261 research outputs found

    Learning First-Order Definitions of Functions

    Full text link
    First-order learning involves finding a clause-form definition of a relation from examples of the relation and relevant background information. In this paper, a particular first-order learning system is modified to customize it for finding definitions of functional relations. This restriction leads to faster learning times and, in some cases, to definitions that have higher predictive accuracy. Other first-order learning systems might benefit from similar specialization.Comment: See http://www.jair.org/ for any accompanying file

    Fast and Powerful Hashing using Tabulation

    Get PDF
    Randomized algorithms are often enjoyed for their simplicity, but the hash functions employed to yield the desired probabilistic guarantees are often too complicated to be practical. Here we survey recent results on how simple hashing schemes based on tabulation provide unexpectedly strong guarantees. Simple tabulation hashing dates back to Zobrist [1970]. Keys are viewed as consisting of cc characters and we have precomputed character tables h1,...,hch_1,...,h_c mapping characters to random hash values. A key x=(x1,...,xc)x=(x_1,...,x_c) is hashed to h1[x1]⊕h2[x2].....⊕hc[xc]h_1[x_1] \oplus h_2[x_2].....\oplus h_c[x_c]. This schemes is very fast with character tables in cache. While simple tabulation is not even 4-independent, it does provide many of the guarantees that are normally obtained via higher independence, e.g., linear probing and Cuckoo hashing. Next we consider twisted tabulation where one input character is "twisted" in a simple way. The resulting hash function has powerful distributional properties: Chernoff-Hoeffding type tail bounds and a very small bias for min-wise hashing. This also yields an extremely fast pseudo-random number generator that is provably good for many classic randomized algorithms and data-structures. Finally, we consider double tabulation where we compose two simple tabulation functions, applying one to the output of the other, and show that this yields very high independence in the classic framework of Carter and Wegman [1977]. In fact, w.h.p., for a given set of size proportional to that of the space consumed, double tabulation gives fully-random hashing. We also mention some more elaborate tabulation schemes getting near-optimal independence for given time and space. While these tabulation schemes are all easy to implement and use, their analysis is not

    On weighted depths in random binary search trees

    Get PDF
    Following the model introduced by Aguech, Lasmar and Mahmoud [Probab. Engrg. Inform. Sci. 21 (2007) 133-141], the weighted depth of a node in a labelled rooted tree is the sum of all labels on the path connecting the node to the root. We analyze weighted depths of nodes with given labels, the last inserted node, nodes ordered as visited by the depth first search process, the weighted path length and the weighted Wiener index in a random binary search tree. We establish three regimes of nodes depending on whether the second order behaviour of their weighted depths follows from fluctuations of the keys on the path, the depth of the nodes, or both. Finally, we investigate a random distribution function on the unit interval arising as scaling limit for weighted depths of nodes with at most one child

    An Active Learning Algorithm for Ranking from Pairwise Preferences with an Almost Optimal Query Complexity

    Full text link
    We study the problem of learning to rank from pairwise preferences, and solve a long-standing open problem that has led to development of many heuristics but no provable results for our particular problem. Given a set VV of nn elements, we wish to linearly order them given pairwise preference labels. A pairwise preference label is obtained as a response, typically from a human, to the question "which if preferred, u or v?fortwoelements for two elements u,v\in V.Weassumepossiblenon−transitivityparadoxeswhichmayarisenaturallyduetohumanmistakesorirrationality.Thegoalistolinearlyordertheelementsfromthemostpreferredtotheleastpreferred,whiledisagreeingwithasfewpairwisepreferencelabelsaspossible.Ourperformanceismeasuredbytwoparameters:Thelossandthequerycomplexity(numberofpairwisepreferencelabelsweobtain).Thisisatypicallearningproblem,withtheexceptionthatthespacefromwhichthepairwisepreferencesisdrawnisfinite,consistingof. We assume possible non-transitivity paradoxes which may arise naturally due to human mistakes or irrationality. The goal is to linearly order the elements from the most preferred to the least preferred, while disagreeing with as few pairwise preference labels as possible. Our performance is measured by two parameters: The loss and the query complexity (number of pairwise preference labels we obtain). This is a typical learning problem, with the exception that the space from which the pairwise preferences is drawn is finite, consisting of {n\choose 2}$ possibilities only. We present an active learning algorithm for this problem, with query bounds significantly beating general (non active) bounds for the same error guarantee, while almost achieving the information theoretical lower bound. Our main construct is a decomposition of the input s.t. (i) each block incurs high loss at optimum, and (ii) the optimal solution respecting the decomposition is not much worse than the true opt. The decomposition is done by adapting a recent result by Kenyon and Schudy for a related combinatorial optimization problem to the query efficient setting. We thus settle an open problem posed by learning-to-rank theoreticians and practitioners: What is a provably correct way to sample preference labels? To further show the power and practicality of our solution, we show how to use it in concert with an SVM relaxation.Comment: Fixed a tiny error in theorem 3.1 statemen

    How Good Is Multi-Pivot Quicksort?

    Get PDF
    Multi-Pivot Quicksort refers to variants of classical quicksort where in the partitioning step kk pivots are used to split the input into k+1k + 1 segments. For many years, multi-pivot quicksort was regarded as impractical, but in 2009 a 2-pivot approach by Yaroslavskiy, Bentley, and Bloch was chosen as the standard sorting algorithm in Sun's Java 7. In 2014 at ALENEX, Kushagra et al. introduced an even faster algorithm that uses three pivots. This paper studies what possible advantages multi-pivot quicksort might offer in general. The contributions are as follows: Natural comparison-optimal algorithms for multi-pivot quicksort are devised and analyzed. The analysis shows that the benefits of using multiple pivots with respect to the average comparison count are marginal and these strategies are inferior to simpler strategies such as the well known median-of-kk approach. A substantial part of the partitioning cost is caused by rearranging elements. A rigorous analysis of an algorithm for rearranging elements in the partitioning step is carried out, observing mainly how often array cells are accessed during partitioning. The algorithm behaves best if 3 to 5 pivots are used. Experiments show that this translates into good cache behavior and is closest to predicting observed running times of multi-pivot quicksort algorithms. Finally, it is studied how choosing pivots from a sample affects sorting cost. The study is theoretical in the sense that although the findings motivate design recommendations for multipivot quicksort algorithms that lead to running time improvements over known algorithms in an experimental setting, these improvements are small.Comment: Submitted to a journal, v2: Fixed statement of Gibb's inequality, v3: Revised version, especially improving on the experiments in Section
    • …
    corecore