Legal information retrieval

Legal information retrieval is the science of information retrieval applied to legal text, including legislation, case law, and scholarly works. Accurate legal information retrieval is important to provide access to the law to laymen and legal professionals. Its importance has increased because of the vast and quickly increasing amount of legal documents available through electronic means. Legal information retrieval is a part of the growing field of legal informatics. In a legal setting, it is frequently important to retrieve all information related to a specific query. However, commonly used boolean search methods (exact matches of specified terms) on full text legal documents have been shown to have an average recall rate as low as 20 percent, meaning that only 1 in 5 relevant documents are actually retrieved. In that case, researchers believed that they had retrieved over 75% of relevant documents. This may result in failing to retrieve important or precedential cases. In some jurisdictions this may be especially problematic, as legal professionals are ethically obligated to be reasonably informed as to relevant legal documents. Legal Information Retrieval attempts to increase the effectiveness of legal searches by increasing the number of relevant documents (providing a high recall rate) and reducing the number of irrelevant documents (a high precision rate). This is a difficult task, as the legal field is prone to jargon, polysemes (words that have different meanings when used in a legal context), and constant change. Techniques used to achieve these goals generally fall into three categories: boolean retrieval, manual classification of legal text, and natural language processing of legal text. == Problems == Application of standard information retrieval techniques to legal text can be more difficult than application in other subjects. One key problem is that the law rarely has an inherent taxonomy. Instead, the law is generally filled with open-ended terms, which may change over time. This can be especially true in common law countries, where each decided case can subtly change the meaning of a certain word or phrase. Legal information systems must also be programmed to deal with law-specific words and phrases. Though this is less problematic in the context of words which exist solely in law, legal texts also frequently use polysemes, words may have different meanings when used in a legal or common-speech manner, potentially both within the same document. The legal meanings may be dependent on the area of law in which it is applied. For example, in the context of European Union legislation, the term "worker" has four different meanings: Any worker as defined in Article 3(a) of Directive 89/391/EEC who habitually uses display screen equipment as a significant part of his normal work. Any person employed by an employer, including trainees and apprentices but excluding domestic servants; Any person carrying out an occupation on board a vessel, including trainees and apprentices, but excluding port pilots and shore personnel carrying out work on board a vessel at the quayside; Any person who, in the Member State concerned, is protected as an employee under national employment law and in accordance with national practice; It also has the common meaning: A person who works at a specific occupation. Though the terms may be similar, correct information retrieval must differentiate between the intended use and irrelevant uses in order to return the correct results. Even if a system overcomes the language problems inherent in law, it must still determine the relevancy of each result. In the context of judicial decisions, this requires determining the precedential value of the case. Case decisions from senior or superior courts may be more relevant than those from lower courts, even where the lower court's decision contains more discussion of the relevant facts. The opposite may be true, however, if the senior court has only a minor discussion of the topic (for example, if it is a secondary consideration in the case). An information retrieval system must also be aware of the authority of the jurisdiction. A case from a binding authority is most likely of more value than one from a non-binding authority. Additionally, the intentions of the user may determine which cases they find valuable. For instance, where a legal professional is attempting to argue a specific interpretation of law, he might find a minor court's decision which supports his position more valuable than a senior courts position which does not. He may also value similar positions from different areas of law, different jurisdictions, or dissenting opinions. Overcoming these problems can be made more difficult because of the large number of cases available. The number of legal cases