instances, we advocate making this decision online on a per-instance basis. Building on previous work, we describe SATzilla, an automated approach for constructing per-instance algorithm portfolios for SAT that use so-called empirical hardness models to choose among their constituent solvers. This approach takes as input a distribution of problem instances and a set of component solvers, and constructs a portfolio optimizing a given objective function (such as mean runtime, percent of instances solved, or score in a competition). The excellent performance of SATzilla was independently verified in the 2007 SAT Competition, where our SATzilla07 solvers won three gold, one silver and one bronze medal. In this article, we go well beyond SATzilla07 by making the portfolio construction scalable and completely automated, and improving it by integrating local search solvers as candidate solvers, by predicting performance score instead of runtime, and by using hierarchical hardness models that take into account different types of SAT instances. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these new techniques in extensive experimental results on data sets including instances from the most recent SAT competition.

/pdf/satzilla-portfolio-based-algorithm-selection-for-sat-39sjzyjruf.pdf

SATzilla: portfolio-based algorithm selection for SAT

Feature engineering is the task of improving predictive modelling performance on a dataset by transforming its feature space. Existing approaches to automate this process rely on either transformed feature space exploration through evaluation-guided search, or explicit expansion of datasets with all transformed features followed by feature selection. Such approaches incur high computational costs in runtime and/or memory. We present a novel technique, called Learning Feature Engineering (LFE), for automating feature engineering in classification tasks. LFE is based on learning the effectiveness of applying a transformation (e.g., arithmetic or aggregate operators) on numerical features, from past feature engineering experiences. Given a new dataset, LFE recommends a set of useful transformations to be applied on features without relying on model evaluation or explicit feature expansion and selection. Using a collection of datasets, we train a set of neural networks, which aim at predicting the transformation that impacts classification performance positively. Our empirical results show that LFE outperforms other feature engineering approaches for an overwhelming majority (89%) of the datasets from various sources while incurring a substantially lower computational cost.

/pdf/learning-feature-engineering-for-classification-4ly6xqc6tu.pdf

Learning feature engineering for classification

Data augmentation is the process of generating samples by transforming training data, with the target of improving the accuracy and robustness of classifiers. In this paper, we propose a new automatic and adaptive algorithm for choosing the transformations of the samples used in data augmentation. Specifically, for each sample, our main idea is to seek a small transformation that yields maximal classification loss on the transformed sample. We employ a trust-region optimization strategy, which consists of solving a sequence of linear programs. Our data augmentation scheme is then integrated into a Stochastic Gradient Descent algorithm for training deep neural networks. We perform experiments on two datasets, and show that that the proposed scheme outperforms random data augmentation algorithms in terms of accuracy and robustness, while yielding comparable or superior results with respect to existing selective sampling approaches.

/pdf/adaptive-data-augmentation-for-image-classification-batqzw9080.pdf

Adaptive data augmentation for image classification

Algorithm portfolios aim to increase the robustness of our ability to solve problems efficiently. While recently proposed algorithm selection methods come ever closer to identifying the most appropriate solver given an input instance, they are bound to make wrong and, at times, costly decisions. Solver scheduling has been proposed to boost the performance of algorithm selection. Scheduling tries to allocate time slots to the given solvers in a portfolio so as to maximize, say, the number of solved instances within a given time limit. We show how to solve the corresponding optimization problem at a low computational cost using column generation, resulting in fast and high quality solutions. We integrate this approach with a recently introduced algorithm selector, which we also extend using other techniques. We propose various static as well as dynamic scheduling strategies, and demonstrate that in comparison to pure algorithm selection, our novel combination of scheduling and solver selection can significantly boost performance.

/pdf/algorithm-selection-and-scheduling-89y7grdchl.pdf

Algorithm selection and scheduling

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) is changing our lives in many ways. One application domain is data science. New techniques in automating the creation of AI, known as AutoAI or AutoML, aim to automate the work practices of data scientists. AutoAI systems are capable of autonomously ingesting and pre-processing data, engineering new features, and creating and scoring models based on a target objectives (e.g. accuracy or run-time efficiency). Though not yet widely adopted, we are interested in understanding how AutoAI will impact the practice of data science. We conducted interviews with 20 data scientists who work at a large, multinational technology company and practice data science in various business settings. Our goal is to understand their current work practices and how these practices might change with AutoAI. Reactions were mixed: while informants expressed concerns about the trend of automating their jobs, they also strongly felt it was inevitable. Despite these concerns, they remained optimistic about their future job security due to a view that the future of data science work will be a collaboration between humans and AI systems, in which both automation and human expertise are indispensable.

Horst Samulowitz

Papers

Learning feature engineering for classification

Adaptive data augmentation for image classification

Algorithm selection and scheduling

Human-AI Collaboration in Data Science: Exploring Data Scientists' Perceptions of Automated AI

Human-AI Collaboration in Data Science: Exploring Data Scientists' Perceptions of Automated AI