In dual decomposition a problem is broken into smaller subproblems and a solution to the relaxed problem is found. This method can be employed for MRF optimization. Dual decomposition is applied to markov logic programs as an inference technique. == Background == Discrete MRF Optimization (inference) is very important in Machine Learning and Computer vision, which is realized on CUDA graphical processing units. Consider a graph G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} with nodes V {\displaystyle V} and Edges E {\displaystyle E} . The goal is to assign a label l p {\displaystyle l_{p}} to each p ∈ V {\displaystyle p\in V} so that the MRF Energy is minimized: (1) min Σ p ∈ V θ p ( l p ) + Σ p q ∈ ε θ p q ( l p ) ( l q ) {\displaystyle \min \Sigma _{p\in V}\theta _{p}(l_{p})+\Sigma _{pq\in \varepsilon }\theta _{pq}(l_{p})(l_{q})} Major MRF Optimization methods are based on Graph cuts or Message passing. They rely on the following integer linear programming formulation (2) min x E ( θ , x ) = θ . x = ∑ p ∈ V θ p . x p + ∑ p q ∈ ε θ p q . x p q {\displaystyle \min _{x}E(\theta ,x)=\theta .x=\sum _{p\in V}\theta _{p}.x_{p}+\sum _{pq\in \varepsilon }\theta _{pq}.x_{pq}} In many applications, the MRF-variables are {0,1}-variables that satisfy: x p ( l ) = 1 {\displaystyle x_{p}(l)=1} ⇔ {\displaystyle \Leftrightarrow } label l {\displaystyle l} is assigned to p {\displaystyle p} , while x p q ( l , l ′ ) = 1 {\displaystyle x_{pq}(l,l^{\prime })=1} , labels l , l ′ {\displaystyle l,l^{\prime }} are assigned to p , q {\displaystyle p,q} . == Dual Decomposition == The main idea behind decomposition is surprisingly simple: decompose your original complex problem into smaller solvable subproblems, extract a solution by cleverly combining the solutions from these subproblems. A sample problem to decompose: min x Σ i f i ( x ) {\displaystyle \min _{x}\Sigma _{i}f^{i}(x)} where x ∈ C {\displaystyle x\in C} In this problem, separately minimizing every single f i ( x ) {\displaystyle f^{i}(x)} over x {\displaystyle x} is easy; but minimizing their sum is a complex problem. So the problem needs to get decomposed using auxiliary variables { x i } {\displaystyle \{x^{i}\}} and the problem will be as follows: min { x i } , x Σ i f i ( x i ) {\displaystyle \min _{\{x^{i}\},x}\Sigma _{i}f^{i}(x^{i})} where x i ∈ C , x i = x {\displaystyle x^{i}\in C,x^{i}=x} Now we can relax the constraints by multipliers { λ i } {\displaystyle \{\lambda ^{i}\}} which gives us the following Lagrangian dual function: g ( { λ i } ) = min { x i ∈ C } , x Σ i f i ( x i ) + Σ i λ i . ( x i − x ) = min { x i ∈ C } , x Σ i [ f i ( x i ) + λ i . x i ] − ( Σ i λ i ) x {\displaystyle g(\{\lambda ^{i}\})=\min _{\{x^{i}\in C\},x}\Sigma _{i}f^{i}(x^{i})+\Sigma _{i}\lambda ^{i}.(x^{i}-x)=\min _{\{x^{i}\in C\},x}\Sigma _{i}[f^{i}(x^{i})+\lambda ^{i}.x^{i}]-(\Sigma _{i}\lambda ^{i})x} Now we eliminate x {\displaystyle x} from the dual function by minimizing over x {\displaystyle x} and dual function becomes: g ( { λ i } ) = min { x i ∈ C } Σ i [ f i ( x i ) + λ i . x i ] {\displaystyle g(\{\lambda ^{i}\})=\min _{\{x^{i}\in C\}}\Sigma _{i}[f^{i}(x^{i})+\lambda ^{i}.x^{i}]} We can set up a Lagrangian dual problem: (3) max { λ i } ∈ Λ g ( λ i ) = Σ i g i ( x i ) , {\displaystyle \max _{\{\lambda ^{i}\}\in \Lambda }g({\lambda ^{i}})=\Sigma _{i}g^{i}(x^{i}),} The Master