available via electronic means is constantly increasing (in 2003, US appellate courts handed down approximately 500 new cases per day), meaning that an accurate legal information retrieval system must incorporate methods of both sorting past data and managing new data. == Techniques == === Boolean searches === Boolean searches, where a user may specify terms such as use of specific words or judgments by a specific court, are the most common type of search available via legal information retrieval systems. They are widely implemented but overcome few of the problems discussed above. The recall and precision rates of these searches vary depending on the implementation and searches analyzed. One study found a basic boolean search's recall rate to be roughly 20%, and its precision rate to be roughly 79%. Another study implemented a generic search (that is, not designed for legal uses) and found a recall rate of 56% and a precision rate of 72% among legal professionals. Both numbers increased when searches were run by non-legal professionals, to a 68% recall rate and 77% precision rate. This is likely explained because of the use of complex legal terms by the legal professionals. === Manual classification === In order to overcome the limits of basic boolean searches, information systems have attempted to classify case laws and statutes into more computer friendly structures. Usually, this results in the creation of an ontology to classify the texts, based on the way a legal professional might think about them. These attempt to link texts on the basis of their type, their value, and/or their topic areas. Most major legal search providers now implement some sort of classification search, such as Westlaw's “Natural Language” or LexisNexis' Headnote searches. Additionally, both of these services allow browsing of their classifications, via Westlaw's West Key Numbers or Lexis' Headnotes. Though these two search algorithms are proprietary and secret, it is known that they employ manual classification of text (though this may be computer-assisted). These systems can help overcome the majority of problems inherent in legal information retrieval systems, in that manual classification has the greatest chances of identifying landmark cases and understanding the issues that arise in the text. In one study, ontological searching resulted in a precision rate of 82% and a recall rate of 97% among legal professionals. The legal texts included, however, were carefully controlled to just a few areas of law in a specific jurisdiction. The major drawback to this approach is the requirement of using highly skilled legal professionals and large amounts of time to classify texts. As the amount of text available continues to increase, some have stated their belief that manual classification is unsustainable. === Natural language processing === In order to reduce the reliance on legal professionals and the amount of time needed, efforts have been made to create a system to automatically classify legal text and queries. Adequate translation of both would allow accurate information retrieval without the high cost of human classification. These automatic systems generally employ Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques that are adapted to the legal domain, and also require the creation of a legal ontology. Though multiple systems have been postulated, few have reported results. One system, “SMILE,” which attempted to automatically extract classifications from case texts, resulted in an f-measure (which is a calculation of both recall rate and precision) of under 0.3 (compared to perfect f-measure of 1.0). This is probably much lower than an acceptable rate for general usage. Despite the limited results, many theorists predict that the evolution of such systems will eventually replace manual classification systems. === Citation-Based ranking === In the mid-90s the Room 5 case law retrieval project used citation mining for summaries and ranked its search results based on citation type and count. This slightly pre-dated the PageRank algorithm at Stanford which was also a citation-based ranking. Ranking of results was based

BERT (language model)

Bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) is a language model introduced in October 2018 by researchers at Google. It learns to represent text as a sequence of vectors using self-supervised learning. It uses the encoder-only transformer architecture. BERT dramatically improved the state of the art for large language models. As of 2020, BERT is a ubiquitous baseline in natural language processing (NLP) experiments. BERT is trained by masked token prediction and next sentence prediction. With this training, BERT learns contextual, latent representations of tokens in their context, similar to ELMo and GPT-2. It found applications for many natural language processing tasks, such as coreference resolution and polysemy resolution. It improved on ELMo and spawned the study of "BERTology", which attempts to interpret what is learned by BERT. BERT was originally implemented in the English language at two model sizes, BERTBASE (110 million parameters) and BERTLARGE (340 million parameters). Both were trained on the Toronto BookCorpus (800M words) and English Wikipedia (2,500M words). The weights were released on GitHub. On March 11, 2020, 24 smaller models were released, the smallest being BERTTINY with just 4 million parameters. == Architecture == BERT is an "encoder-only" transformer architecture. At a high level, BERT consists of 4 modules: Tokenizer: This module converts a piece of English text into a sequence of integers ("tokens"). Embedding: This module converts the sequence of tokens into an array of real-valued vectors representing the tokens. It represents the conversion of discrete token types into a lower-dimensional Euclidean space. Encoder: a stack of Transformer blocks with self-attention, but without causal masking. Task head: This module converts the final representation vectors into one-shot encoded tokens again by producing a predicted probability distribution over the token types. It can be viewed as a simple decoder, decoding the latent representation into token types, or as an "un-embedding layer". The task head is necessary for pre-training, but it is often unnecessary for so-called "downstream tasks," such as question answering or sentiment classification. Instead, one removes the task head and replaces it with a newly initialized module suited for the task, and finetune the new module. The latent vector representation of the model is directly fed into this new module, allowing for sample-efficient transfer learning. === Embedding === This section describes the embedding used by BERTBASE. The other one, BERTLARGE, is similar, just larger. The tokenizer of BERT is WordPiece, which is a sub-word strategy like byte-pair encoding. Its vocabulary size is 30,000, and any token not appearing in its vocabulary is replaced by [UNK] ("unknown"). The first layer is the embedding layer, which contains three components: token type embeddings, position embeddings, and segment type embeddings. Token type: The token type is a standard embedding layer, translating a one-hot vector into a dense vector based on its token type. Position: The position embeddings are based on a token's position in the sequence. BERT uses absolute position embeddings, where each position in a sequence is mapped to a real-valued vector. Each dimension of the vector consists of a sinusoidal function that takes the position in the sequence as input. Segment type: Using a vocabulary of just 0 or 1, this embedding layer produces a dense vector based on whether the token belongs to the first or second text segment in that input. In other words, type-1 tokens are all tokens that appear after the [SEP] special token. All prior tokens are type-0. The three embedding vectors are added together representing the initial token representation as a function of these three pieces of information. After embedding, the vector representation is normalized using a LayerNorm operation, outputting a 768-dimensional vector for each input token. After this, the representation vectors are passed forward through 12 Transformer encoder blocks, and are decoded back to 30,000-dimensional vocabulary space using a basic affine transformation layer. === Architectural family === The encoder stack of BERT has 2 free parameters: L {\displaystyle L} , the number of layers, and H {\displaystyle H} , the hidden size. There are always H / 64 {\displaystyle H/64} self-attention heads, and the feed-forward/filter size is always 4 H {\displaystyle 4H} . By varying these two numbers, one obtains an entire family of BERT models. For BERT: the feed-forward size and filter size are synonymous. Both of them denote the number of dimensions in the middle layer of the feed-forward network. the hidden size and embedding size are synonymous. Both of them denote the number of real numbers used to represent a token. The notation for encoder stack is written as L/H. For example, BERTBASE is written as 12L/768H, BERTLARGE as 24L/1024H, and BERTTINY as 2L/128H. == Training == === Pre-training === BERT was pre-trained simultaneously on two tasks: Masked language modeling (MLM): In this task, BERT ingests a sequence of words, where one word may be randomly changed ("masked"), and BERT tries to predict the original words that had been changed. For example, in the sentence "The cat sat on the [MASK]," BERT would need to predict "mat." This helps BERT learn bidirectional context, meaning it understands the relationships between words not just from left to right or right to left