1,169 research outputs found
A Survey on Intelligent Iterative Methods for Solving Sparse Linear Algebraic Equations
Efficiently solving sparse linear algebraic equations is an important
research topic of numerical simulation. Commonly used approaches include direct
methods and iterative methods. Compared with the direct methods, the iterative
methods have lower computational complexity and memory consumption, and are
thus often used to solve large-scale sparse linear equations. However, there
are numerous iterative methods, parameters and components needed to be
carefully chosen, and an inappropriate combination may eventually lead to an
inefficient solution process in practice. With the development of deep
learning, intelligent iterative methods become popular in these years, which
can intelligently make a sufficiently good combination, optimize the parameters
and components in accordance with the properties of the input matrix. This
survey then reviews these intelligent iterative methods. To be clearer, we
shall divide our discussion into three aspects: a method aspect, a component
aspect and a parameter aspect. Moreover, we summarize the existing work and
propose potential research directions that may deserve a deep investigation
Learning Binary Decision Trees by Argmin Differentiation
We address the problem of learning binary decision trees that partition data
for some downstream task. We propose to learn discrete parameters (i.e., for
tree traversals and node pruning) and continuous parameters (i.e., for tree
split functions and prediction functions) simultaneously using argmin
differentiation. We do so by sparsely relaxing a mixed-integer program for the
discrete parameters, to allow gradients to pass through the program to
continuous parameters. We derive customized algorithms to efficiently compute
the forward and backward passes. This means that our tree learning procedure
can be used as an (implicit) layer in arbitrary deep networks, and can be
optimized with arbitrary loss functions. We demonstrate that our approach
produces binary trees that are competitive with existing single tree and
ensemble approaches, in both supervised and unsupervised settings. Further,
apart from greedy approaches (which do not have competitive accuracies), our
method is faster to train than all other tree-learning baselines we compare
with. The code for reproducing the results is available at
https://github.com/vzantedeschi/LatentTrees
An Atypical Survey of Typical-Case Heuristic Algorithms
Heuristic approaches often do so well that they seem to pretty much always
give the right answer. How close can heuristic algorithms get to always giving
the right answer, without inducing seismic complexity-theoretic consequences?
This article first discusses how a series of results by Berman, Buhrman,
Hartmanis, Homer, Longpr\'{e}, Ogiwara, Sch\"{o}ening, and Watanabe, from the
early 1970s through the early 1990s, explicitly or implicitly limited how well
heuristic algorithms can do on NP-hard problems. In particular, many desirable
levels of heuristic success cannot be obtained unless severe, highly unlikely
complexity class collapses occur. Second, we survey work initiated by Goldreich
and Wigderson, who showed how under plausible assumptions deterministic
heuristics for randomized computation can achieve a very high frequency of
correctness. Finally, we consider formal ways in which theory can help explain
the effectiveness of heuristics that solve NP-hard problems in practice.Comment: This article is currently scheduled to appear in the December 2012
issue of SIGACT New
Proceedings of the second "international Traveling Workshop on Interactions between Sparse models and Technology" (iTWIST'14)
The implicit objective of the biennial "international - Traveling Workshop on
Interactions between Sparse models and Technology" (iTWIST) is to foster
collaboration between international scientific teams by disseminating ideas
through both specific oral/poster presentations and free discussions. For its
second edition, the iTWIST workshop took place in the medieval and picturesque
town of Namur in Belgium, from Wednesday August 27th till Friday August 29th,
2014. The workshop was conveniently located in "The Arsenal" building within
walking distance of both hotels and town center. iTWIST'14 has gathered about
70 international participants and has featured 9 invited talks, 10 oral
presentations, and 14 posters on the following themes, all related to the
theory, application and generalization of the "sparsity paradigm":
Sparsity-driven data sensing and processing; Union of low dimensional
subspaces; Beyond linear and convex inverse problem; Matrix/manifold/graph
sensing/processing; Blind inverse problems and dictionary learning; Sparsity
and computational neuroscience; Information theory, geometry and randomness;
Complexity/accuracy tradeoffs in numerical methods; Sparsity? What's next?;
Sparse machine learning and inference.Comment: 69 pages, 24 extended abstracts, iTWIST'14 website:
http://sites.google.com/site/itwist1
Past, Present, and Future of Simultaneous Localization And Mapping: Towards the Robust-Perception Age
Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM)consists in the concurrent
construction of a model of the environment (the map), and the estimation of the
state of the robot moving within it. The SLAM community has made astonishing
progress over the last 30 years, enabling large-scale real-world applications,
and witnessing a steady transition of this technology to industry. We survey
the current state of SLAM. We start by presenting what is now the de-facto
standard formulation for SLAM. We then review related work, covering a broad
set of topics including robustness and scalability in long-term mapping, metric
and semantic representations for mapping, theoretical performance guarantees,
active SLAM and exploration, and other new frontiers. This paper simultaneously
serves as a position paper and tutorial to those who are users of SLAM. By
looking at the published research with a critical eye, we delineate open
challenges and new research issues, that still deserve careful scientific
investigation. The paper also contains the authors' take on two questions that
often animate discussions during robotics conferences: Do robots need SLAM? and
Is SLAM solved
- âŠ