problem (4) g i ( x i ) = m i n x i f i ( x i ) + λ i . x i {\displaystyle g^{i}(x^{i})=min_{x^{i}}f^{i}(x^{i})+\lambda ^{i}.x^{i}} where x i ∈ C {\displaystyle x^{i}\in C} The Slave problems == MRF optimization via Dual Decomposition == The original MRF optimization problem is NP-hard and we need to transform it into something easier. τ {\displaystyle \tau } is a set of sub-trees of graph G {\displaystyle G} where its trees cover all nodes and edges of the main graph. And MRFs defined for every tree T {\displaystyle T} in τ {\displaystyle \tau } will be smaller. The vector of MRF parameters is θ T {\displaystyle \theta ^{T}} and the vector of MRF variables is x T {\displaystyle x^{T}} , these two are just smaller in comparison with original MRF vectors θ , x {\displaystyle \theta ,x} . For all vectors θ T {\displaystyle \theta ^{T}} we'll have the following: (5) ∑ T ∈ τ ( p ) θ p T = θ p , ∑ T ∈ τ ( p q ) θ p q T = θ p q . {\displaystyle \sum _{T\in \tau (p)}\theta _{p}^{T}=\theta _{p},\sum _{T\in \tau (pq)}\theta _{pq}^{T}=\theta _{pq}.} Where τ ( p ) {\displaystyle \tau (p)} and τ ( p q ) {\displaystyle \tau (pq)} denote all trees of τ {\displaystyle \tau } than contain node p {\displaystyle p} and edge p q {\displaystyle pq} respectively. We simply can write: (6) E ( θ , x ) = ∑ T ∈ τ E ( θ T , x T ) {\displaystyle E(\theta ,x)=\sum _{T\in \tau }E(\theta ^{T},x^{T})} And our constraints will be: (7) x T ∈ χ T , x T = x | T , ∀ T ∈ τ {\displaystyle x^{T}\in \chi ^{T},x^{T}=x_{|T},\forall T\in \tau } Our original MRF problem will become: (8) min { x T } , x Σ T ∈ τ E ( θ T , x T ) {\displaystyle \min _{\{x^{T}\},x}\Sigma _{T\in \tau }E(\theta ^{T},x^{T})} where x T ∈ χ T , ∀ T ∈ τ {\displaystyle x^{T}\in \chi ^{T},\forall T\in \tau } and x T ∈ x | T , ∀ T ∈ τ {\displaystyle x^{T}\in x_{|T},\forall T\in \tau } And we'll have the dual problem we were seeking: (9) max { λ T } ∈ Λ g ( { λ T } ) = ∑ T ∈ τ g T ( λ T ) , {\displaystyle \max _{\{\lambda ^{T}\}\in \Lambda }g(\{\lambda ^{T}\})=\sum _{T\in \tau }g^{T}(\lambda ^{T}),} The Master problem where each function g T ( . ) {\displaystyle g^{T}(.)} is defined as: (10) g T ( λ T ) = min x T E ( θ T + λ T , x T ) {\displaystyle g^{T}(\lambda ^{T})=\min _{x^{T}}E(\theta ^{T}+\lambda ^{T},x^{T})} where x T ∈ χ T {\displaystyle x^{T}\in \chi ^{T}} The Slave problems == Theoretical Properties == Theorem 1. Lagrangian relaxation (9) is equivalent to the LP relaxation of (2). min { x T } , x { E ( x , θ ) | x p T = s p , x T ∈ CONVEXHULL ( χ T ) } {\displaystyle \min _{\{x^{T}\},x}\{E(x,\theta )|x_{p}^{T}=s_{p},x^{T}\in {\text{CONVEXHULL}}(\chi ^{T})\}} Theorem 2. If the sequence of multipliers { α t } {\displaystyle \{\alpha _{t}\}} satisfies α t ≥ 0 , lim t → ∞ α t = 0 , ∑ t = 0 ∞ α t = ∞ {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}\geq 0,\lim _{t\to \infty }\alpha _{t}=0,\sum _{t=0}^{\infty }\alpha _{t}=\infty } then the algorithm converges to the optimal solution of (9). Theorem 3. The distance of the current solution { θ T } {\displaystyle \{\theta ^{T}\}} to the optimal solution { θ ¯ T } {\displaystyle \{{\bar {\theta }}^{T}\}} , which decreases at every iteration. Theorem 4. Any solution obtained by the method satisfies the WTA (weak tree agreement) condition. Theorem 5. For binary MRFs with sub-modular energies, the method computes a globally optimal solution.
