Interpretable Categorization of Heterogeneous Time Series Data

Understanding heterogeneous multivariate time series data is important in many applications ranging from smart homes to aviation. Learning models of heterogeneous multivariate time series that are also human-interpretable is challenging and not adequately addressed by the existing literature. We propose grammar-based decision trees (GBDTs) and an algorithm for learning them. GBDTs extend decision trees with a grammar framework. Logical expressions derived from a context-free grammar are used for branching in place of simple thresholds on attributes. The added expressivity enables support for a wide range of data types while retaining the interpretability of decision trees. In particular, when a grammar based on temporal logic is used, we show that GBDTs can be used for the interpretable classi cation of high-dimensional and heterogeneous time series data. Furthermore, we show how GBDTs can also be used for categorization, which is a combination of clustering and generating interpretable explanations for each cluster. We apply GBDTs to analyze the classic Australian Sign Language dataset as well as data on near mid-air collisions (NMACs). The NMAC data comes from aircraft simulations used in the development of the next-generation Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS X).Comment: 9 pages, 5 figures, 2 tables, SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM) 201

Directional adposition use in English, Swedish and Finnish

Directional adpositions such as to the left of describe where a Figure is in relation to a Ground. English and Swedish directional adpositions refer to the location of a Figure in relation to a Ground, whether both are static or in motion. In contrast, the Finnish directional adpositions edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) solely describe the location of a moving Figure in relation to a moving Ground (Nikanne, 2003). When using directional adpositions, a frame of reference must be assumed for interpreting the meaning of directional adpositions. For example, the meaning of to the left of in English can be based on a relative (speaker or listener based) reference frame or an intrinsic (object based) reference frame (Levinson, 1996). When a Figure and a Ground are both in motion, it is possible for a Figure to be described as being behind or in front of the Ground, even if neither have intrinsic features. As shown by Walker (in preparation), there are good reasons to assume that in the latter case a motion based reference frame is involved. This means that if Finnish speakers would use edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) more frequently in situations where both the Figure and Ground are in motion, a difference in reference frame use between Finnish on one hand and English and Swedish on the other could be expected. We asked native English, Swedish and Finnish speakers’ to select adpositions from a language specific list to describe the location of a Figure relative to a Ground when both were shown to be moving on a computer screen. We were interested in any differences between Finnish, English and Swedish speakers. All languages showed a predominant use of directional spatial adpositions referring to the lexical concepts TO THE LEFT OF, TO THE RIGHT OF, ABOVE and BELOW. There were no differences between the languages in directional adpositions use or reference frame use, including reference frame use based on motion. We conclude that despite differences in the grammars of the languages involved, and potential differences in reference frame system use, the three languages investigated encode Figure location in relation to Ground location in a similar way when both are in motion. Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslingiuistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel & M.F. Garrett (Eds.) Language and Space (pp.109-170). Massachusetts: MIT Press. Nikanne, U. (2003). How Finnish postpositions see the axis system. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing direction in language and space. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Walker, C. (in preparation). Motion encoding in language, the use of spatial locatives in a motion context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lincoln, Lincoln. United Kingdo

One-Shot Learning of Ensembles of Temporal Logic Formulas for Anomaly Detection in Cyber-Physical Systems

Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) are prevalent in critical infrastructures and a prime target for cyber-attacks. Multivariate time series data generated by sensors and actuators of a CPS can be monitored for detecting cyber-attacks that introduce anomalies in those data. We use Signal Temporal Logic (STL) formulas to tightly describe the normal behavior of a CPS, identifying data instances that do not satisfy the formulas as anomalies. We learn an ensemble of STL formulas based on observed data, without any specific knowledge of the CPS being monitored. We propose an algorithm based on Grammar-Guided Genetic Programming (G3P) that learns the ensemble automatically in a single evolutionary run. We test the effectiveness of our data-driven proposal on two real-world datasets, finding that the proposed one-shot algorithm provides good detection performance

