Comparative Experiments on Disambiguating Word Senses: An Illustration of the Role of Bias in Machine Learning

This paper describes an experimental comparison of seven different learning algorithms on the problem of learning to disambiguate the meaning of a word from context. The algorithms tested include statistical, neural-network, decision-tree, rule-based, and case-based classification techniques. The specific problem tested involves disambiguating six senses of the word ``line'' using the words in the current and proceeding sentence as context. The statistical and neural-network methods perform the best on this particular problem and we discuss a potential reason for this observed difference. We also discuss the role of bias in machine learning and its importance in explaining performance differences observed on specific problems.Comment: 10 page

A Statistical Perspective on Randomized Sketching for Ordinary Least-Squares

We consider statistical as well as algorithmic aspects of solving large-scale least-squares (LS) problems using randomized sketching algorithms. For a LS problem with input data $(X, Y) \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times p} \times \mathbb{R}^n$, sketching algorithms use a sketching matrix, $S\in\mathbb{R}^{r \times n}$ with $r \ll n$. Then, rather than solving the LS problem using the full data $(X,Y)$, sketching algorithms solve the LS problem using only the sketched data $(SX, SY)$. Prior work has typically adopted an algorithmic perspective, in that it has made no statistical assumptions on the input $X$ and $Y$, and instead it has been assumed that the data $(X,Y)$ are fixed and worst-case (WC). Prior results show that, when using sketching matrices such as random projections and leverage-score sampling algorithms, with $p < r \ll n$, the WC error is the same as solving the original problem, up to a small constant. From a statistical perspective, we typically consider the mean-squared error performance of randomized sketching algorithms, when data $(X, Y)$ are generated according to a statistical model $Y = X \beta + \epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is a noise process. We provide a rigorous comparison of both perspectives leading to insights on how they differ. To do this, we first develop a framework for assessing algorithmic and statistical aspects of randomized sketching methods. We then consider the statistical prediction efficiency (PE) and the statistical residual efficiency (RE) of the sketched LS estimator; and we use our framework to provide upper bounds for several types of random projection and random sampling sketching algorithms. Among other results, we show that the RE can be upper bounded when $p < r \ll n$ while the PE typically requires the sample size $r$ to be substantially larger. Lower bounds developed in subsequent results show that our upper bounds on PE can not be improved.Comment: 27 pages, 5 figure

Statistical Comparison among Brain Networks with Popular Network Measurement Algorithms

In this research, a number of popular network measurement algorithms have been applied to several brain networks (based on applicability of algorithms) for finding out statistical correlation among these popular network measurements which will help scientists to understand these popular network measurement algorithms and their applicability to brain networks. By analysing the results of correlations among these network measurement algorithms, statistical comparison among selected brain networks has also been summarized. Besides that, to understand each brain network, the visualization of each brain network and each brain network degree distribution histogram have been extrapolated. Six network measurement algorithms have been chosen to apply time to time on sixteen brain networks based on applicability of these network measurement algorithms and the results of these network measurements are put into a correlation method to show the relationship among these six network measurement algorithms for each brain network. At the end, the results of the correlations have been summarized to show the statistical comparison among these sixteen brain networks.Comment: 22 pages, 38 figures, 19 table