Actor-critic algorithm
The actor-critic algorithm (AC) is a family of reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms that combine policy-based RL algorithms such as policy gradient methods, and value-based RL algorithms such as value iteration, Q-learning, SARSA, and TD learning. An AC algorithm consists of two main components: an "actor" that determines which actions to take according to a policy function, and a "critic" that evaluates those actions according to a value function. Some AC algorithms are on-policy, some are off-policy. Some apply to either continuous or discrete action spaces. Some work in both cases. == Overview == The actor-critic methods can be understood as an improvement over pure policy gradient methods like REINFORCE via introducing a baseline. === Actor === The actor uses a policy function π ( a | s ) {\displaystyle \pi (a|s)} , while the critic estimates either the value function V ( s ) {\displaystyle V(s)} , the action-value Q-function Q ( s , a ) , {\displaystyle Q(s,a),} the advantage function A ( s , a ) {\displaystyle A(s,a)} , or any combination thereof. The actor is a parameterized function π θ {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta }} , where θ {\displaystyle \theta } are the parameters of the actor. The actor takes as argument the state of the environment s {\displaystyle s} and produces a probability distribution π θ ( ⋅ | s ) {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta }(\cdot |s)} . If the action space is discrete, then ∑ a π θ ( a | s ) = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{a}\pi _{\theta }(a|s)=1} . If the action space is continuous, then ∫ a π θ ( a | s ) d a = 1 {\displaystyle \int _{a}\pi _{\theta }(a|s)da=1} . The goal of policy optimization is to improve the actor. That is, to find some θ {\displaystyle \theta } that maximizes the expected episodic reward J ( θ ) {\displaystyle J(\theta )} : J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ t = 0 T γ t r t ] {\displaystyle J(\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\gamma ^{t}r_{t}\right]} where γ {\displaystyle \gamma } is the discount factor, r t {\displaystyle r_{t}} is the reward at step t {\displaystyle t} , and T {\displaystyle T} is the time-horizon (which can be infinite). The goal of policy gradient method is to optimize J ( θ ) {\displaystyle J(\theta )} by gradient ascent on the policy gradient ∇ J ( θ ) {\displaystyle \nabla J(\theta )} . As detailed on the policy gradient method page, there are many unbiased estimators of the policy gradient: ∇ θ J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ 0 ≤ j ≤ T ∇ θ ln π θ ( A j | S j ) ⋅ Ψ j | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{0\leq j\leq T}\nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{j}|S_{j})\cdot \Psi _{j}{\Big |}S_{0}=s_{0}\right]} where Ψ j {\textstyle \Psi _{j}} is a linear sum of the following: ∑ 0 ≤ i ≤ T ( γ i R i ) {\textstyle \sum _{0\leq i\leq T}(\gamma ^{i}R_{i})} . γ j ∑ j ≤ i ≤ T ( γ i − j R i ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\sum _{j\leq i\leq T}(\gamma ^{i-j}R_{i})} : the REINFORCE algorithm. γ j ∑ j ≤ i ≤ T ( γ i − j R i ) − b ( S j ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\sum _{j\leq i\leq T}(\gamma ^{i-j}R_{i})-b(S_{j})} : the REINFORCE with baseline algorithm. Here b {\displaystyle b} is an arbitrary function. γ j ( R j + γ V π θ ( S j + 1 ) − V π θ ( S j ) ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\left(R_{j}+\gamma V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j+1})-V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j})\right)} : TD(1) learning. γ j Q π θ ( S j , A j ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}Q^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j},A_{j})} . γ j A π θ ( S j , A j ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}A^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j},A_{j})} : Advantage Actor-Critic (A2C). γ j ( R j + γ R j + 1 + γ 2 V π θ ( S j + 2 ) − V π θ ( S j ) ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\left(R_{j}+\gamma R_{j+1}+\gamma ^{2}V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j+2})-V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j})\right)} : TD(2) learning. γ j ( ∑ k = 0 n − 1 γ k R j + k + γ n V π θ ( S j + n ) − V π θ ( S j ) ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\left(\sum _{k=0}^{n-1}\gamma ^{k}R_{j+k}+\gamma ^{n}V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j+n})-V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j})\right)} : TD(n) learning. γ j ∑ n = 1 ∞ λ n − 1 1 − λ ⋅ ( ∑ k = 0 n − 