Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userCan We Distinguish Machine Learning from Human Learning?
98
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Paul Kantor
Publication date
2019
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
What makes a task relatively more or less difficult for a machine compared to a human? Much AI/ML research has focused on expanding the range of tasks that machines can do, with a focus on whether machines can beat humans. Allowing for differences in scale, we can seek interesting (anomalous) pairs of tasks T, T. We define interesting in this way: The harder to learn relation is reversed when comparing human intelligence (HI) to AI. While humans seems to be able to understand problems by formulating rules, ML using neural networks does not rely on constructing rules. We discuss a novel approach where the challenge is to perform well under rules that have been created by human beings. We suggest that this provides a rigorous and precise pathway for understanding the difference between the two kinds of learning. Specifically, we suggest a large and extensible class of learning tasks, formulated as learning under rules. With these tasks, both the AI and HI will be studied with rigor and precision. The immediate goal is to find interesting groundtruth rule pairs. In the long term, the goal will be to understand, in a generalizable way, what distinguishes interesting pairs from ordinary pairs, and to define saliency behind interesting pairs. This may open new ways of thinking about AI, and provide unexpected insights into human learning.
rate research
Read More
Human Activity Recognition (HAR) is considered a valuable research topic in the last few decades. Different types of machine learning models are used for this purpose, and this is a part of analyzing human behavior through machines. It is not a trivial task to analyze the data from wearable sensors for complex and high dimensions. Nowadays, researchers mostly use smartphones or smart home sensors to capture these data. In our paper, we analyze these data using machine learning models to recognize human activities, which are now widely used for many purposes such as physical and mental health monitoring. We apply different machine learning models and compare performances. We use Logistic Regression (LR) as the benchmark model for its simplicity and excellent performance on a dataset, and to compare, we take Decision Tree (DT), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), and Artificial Neural Network (ANN). Additionally, we select the best set of parameters for each model by grid search. We use the HAR dataset from the UCI Machine Learning Repository as a standard dataset to train and test the models. Throughout the analysis, we can see that the Support Vector Machine performed (average accuracy 96.33%) far better than the other methods. We also prove that the results are statistically significant by employing statistical significance test methods.
Machine learning is increasingly recognized as a promising technology in the biological, biomedical, and behavioral sciences. There can be no argument that this technique is incredibly successful in image recognition with immediate applications in diagnostics including electrophysiology, radiology, or pathology, where we have access to massive amounts of annotated data. However, machine learning often performs poorly in prognosis, especially when dealing with sparse data. This is a field where classical physics-based simulation seems to remain irreplaceable. In this review, we identify areas in the biomedical sciences where machine learning and multiscale modeling can mutually benefit from one another: Machine learning can integrate physics-based knowledge in the form of governing equations, boundary conditions, or constraints to manage ill-posted problems and robustly handle sparse and noisy data; multiscale modeling can integrate machine learning to create surrogate models, identify system dynamics and parameters, analyze sensitivities, and quantify uncertainty to bridge the scales and understand the emergence of function. With a view towards applications in the life sciences, we discuss the state of the art of combining machine learning and multiscale modeling, identify applications and opportunities, raise open questions, and address potential challenges and limitations. We anticipate that it will stimulate discussion within the community of computational mechanics and reach out to other disciplines including mathematics, statistics, computer science, artificial intelligence, biomedicine, systems biology, and precision medicine to join forces towards creating robust and efficient models for biological systems.
Automated machine learning (AutoML) aims to find optimal machine learning solutions automatically given a machine learning problem. It could release the burden of data scientists from the multifarious manual tuning process and enable the access of domain experts to the off-the-shelf machine learning solutions without extensive experience. In this paper, we review the current developments of AutoML in terms of three categories, automated feature engineering (AutoFE), automated model and hyperparameter learning (AutoMHL), and automated deep learning (AutoDL). State-of-the-art techniques adopted in the three categories are presented, including Bayesian optimization, reinforcement learning, evolutionary algorithm, and gradient-based approaches. We summarize popular AutoML frameworks and conclude with current open challenges of AutoML.
How would observers differentiate Beacons from pulsars or other exotic sources, in light of likely Beacon observables? Bandwidth, pulse width and frequency may be distinguishing features. Such transients could be evidence of civilizations slightly higher than ourselves on the Kardashev scale.
In conventional supervised learning, a training dataset is given with ground-truth labels from a known label set, and the learned model will classify unseen instances to the known labels. In this paper, we study a new problem setting in which there are unknown classes in the training dataset misperceived as other labels, and thus their existence appears unknown from the given supervision. We attribute the unknown unknowns to the fact that the training dataset is badly advised by the incompletely perceived label space due to the insufficient feature information. To this end, we propose the exploratory machine learning, which examines and investigates the training dataset by actively augmenting the feature space to discover potentially unknown labels. Our approach consists of three ingredients including rejection model, feature acquisition, and model cascade. The effectiveness is validated on both synthetic and real datasets.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