but from both directions at the same time. Next sentence prediction (NSP): In this task, BERT is trained to predict whether one sentence logically follows another. For example, given two sentences, "The cat sat on the mat" and "It was a sunny day", BERT has to decide if the second sentence is a valid continuation of the first one. This helps BERT understand relationships between sentences, which is important for tasks like question answering or document classification. ==== Masked language modeling ==== In masked language modeling, 15% of tokens would be randomly selected for masked-prediction task, and the training objective was to predict the masked token given its context. In more detail, the selected token is: replaced with a [MASK] token with probability 80%, replaced with a random word token with probability 10%, not replaced with probability 10%. The reason not all selected tokens are masked is to avoid the dataset shift problem. The dataset shift problem arises when the distribution of inputs seen during training differs significantly from the distribution encountered during inference. A trained BERT model might be applied to word representation (like Word2Vec), where it would be run over sentences not containing any [MASK] tokens. It is later found that more diverse training objectives are generally better. As an illustrative example, consider the sentence "my dog is cute". It would first be divided into tokens like "my1 dog2 is3 cute4". Then a random token in the sentence would be picked. Let it be the 4th one "cute4". Next, there would be three possibilities: with probability 80%, the chosen token is masked, resulting in "my1 dog2 is3 [MASK]4"; with probability 10%, the chosen token is replaced by a uniformly sampled random token, such as "happy", resulting in "my1 dog2 is3 happy4"; with probability 10%, nothing is done, resulting in "my1 dog2 is3 cute4". After processing the input text, the model's 4th output vector is passed to its decoder layer, which outputs a probability distribution over its 30,000-dimensional vocabulary space. ==== Next sentence prediction ==== Given two sentences, the model predicts if they appear sequentially in the training corpus, outputting either [IsNext] or [NotNext]. During training, the algorithm sometimes samples two sentences from a single continuous span in the training corpus, while at other times, it samples two sentences from two discontinuous spans. The first sentence starts with a special token, [CLS] (for "classify"). The two sentences are separated by another special token, [SEP] (for "separate"). After processing the two sentences, the final vector for the [CLS] token is passed to a linear layer for binary classification into [IsNext] and [NotNext]. For example: Given "[CLS] my dog is cute [SEP] he likes playing [SEP]", the model should predict [IsNext]. Given "[CLS] my dog is cute [SEP] how do magnets work [SEP]", the model should predict [NotNext]. === Fine-tuning === BERT is meant as a general pretrained model for various applications in natural language processing. That is, after pre-training, BERT can be fine-tuned with fewer resources on smaller datasets to optimize its performance on specific tasks such as natural language inference and text classification, and sequence-to-sequence-based language generation tasks such as question answering and conversational response generation. The original BERT paper published results demonstrating that a small amount of fine

Jackknife variance estimates for random forest

In statistics, jackknife variance estimates for random forest are a way to estimate the variance in random forest models, in order to eliminate the bootstrap effects. == Jackknife variance estimates == The sampling variance of bagged learners is: V ( x ) = V a r [ θ ^ ∞ ( x ) ] {\displaystyle V(x)=Var[{\hat {\theta }}^{\infty }(x)]} Jackknife estimates can be considered to eliminate the bootstrap effects. The jackknife variance estimator is defined as: V ^ j = n − 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( θ ^ ( − i ) − θ ¯ ) 2 {\displaystyle {\hat {V}}_{j}={\frac {n-1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}({\hat {\theta }}_{(-i)}-{\overline {\theta }})^{2}} In some classification problems, when random forest is used to fit models, jackknife estimated variance is defined as: V ^ j = n − 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( t ¯ ( − i ) ⋆ ( x ) − t ¯ ⋆ ( x ) ) 2 {\displaystyle {\hat {V}}_{j}={\frac {n-1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}({\overline {t}}_{(-i)}^{\star }(x)-{\overline {t}}^{\star }(x))^{2}} Here, t ⋆ {\displaystyle t^{\star }} denotes a decision tree after training, t ( − i ) ⋆ {\displaystyle t_{(-i)}^{\star }} denotes the result based on samples without i t h {\displaystyle ith} observation. == Examples == E-mail spam problem