1 γ k R j + k + γ n V π θ ( S j + n ) − V π θ ( S j ) ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {\lambda ^{n-1}}{1-\lambda }}\cdot \left(\sum _{k=0}^{n-1}\gamma ^{k}R_{j+k}+\gamma ^{n}V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j+n})-V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j})\right)} : TD(λ) learning, also known as GAE (generalized advantage estimate). This is obtained by an exponentially decaying sum of the TD(n) learning terms. === Critic === In the unbiased estimators given above, certain functions such as V π θ , Q π θ , A π θ {\displaystyle V^{\pi _{\theta }},Q^{\pi _{\theta }},A^{\pi _{\theta }}} appear. These are approximated by the critic. Since these functions all depend on the actor, the critic must learn alongside the actor. The critic is learned by value-based RL algorithms. For example, if the critic is estimating the state-value function V π θ ( s ) {\displaystyle V^{\pi _{\theta }}(s)} , then it can be learned by any value function approximation method. Let the critic be a function approximator V ϕ ( s ) {\displaystyle V_{\phi }(s)} with parameters ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . The simplest example is TD(1) learning, which trains the critic to minimize the TD(1) error: δ i = R i + γ V ϕ ( S i + 1 ) − V ϕ ( S i ) {\displaystyle \delta _{i}=R_{i}+\gamma V_{\phi }(S_{i+1})-V_{\phi }(S_{i})} The critic parameters are updated by gradient descent on the squared TD error: ϕ ← ϕ − α ∇ ϕ ( δ i ) 2 = ϕ + α δ i ∇ ϕ V ϕ ( S i ) {\displaystyle \phi \leftarrow \phi -\alpha \nabla _{\phi }(\delta _{i})^{2}=\phi +\alpha \delta _{i}\nabla _{\phi }V_{\phi }(S_{i})} where α {\displaystyle \alpha } is the learning rate. Note that the gradient is taken with respect to the ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } in V ϕ ( S i ) {\displaystyle V_{\phi }(S_{i})} only, since the ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } in γ V ϕ ( S i + 1 ) {\displaystyle \gamma V_{\phi }(S_{i+1})} constitutes a moving target, and the gradient is not taken with respect to that. This is a common source of error in implementations that use automatic differentiation, and requires "stopping the gradient" at that point. Similarly, if the critic is estimating the action-value function Q π θ {\displaystyle Q^{\pi _{\theta }}} , then it can be learned by Q-learning or SARSA. In SARSA, the critic maintains an estimate of the Q-function, parameterized by ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , denoted as Q ϕ ( s , a ) {\displaystyle Q_{\phi }(s,a)} . The temporal difference error is then calculated as δ i = R i + γ Q θ ( S i + 1 , A i + 1 ) − Q θ ( S i , A i ) {\displaystyle \delta _{i}=R_{i}+\gamma Q_{\theta }(S_{i+1},A_{i+1})-Q_{\theta }(S_{i},A_{i})} . The critic is then updated by θ ← θ + α δ i ∇ θ Q θ ( S i , A i ) {\displaystyle \theta \leftarrow \theta +\alpha \delta _{i}\nabla _{\theta }Q_{\theta }(S_{i},A_{i})} The advantage critic can be trained by training both a Q-function Q ϕ ( s , a ) {\displaystyle Q_{\phi }(s,a)} and a state-value function V ϕ ( s ) {\displaystyle V_{\phi }(s)} , then let A ϕ ( s , a ) = Q ϕ ( s , a ) − V ϕ ( s ) {\displaystyle A_{\phi }(s,a)=Q_{\phi }(s,a)-V_{\phi }(s)} . Although, it is more common to train just a state-value function V ϕ ( s ) {\displaystyle V_{\phi }(s)} , then estimate the advantage by A ϕ ( S i , A i ) ≈ ∑ j ∈ 0 : n − 1 γ j R i + j + γ n V ϕ ( S i + n ) − V ϕ ( S i ) {\displaystyle A_{\phi }(S_{i},A_{i})\approx \sum _{j\in 0:n-1}\gamma ^{j}R_{i+j}+\gamma ^{n}V_{\phi }(S_{i+n})-V_{\phi }(S_{i})} Here, n {\displaystyle n} is a positive integer. The higher n {\displaystyle n} is, the more lower is the bias in the advantage estimation, but at the price of higher variance. The Generalized Advantage Estimation (GAE) introduces a hyperparameter λ {\displaystyle \lambda } that smoothly interpolates between Monte Carlo returns ( λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} , high variance, no bias) and 1-step TD learning ( λ = 0 {\displaystyle \lambda =0} , low variance, high bias). This hyperparameter can be adjusted to pick the optimal bias-variance trade-off in advantage estimation. It uses an exponentially decaying average of n-step returns with λ {\displaystyle \lambda } being the decay strength. == Variants == Asynchronous Advantage Actor-Critic (A3C): Parallel and asynchronous version of A2C. Soft Actor-Critic (SAC): Incorporates entropy maximization for improved exploration. Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (DDPG): Specialized for continuous action spaces.
Peter Flach
