A foundation for machine learning in design

This paper presents a formalism for considering the issues of learning in design. A foundation for machine learning in design (MLinD) is defined so as to provide answers to basic questions on learning in design, such as, "What types of knowledge can be learnt?", "How does learning occur?", and "When does learning occur?". Five main elements of MLinD are presented as the input knowledge, knowledge transformers, output knowledge, goals/reasons for learning, and learning triggers. Using this foundation, published systems in MLinD were reviewed. The systematic review presents a basis for validating the presented foundation. The paper concludes that there is considerable work to be carried out in order to fully formalize the foundation of MLinD

On the functional origins of essentialism

This essay examines the proposal that psychological essentialism results from a history of natural selection acting on human representation and inference systems. It has been argued that the features that distinguish essentialist representational systems are especially well suited for representing natural kinds. If the evolved function of essentialism is to exploit the rich inductive potential of such kinds, then it must be subserved by cognitive mechanisms that carry out at least three distinct functions: identifying these kinds in the environment, constructing essentialized representations of them, and constraining inductive inferences about kinds. Moreover, there are different kinds of kinds, ranging from nonliving substances to biological taxa to within-species kinds such as sex, and the causal processes that render these categories coherent for the purposes of inductive generalization vary. If the evolved function of essentialism is to support inductive generalization under ignorance of true causes, and if kinds of kinds vary in the implicit assumptions that support valid inductive inferences about them, then we expect different, functionally incompatible modes of essentialist thinking for different kinds. In particular, there should be differences in how biological and nonbiological substances, biological taxa, and biological and social role kinds are essentialized. The functional differences between these kinds of essentialism are discussed

Ontology-Based Quality Evaluation of Value Generalization Hierarchies for Data Anonymization

In privacy-preserving data publishing, approaches using Value Generalization Hierarchies (VGHs) form an important class of anonymization algorithms. VGHs play a key role in the utility of published datasets as they dictate how the anonymization of the data occurs. For categorical attributes, it is imperative to preserve the semantics of the original data in order to achieve a higher utility. Despite this, semantics have not being formally considered in the specification of VGHs. Moreover, there are no methods that allow the users to assess the quality of their VGH. In this paper, we propose a measurement scheme, based on ontologies, to quantitatively evaluate the quality of VGHs, in terms of semantic consistency and taxonomic organization, with the aim of producing higher-quality anonymizations. We demonstrate, through a case study, how our evaluation scheme can be used to compare the quality of multiple VGHs and can help to identify faulty VGHs.Comment: 18 pages, 7 figures, presented in the Privacy in Statistical Databases Conference 2014 (Ibiza, Spain

280 Birds with One Stone: Inducing Multilingual Taxonomies from Wikipedia using Character-level Classification

We propose a simple, yet effective, approach towards inducing multilingual taxonomies from Wikipedia. Given an English taxonomy, our approach leverages the interlanguage links of Wikipedia followed by character-level classifiers to induce high-precision, high-coverage taxonomies in other languages. Through experiments, we demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art, heuristics-heavy approaches for six languages. As a consequence of our work, we release presumably the largest and the most accurate multilingual taxonomic resource spanning over 280 languages

The optimality of attaching unlinked labels to unlinked meanings

Vocabulary learning by children can be characterized by many biases. When encountering a new word, children as well as adults, are biased towards assuming that it means something totally different from the words that they already know. To the best of our knowledge, the 1st mathematical proof of the optimality of this bias is presented here. First, it is shown that this bias is a particular case of the maximization of mutual information between words and meanings. Second, the optimality is proven within a more general information theoretic framework where mutual information maximization competes with other information theoretic principles. The bias is a prediction from modern information theory. The relationship between information theoretic principles and the principles of contrast and mutual exclusivity is also shown.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version