is a common classification problem, in this problem, 57 features are used to classify spam e-mail and non-spam e-mail. Applying IJ-U variance formula to evaluate the accuracy of models with m=15,19 and 57. The results shows in paper( Confidence Intervals for Random Forests: The jackknife and the Infinitesimal Jackknife ) that m = 57 random forest appears to be quite unstable, while predictions made by m=5 random forest appear to be quite stable, this results is corresponding to the evaluation made by error percentage, in which the accuracy of model with m=5 is high and m=57 is low. Here, accuracy is measured by error rate, which is defined as: E r r o r R a t e = 1 N ∑ i = 1 N ∑ j = 1 M y i j , {\displaystyle ErrorRate={\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\sum _{j=1}^{M}y_{ij},} Here N is also the number of samples, M is the number of classes, y i j {\displaystyle y_{ij}} is the indicator function which equals 1 when i t h {\displaystyle ith} observation is in class j, equals 0 when in other classes. No probability is considered here. There is another method which is similar to error rate to measure accuracy: l o g l o s s = 1 N ∑ i = 1 N ∑ j = 1 M y i j l o g ( p i j ) {\displaystyle logloss={\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\sum _{j=1}^{M}y_{ij}log(p_{ij})} Here N is the number of samples, M is the number of classes, y i j {\displaystyle y_{ij}} is the indicator function which equals 1 when i t h {\displaystyle ith} observation is in class j, equals 0 when in other classes. p i j {\displaystyle p_{ij}} is the predicted probability of i t h {\displaystyle ith} observation in class j {\displaystyle j} .This method is used in Kaggle These two methods are very similar. == Modification for bias == When using Monte Carlo MSEs for estimating V I J ∞ {\displaystyle V_{IJ}^{\infty }} and V J ∞ {\displaystyle V_{J}^{\infty }} , a problem about the Monte Carlo bias should be considered, especially when n is large, the bias is getting large: E [ V ^ I J B ] − V ^ I J ∞ ≈ n ∑ b = 1 B ( t b ⋆ − t ¯ ⋆ ) 2 B {\displaystyle E[{\hat {V}}_{IJ}^{B}]-{\hat {V}}_{IJ}^{\infty }\approx {\frac {n\sum _{b=1}^{B}(t_{b}^{\star }-{\bar {t}}^{\star })^{2}}{B}}} To eliminate this influence, bias-corrected modifications are suggested: V ^ I J − U B = V ^ I J B − n ∑ b = 1 B ( t b ⋆ − t ¯ ⋆ ) 2 B {\displaystyle {\hat {V}}_{IJ-U}^{B}={\hat {V}}_{IJ}^{B}-{\frac {n\sum _{b=1}^{B}(t_{b}^{\star }-{\bar {t}}^{\star })^{2}}{B}}} V ^ J − U B = V ^ J B − ( e − 1 ) n ∑ b = 1 B ( t b ⋆ − t ¯ ⋆ ) 2 B {\displaystyle {\hat {V}}_{J-U}^{B}={\hat {V}}_{J}^{B}-(e-1){\frac {n\sum _{b=1}^{B}(t_{b}^{\star }-{\bar {t}}^{\star })^{2}}{B}}}

Radial basis function

In mathematics a radial basis function (RBF) is a real-valued function φ {\textstyle \varphi } whose value depends only on the distance between the input and some fixed point, either the origin, so that φ ( x ) = φ ^ ( ‖ x ‖ ) {\textstyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )={\hat {\varphi }}(\left\|\mathbf {x} \right\|)} , or some other fixed point c {\textstyle \mathbf {c} } , called a center, so that φ ( x ) = φ ^ ( ‖ x − c ‖ ) {\textstyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )={\hat {\varphi }}(\left\|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} \right\|)} . Any function φ {\textstyle \varphi } that satisfies the property φ ( x ) = φ ^ ( ‖ x ‖ ) {\textstyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )={\hat {\varphi }}(\left\|\mathbf {x} \right\|)} is a radial function. The distance is usually Euclidean distance, although other metrics are sometimes used. They are often used as a collection { φ k } k {\displaystyle \{\varphi _{k}\}_{k}} which forms a basis for some function space of interest, hence the name. Sums of radial basis functions are typically used to approximate given functions. This approximation process can also be interpreted as a simple kind of neural network; this was the context in which they were originally applied to machine learning, in work by David Broomhead and David Lowe in 1988, which stemmed from Michael J. D. Powell's seminal research from 1977. RBFs are also used as a kernel in support vector classification. The technique has proven effective and flexible enough that radial basis functions are now applied in a variety of engineering applications. == Definition == A radial function is a function φ : [ 0 , ∞ ) → R {\textstyle \varphi :[0,\infty )\to \mathbb {R} } . When paired with a norm ‖ ⋅ ‖ : V → [ 0 , ∞ ) {\textstyle \|\cdot \|:V\to [0,\infty )} on a vector space, a function of the form φ c = φ ( ‖ x − c ‖ ) {\textstyle \varphi _{\mathbf {c} }=\varphi (\|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} \|)} is said to be a radial kernel centered at c ∈ V {\textstyle \mathbf {c} \in V} . A radial function and the associated radial kernels are