Pieter "Peter" Adriaan Flach (born 8 April 1961, Sneek) is a Dutch computer scientist and a Professor of Artificial Intelligence in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Bristol. He is author of the acclaimed Simply Logical: Intelligent Reasoning by Example (John Wiley, 1994) and Machine Learning: the Art and Science of Algorithms that Make Sense of Data (Cambridge University Press, 2012). == Education == Flach received an MSc Electrical Engineering from Universiteit Twente in 1987 and a PhD in Computer Science from Tilburg University in 1995. == Research == Flach's research interests are in data mining and machine learning.
Vasant Honavar
Vasant G. Honavar is an Indian-American computer scientist, and artificial intelligence, machine learning, big data, data science, causal inference, knowledge representation, bioinformatics and health informatics researcher and professor. == Early life and education == Vasant Honavar was born at Pune, India to Bhavani G. and Gajanan N. Honavar. He received his early education at the Vidya Vardhaka Sangha High School and M.E.S. College in Bangalore, India. He received a B.E. in Electronics & Communications Engineering from the B.M.S. College of Engineering in Bangalore, India in 1982, when it was affiliated with Bangalore University, an M.S. in electrical and computer engineering in 1984 from Drexel University, and an M.S. in computer science in 1989, and a Ph.D. in 1990, respectively, from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, where he studied Artificial Intelligence and worked with Leonard Uhr. == Career == Honavar is on the faculty of Informatics and Intelligent Systems Department in the Penn State College of Information Sciences and Technology at Pennsylvania State University where he currently holds the Dorothy Foehr Huck and J. Lloyd Huck Chair in Biomedical Data Sciences and Artificial Intelligence and previously held the Edward Frymoyer Endowed Chair in Information Sciences and Technology. He serves on the faculties of the graduate programs in Computer Science, Informatics, Bioinformatics and Genomics, Neuroscience, Operations Research, Public Health Sciences, and of undergraduate programs in Data Science and Artificial Intelligence methods and applications. Honavar serves as the director of the Artificial Intelligence Research Laboratory, Director of Strategic Initiatives for the Institute for Computational and Data Sciences and the director of the Center for Artificial Intelligence Foundations and Scientific Applications at Pennsylvania State University. Honavar served on the Leadership Team of the Northeast Big Data Innovation Hub. Honavar served on the Computing Research Association's Computing Community Consortium Council during 2014-2017, where he chaired the task force on Convergence of Data and Computing, and was a member of the task force on Artificial Intelligence. Honavar was the first Sudha Murty Distinguished Visiting Chair of Neurocomputing and Data Science by the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India. Honavar was named a Distinguished Member of the Association for Computing Machinery for "outstanding scientific contributions to computing"; and elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for his "distinguished research contributions and leadership in data science". As a Program Director in the Information Integration and Informatics program in the Information and Intelligent Systems Division of the Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate of the US National Science Foundation during 2010-13, Honavar led the Big Data Program. Honavar was a professor of computer science at Iowa State University where he led the Artificial Intelligence Research Laboratory which he founded in 1990 and was instrumental in establishing an interdepartmental graduate program in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (and served as its Chair during 2003–2005). Honavar has held visiting professorships at Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and at the Indian Institute of Science. == Research == Honavar's research has contributed to advances in artificial intelligence, machine learning, causal inference, knowledge representation, neural networks, semantic web, big data analytics, and bioinformatics and computational biology. He was a program chair of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence(AAAI)'s 36th Conference on Artificial Intelligence. He has published over 300 research articles, including many highly cited ones, as well as several books on these topics. His recent work has focused on federated machine learning algorithms