said to be radial basis functions if, for any finite set of nodes { x k } k = 1 n ⊆ V {\displaystyle \{\mathbf {x} _{k}\}_{k=1}^{n}\subseteq V} , all of the following conditions are true: === Examples === Commonly used types of radial basis functions include (writing r = ‖ x − x i ‖ {\textstyle r=\left\|\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {x} _{i}\right\|} and using ε {\textstyle \varepsilon } to indicate a shape parameter that can be used to scale the input of the radial kernel): == Approximation == Radial basis functions are typically used to build up function approximations of the form where the approximating function y ( x ) {\textstyle y(\mathbf {x} )} is represented as a sum of N {\displaystyle N} radial basis functions, each associated with a different center x i {\textstyle \mathbf {x} _{i}} , and weighted by an appropriate coefficient w i . {\textstyle w_{i}.} The weights w i {\textstyle w_{i}} can be estimated using the matrix methods of linear least squares, because the approximating function is linear in the weights w i {\textstyle w_{i}} . Approximation schemes of this kind have been particularly used in time series prediction and control of nonlinear systems exhibiting sufficiently simple chaotic behaviour and 3D reconstruction in computer graphics (for example, hierarchical RBF and Pose Space Deformation). == RBF Network == The sum can also be interpreted as a rather simple single-layer type of artificial neural network called a radial basis function network, with the radial basis functions taking on the role of the activation functions of the network. It can be shown that any continuous function on a compact interval can in principle be interpolated with arbitrary accuracy by a sum of this form, if a sufficiently large number N {\textstyle N} of radial basis functions is used. The approximant y ( x ) {\textstyle y(\mathbf {x} )} is differentiable with respect to the weights w i {\textstyle w_{i}} . The weights could thus be learned using any of the standard iterative methods for neural networks. Using radial basis functions in this manner yields a reasonable interpolation approach provided that the fitting set has been chosen such that it covers the entire range systematically (equidistant data points are ideal). However, without a polynomial term that is orthogonal to the radial basis functions, estimates outside the fitting set tend to perform poorly. == RBFs for PDEs == Radial basis functions are used to approximate functions and so can be used to discretize and numerically solve Partial Differential Equations (PDEs). This was first done in 1990 by E. J. Kansa who developed the first RBF based numerical method. It is called the Kansa method and was used to solve the elliptic Poisson equation and the linear advection-diffusion equation. The function values at points x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } in the domain are approximated by the linear combination of RBFs: The derivatives are approximated as such: where N {\displaystyle N} are the number of points in the discretized domain, d {\displaystyle d} the dimension of the domain and λ {\displaystyle \lambda } the scalar coefficients that are unchanged by the differential operator. Different numerical methods based on Radial Basis Functions were developed thereafter. Some methods are the RBF-FD method, the RBF-QR method and the RBF-PUM method.

Margin-infused relaxed algorithm

Margin-infused relaxed algorithm (MIRA) is a machine learning and online algorithm for multiclass classification problems. It is designed to learn a set of parameters (vector or matrix) by processing all the given training examples one-by-one and updating the parameters according to each training example, so that the current training example is classified correctly with a margin against incorrect classifications at least as large as their loss. The change of the parameters is kept as small as possible. A two-class version called binary MIRA simplifies the algorithm by not requiring the solution of a quadratic programming problem (see below). When used in a one-vs-all configuration, binary MIRA can be extended to a multiclass learner that approximates full MIRA, but may be faster to train. The flow of the algorithm looks as follows: The update step is then formalized as a quadratic programming problem: Find m i n ‖ w ( i + 1 ) − w ( i ) ‖ {\displaystyle min\|w^{(i+1)}-w^{(i)}\|} , so that s c o r e ( x t , y t ) − s c o r e ( x t , y ′ ) ≥ L ( y t , y ′ ) ∀ y ′ {\displaystyle score(x_{t},y_{t})-score(x_{t},y')\geq L(y_{t},y')\ \forall y'} , i.e. the score of the current correct training y {\displaystyle y} must be greater than the score of any other possible y ′ {\displaystyle y'} by at least the loss (number of errors) of that y ′ {\displaystyle y'} in comparison to y {\displaystyle y} .