for constructing predictive models from distributed data and linked open data, learning predictive models from high dimensional longitudinal data, reasoning with federated knowledge bases, detecting algorithmic bias, big data analytics, analysis and prediction of protein-protein, protein-RNA, and protein-DNA interfaces and interactions, social network analytics, health informatics, secrecy-preserving query answering, representing and reasoning about preferences, and causal inference from complex, e.g., relational, data, large language models, diffusion models, and meta analysis. Honavar has been active in fostering national and international scientific collaborations in Artificial Intelligence, Data Sciences, and their applications in addressing national, international, and societal priorities in accelerating science, improving health, transforming agriculture through partnerships that bring together academia, non-profits, and industry. He is also active in making the science policy case for major national research initiatives such as AI for accelerating science and AI for combating the epidemic of diseases of despair. == Honors == National Science Foundation Director's Award for Superior Accomplishment, 2013 National Science Foundation Director's Award for Collaborative Integration, 2012 Margaret Ellen White Graduate Faculty Award, Iowa State University, 2011 Outstanding Career Achievement in Research Award, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Iowa State University, 2008 Regents Award for Faculty Excellence, Iowa Board of Regents, 2007 Edward Frymoyer Endowed Chair in Information Sciences and Technology, Penn State College of Information Sciences and Technology, Pennsylvania State University, 2013 Senior Faculty Research Excellence Award, Penn State College of Information Sciences and Technology, Pennsylvania State University, 2016 125 People of Impact, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2016 Sudha Murty Distinguished (Visiting) Chair of Neurocomputing and Data Science, Indian Institute of Science, 2016-2021 ACM Distinguished Member, 2018 AAAS Fellow American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2018 EAI Fellow European Alliance for Innovation, 2019 Dorothy Foehr Huck and J. Lloyd Huck Chair in Biomedical Data Sciences and Artificial Intelligence, Pennsylvania State University, 2021
Muller automaton
In automata theory, a Muller automaton is a type of an ω-automaton. The acceptance condition separates a Muller automaton from other ω-automata. The Muller automaton is defined using a Muller acceptance condition, i.e. the set of all states visited infinitely often must be an element of the acceptance set. Both deterministic and non-deterministic Muller automata recognize the ω-regular languages. They are named after David E. Muller, an American mathematician and computer scientist, who invented them in 1963. == Formal definition == Formally, a deterministic Muller-automaton is a tuple A = (Q,Σ,δ,q0,F) that consists of the following information: Q is a finite set. The elements of Q are called the states of A. Σ is a finite set called the alphabet of A. δ: Q × Σ → Q is a function, called the transition function of A. q0 is an element of Q, called the initial state. F is a set of sets of states. Formally, F ⊆ P(Q) where P(Q) is powerset of Q. F defines the acceptance condition. A accepts exactly those runs in which the set of infinitely often occurring states is an element of F In a non-deterministic Muller automaton, the transition function δ is replaced with a transition relation Δ that returns a set of states and the initial state q0 is replaced by a set of initial states Q0. Generally, 'Muller automaton' refers to a non-deterministic Muller automaton. For more comprehensive formalisation look at ω-automaton. == Equivalence with other ω-automata == The Muller automata are equally expressive as parity automata, Rabin automata, Streett automata, and non-deterministic Büchi automata, to mention some, and strictly more expressive than the deterministic Büchi automata. The equivalence of the above automata and non-deterministic Muller automata can be shown very easily as the accepting conditions of these automata can be emulated using the acceptance condition of Muller automata and vice versa. McNaughton's theorem demonstrates the equivalence of non-deterministic Büchi automaton and deterministic Muller automaton. Thus, deterministic and non-deterministic Muller automata are equivalent in terms of the languages they can accept. == Transformation to non-deterministic Muller automata == Following is a