Agent Ruby

Agent Ruby (1998–2002) by Lynn Hershman Leeson is an interactive, multiuser work using artificial intelligence. == Description == On Agent Ruby's website, "Agent Ruby's Edream Portal," a female face moves her eyes and lips. Ruby, named from Hershman Leeson's own film, Teknolust, answers questions and often responds that she needs a better algorithm to answer questions not within her database. The work, created with AI, explores relationships between real and virtual worlds. Hershman Leeson had created an earlier version of Ruby, CyberRoberta, which was a custom-made doll with webcam eyes that interacted with the internet. The work in a gallery provides a screen and a sign inviting gallery-goers to "Chat with Ruby." == Artificial intelligence == In 2015 when Agent Ruby was exhibited at the gallery Modern Art Oxford, a review in Aesthetica Magazine described it as an artificial intelligence agent. A review in New Scientist noted that "Ruby is a fast learner, but perhaps not a natural conversationalist." A 2024 list of "25 Essential AI Artworks" published by ARTnews wrote that while "Agent Ruby's capabilities seem limited by today's standards," it was extensive for its day. == Publications and exhibitions == Agent Ruby was commissioned and displayed at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, Modern Art Oxford, and the ZKM Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe, Germany. The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA) presented Lynn Hershman Leeson: The Agent Ruby Files, March 30 through June 2, 2013 which presented the project server's archive of user conversations over the 12 years of exhibitions.

Linear discriminant analysis

Linear discriminant analysis (LDA), normal discriminant analysis (NDA), canonical variates analysis (CVA), or discriminant function analysis is a generalization of Fisher's linear discriminant, a method used in statistics and other fields, to find a linear combination of features that characterizes or separates two or more classes of objects or events. The resulting combination may be used as a linear classifier, or, more commonly, for dimensionality reduction before later classification. LDA is closely related to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression analysis, which also attempt to express one dependent variable as a linear combination of other features or measurements. However, ANOVA uses categorical independent variables and a continuous dependent variable, whereas discriminant analysis has continuous independent variables and a categorical dependent variable (i.e. the class label). Logistic regression and probit regression are more similar to LDA than ANOVA is, as they also explain a categorical variable by the values of continuous independent variables. These other methods are preferable in applications where it is not reasonable to assume that the independent variables have a normal distribution, which is a fundamental assumption of the LDA method. LDA is also closely related to principal component analysis (PCA) and factor analysis in that they both look for linear combinations of variables which best explain the data. LDA explicitly attempts to model the difference between the classes of data. PCA, in contrast, does not take into account any difference in class, and factor analysis builds the feature combinations based on similarities rather than differences. Discriminant analysis is also different from factor analysis in that it is not an interdependence technique: a distinction between independent variables and dependent variables (also called criterion variables) must be made. LDA works when the measurements made on independent variables for each observation are continuous quantities. When dealing with categorical independent variables, the equivalent technique is discriminant correspondence analysis. Discriminant analysis is used when groups are known a priori (unlike in cluster analysis). Each case must have a score on one or more quantitative predictor measures, and a score on a group measure. In simple terms, discriminant function analysis is classification - the act of distributing things into groups, classes or categories of the same type. == History == The original dichotomous discriminant analysis was developed by Sir Ronald Fisher in 1936. It is different from an ANOVA or MANOVA, which is used to predict one (ANOVA) or multiple (MANOVA) continuous dependent variables by one or more independent categorical variables. Discriminant function analysis is useful in determining whether a set of variables is effective in predicting category membership. == LDA for two classes == Consider a set of observations x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} (also called features, attributes, variables or measurements) for each sample of an object or event with known class y {\displaystyle y} . This set of samples is called the training set in a supervised learning context. The classification problem is then to find a good predictor for the class y {\displaystyle y} of any sample of the same distribution (not necessarily from the training set) given only an observation x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} . LDA approaches the problem by assuming that the conditional probability density functions p ( x → | y = 0 ) {\displaystyle p({\vec {x}}|y=0)} and p ( x → | y = 1 ) {\displaystyle p({\vec {x}}|y=1)} are both the normal distribution with mean and covariance parameters ( μ → 0 , Σ 0 ) {\displaystyle \left({\vec {\mu }}_{0},\Sigma _{0}\right)} and ( μ → 1 , Σ 1 ) {\displaystyle \left({\vec {\mu }}_{1},\Sigma _{1}\right)} , respectively. Under this assumption, the Bayes-optimal solution is to predict points as being from the second class if the log of the likelihood ratios is bigger than some threshold T, so that: 1 2 ( x → − μ → 0 ) T Σ 0 − 1 ( x → − μ → 0 ) + 1 2 ln ⁡ | Σ 0 | − 1 2 ( x → − μ → 1 ) T Σ 1 − 1 ( x → − μ → 1 ) − 1 2 ln ⁡ | Σ 1 | > T {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{0})^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{0}^{-1}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{0})+{\frac {1}{2}}\ln |\Sigma _{0}|-{\frac {1}{2}}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{1})^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{1}^{-1}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{1})-{\frac {1}{2}}\ln |\Sigma _{1}|\ >\ T} Without any further assumptions, the resulting classifier is referred to as quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA). LDA instead makes the additional simplifying homoscedasticity assumption (i.e. that the class covariances are identical, so Σ 0 = Σ 1 = Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma _{0}=\Sigma _{1}=\Sigma } ) and that the covariances have full rank. In this case, several terms cancel: x → T Σ 0 − 1 x → = x → T Σ 1 − 1 x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{0}^{-1}{\vec {x}}={\vec {x}}^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{1}^{-1}{\vec {x}}} x → T Σ i − 1 μ → i = μ → i T Σ i − 1 x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}^{\mathrm {T} }{\Sigma _{i}}^{-1}{\vec {\mu }}_{i}={{\vec {\mu }}_{i}}^{\mathrm {T} }{\Sigma _{i}}^{-1}{\vec {x}}} because both sides are scalar and transpose to each other ( Σ i {\displaystyle \Sigma _{i}} is Hermitian) and the above decision criterion becomes a threshold on the dot product w → T x → > c {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}^{\mathrm {T} }{\vec {x}}>c} for some threshold constant c, where w → = Σ − 1 ( μ → 1 − μ → 0 ) {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}=\Sigma ^{-1}({\vec {\mu }}_{1}-{\vec {\mu }}_{0})} c = 1 2 w → T ( μ → 1 + μ → 0 ) {\displaystyle c={\frac {1}{2}}\,{\vec {w}}^{\mathrm {T} }({\vec {\mu }}_{1}+{\vec {\mu }}_{0})} This means that the criterion of an input x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} being in a class y {\displaystyle y} is purely a function of this linear combination of the known observations. It is often useful to see this conclusion in geometrical terms: the criterion of an input x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} being in a class y {\displaystyle y} is purely a function of projection of multidimensional-space point x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} onto vector w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} (thus, we only consider its direction). In other words, the observation belongs to y {\displaystyle y} if corresponding x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} is located on a certain side of a hyperplane perpendicular to w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} . The location of the plane is defined by the threshold c {\displaystyle c} . == Assumptions == The assumptions of discriminant analysis are the same as those for MANOVA. The analysis is quite sensitive to outliers and the size of the smallest group must be larger than the number of predictor variables. Multivariate normality: Independent variables are normal for each level of the grouping variable. Homogeneity of variance/covariance (homoscedasticity): Variances among group variables are the same across levels of predictors. Can be tested with Box's M statistic. It has been suggested, however, that linear discriminant analysis be used when covariances are equal, and that quadratic discriminant analysis may be used when covariances are not equal. Independence: Participants are assumed to be randomly sampled, and a participant's score on one variable is assumed to be independent of scores on that variable for all other participants. It has been suggested that discriminant analysis is relatively robust to slight violations of these assumptions, and it has also been shown that discriminant analysis may still be reliable when using dichotomous variables (where multivariate normality is often violated). == Discriminant functions == Discriminant analysis works by creating one or more linear combinations of predictors, creating a new latent variable for each function. These functions are called discriminant functions. The number of functions possible is either N g − 1 {\displaystyle N_{g}-1} where N g {\displaystyle N_{g}} = number of groups, or p {\displaystyle p} (the number of predictors), whichever is smaller. The first function created maximizes the differences between groups on that function. The second function maximizes differences on that function, but also must not be correlated with the previous function. This continues with subsequent functions with the requirement that the new function not be correlated with any of the previous functions. Given group j {\displaystyle j} , with R j {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} _{j}} sets of sample space, there is a discriminant rule such that if x ∈ R j {\displaystyle x\in \mathbb {R} _{j}} , then x ∈ j {\displaystyle x\in j} . Discriminant analysis then, finds “good” regions of R j {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} _{j}} to minimize classification error, therefore leading to a high percent correct classified in the classification table. Each function is given a discriminant score to determine how well it predicts group placement. Structure Corr