list of automata constructions that each transforms a type of ω-automata to a non-deterministic Muller automaton. From Büchi automata If B is the set of final states in a Büchi automaton with the set of states Q, we can construct a Muller automaton with same set of states, transition function and initial state with the Muller accepting condition as F = { X | X ∈ P(Q) ∧ X ∩ B ≠ ∅}. From Rabin automata/parity automata Similarly, the Rabin conditions ( E j , F j ) {\displaystyle (E_{j},F_{j})} can be emulated by constructing the acceptance set in the Muller automaton as all sets F ⊆ Q {\displaystyle F\subseteq Q} that satisfy F ∩ E j = ∅ {\displaystyle F\cap E_{j}=\emptyset } and F ∩ F j ≠ ∅ {\displaystyle F\cap F_{j}\neq \emptyset } , for some j. Note that this covers the case of parity automata too, as the parity acceptance condition can be expressed as a Rabin acceptance condition easily. From Streett automata The Streett conditions ( E j , F j ) {\displaystyle (E_{j},F_{j})} can be emulated by constructing the acceptance set in the Muller automaton as all sets F ⊆ Q {\displaystyle F\subseteq Q} that satisfy F ∩ F j = ∅ ⟹ F ∩ E j = ∅ {\displaystyle F\cap F_{j}=\emptyset \implies F\cap E_{j}=\emptyset } , for all j. == Transformation to deterministic Muller automata == From Büchi automaton McNaughton's theorem provides a procedure to transform any non-deterministic Büchi automaton into a deterministic Muller automaton.
Ericom Connect
Ericom Connect is a remote access/application publishing solution produced by Ericom Software that provides secure, centrally managed access to physical or hosted desktops and applications running on Microsoft Windows and Linux systems. == Product overview == Ericom Connect is desktop virtualization and application virtualization software that allows users to run applications remotely, without installing them on the local computer or device. The software is noted for its scalability, ease of deployment, and compatibility with any type of infrastructure, cloud or physical. Ericom Connect uses AccessPad (native client for desktops), AccessToGo (native client for mobile), or AccessNow, one of the first HTML5 RDP solutions to support clientless access to Windows desktops and applications from any device with an HTML5-compatible browser, including Macintosh computers, mobile devices, and Google Chromebooks. Other notable features include performance monitoring, built-in real-time analytics & BI, support for two-factor authentication (using RSA SecurID), multi-tenancy and multi-datacenter support via a single unified web interface, and a “Launch Simulation” feature that allows users to visualize and simulate actual step-by-step user processes directly from within the administration console. In addition to scalability, by distributing configurations, logs, etc., across multiple servers there is no single point of failure, as can be the case if all configuration information is stored on one server. == History == Ericom Connect was introduced in 2015. Ericom Connect is a successor to Ericom PowerTerm Web Connect. PowerTerm Web Connect used an architecture similar to what was then current with Citrix and VMWare, relying on a centralized SQL server, a connection broker, image management for different hypervisors, and a variety of clients. Ericom Connect uses a new grid architecture that provides more scalability, reliability, and flexibility than before.
Tomáš Mikolov
Tomáš Mikolov is a Czech computer scientist working in the field of machine learning. In March 2020, Mikolov became a senior research scientist at the Czech Institute of Informatics, Robotics and Cybernetics. == Career == Mikolov obtained his PhD in Computer Science from Brno University of Technology for his work on recurrent neural network-based language models. He is the lead author of the 2013 paper that introduced the Word2vec technique in natural language processing and is an author on the FastText architecture. Mikolov came up with the idea to generate text from neural language models in 2007 and his RNNLM toolkit was the first to demonstrate the capability to train language models on large corpora, resulting in large improvements over the state of the art. Prior to joining Facebook in 2014, Mikolov worked as a visiting researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Université de Montréal, Microsoft and Google. He left Facebook at some time in 2019/2020 to join the Czech Institute of Informatics, Robotics and Cybernetics. Mikolov has argued that humanity might be at a greater existential risk if an artificial general intelligence is not developed.