Puheen ja tekstin välisen tilastollisen assosiaation itseohjautuva oppiminen

One of the key challenges in artificial cognitive systems is to develop effective algorithms that learn without human supervision to understand qualitatively different realisations of the same abstraction and therefore also acquire an ability to transcribe a sensory data stream to completely different modality. This is also true in the so-called Big Data problem. Through learning of associations between multiple types of data of the same phenomenon, it is possible to capture hidden dynamics that govern processes that yielded the measured data. In this thesis, a methodological framework for automatic discovery of statistical associations between two qualitatively different data streams is proposed. The simulations are run on a noisy, high bit-rate, sensory signal (speech) and temporally discrete categorical data (text). In order to distinguish the approach from traditional automatic speech recognition systems, it does not utilize any phonetic or linguistic knowledge in the recognition. It merely learns statistically sound units of speech and text and their mutual mappings in an unsupervised manner. The experiments on child directed speech with limited vocabulary show that, after a period of learning, the method acquires a promising ability to transcribe continuous speech to its textual representation.Keinoälyn toteuttamisessa vaikeimpia haasteita on kehittää ohjaamattomia oppimismenetelmiä, jotka oppivat yhdistämään saman abstraktin käsitteen toteutuksen useassa eri modaaliteeteissa ja vieläpä kuvailemaan aistihavainnon jossain toisessa modaaliteetissa, missä havainto tapahtuu. Vastaava pätee myös niin kutsutun Big Data ongelman yhteydessä. Samasta ilmiöstä voi usein saada monimuotoista mittaustuloksia. Selvittämällä näiden tietovirtojen keskinäiset yhteydet voidaan mahdollisesti oppia ymmärtämään ilmiön taustalla olevia prosesseja ja piilevää dynamiikkaa. Tässä diplomityössä esitellään menetelmällinen tapa löytää automaattisesti tilastolliset yhteydet kahden ominaisuuksiltaan erilaisen tietovirran välille. Menetelmää simuloidaan kohinaisella sekä korkea bittinopeuksisella aistihavaintosignaalilla (puheella) ja ajallisesti diskreetillä kategorisella datalla (tekstillä). Erotuksena perinteisiin automaattisiin puheentunnistusmenetelmiin esitetty menetelmä ei hyödynnä tunnistuksessa lainkaan foneettista tai kielitieteellistä tietämystä. Menetelmä ainoastaan oppii ohjaamattomasti tilastollisesti vahvat osaset puheesta ja tekstistä sekä niiden väliset yhteydet. Kokeet pikkulapselle suunnatulla, sanastollisesti rajoitetulla puheella osoitti, että oppimisjakson jälkeen menetelmällä saavutetaan lupaava kyky muuntaa puhetta tekstiks

A Field Guide to Genetic Programming

xiv, 233 p. : il. ; 23 cm.Libro ElectrónicoA Field Guide to Genetic Programming (ISBN 978-1-4092-0073-4) is an introduction to genetic programming (GP). GP is a systematic, domain-independent method for getting computers to solve problems automatically starting from a high-level statement of what needs to be done. Using ideas from natural evolution, GP starts from an ooze of random computer programs, and progressively refines them through processes of mutation and sexual recombination, until solutions emerge. All this without the user having to know or specify the form or structure of solutions in advance. GP has generated a plethora of human-competitive results and applications, including novel scientific discoveries and patentable inventions. The authorsIntroduction -- Representation, initialisation and operators in Tree-based GP -- Getting ready to run genetic programming -- Example genetic programming run -- Alternative initialisations and operators in Tree-based GP -- Modular, grammatical and developmental Tree-based GP -- Linear and graph genetic programming -- Probalistic genetic programming -- Multi-objective genetic programming -- Fast and distributed genetic programming -- GP theory and its applications -- Applications -- Troubleshooting GP -- Conclusions.Contents xi 1 Introduction 1.1 Genetic Programming in a Nutshell 1.2 Getting Started 1.3 Prerequisites 1.4 Overview of this Field Guide I Basics 2 Representation, Initialisation and GP 2.1 Representation 2.2 Initialising the Population 2.3 Selection 2.4 Recombination and Mutation Operators in Tree-based 3 Getting Ready to Run Genetic Programming 19 3.1 Step 1: Terminal Set 19 3.2 Step 2: Function Set 20 3.2.1 Closure 21 3.2.2 Sufficiency 23 3.2.3 Evolving Structures other than Programs 23 3.3 Step 3: Fitness Function 24 3.4 Step 4: GP Parameters 26 3.5 Step 5: Termination and solution designation 27 4 Example Genetic Programming Run 4.1 Preparatory Steps 29 4.2 Step-by-Step Sample Run 31 4.2.1 Initialisation 31 4.2.2 Fitness Evaluation Selection, Crossover and Mutation Termination and Solution Designation Advanced Genetic Programming 5 Alternative Initialisations and Operators in 5.1 Constructing the Initial Population 5.1.1 Uniform Initialisation 5.1.2 Initialisation may Affect Bloat 5.1.3 Seeding 5.2 GP Mutation 5.2.1 Is Mutation Necessary? 5.2.2 Mutation Cookbook 5.3 GP Crossover 5.4 Other Techniques 32 5.5 Tree-based GP 39 6 Modular, Grammatical and Developmental Tree-based GP 47 6.1 Evolving Modular and Hierarchical Structures 47 6.1.1 Automatically Defined Functions 48 6.1.2 Program Architecture and Architecture-Altering 50 6.2 Constraining Structures 51 6.2.1 Enforcing Particular Structures 52 6.2.2 Strongly Typed GP 52 6.2.3 Grammar-based Constraints 53 6.2.4 Constraints and Bias 55 6.3 Developmental Genetic Programming 57 6.4 Strongly Typed Autoconstructive GP with PushGP 59 7 Linear and Graph Genetic Programming 61 7.1 Linear Genetic Programming 61 7.1.1 Motivations 61 7.1.2 Linear GP Representations 62 7.1.3 Linear GP Operators 64 7.2 Graph-Based Genetic Programming 65 7.2.1 Parallel Distributed GP (PDGP) 65 7.2.2 PADO 67 7.2.3 Cartesian GP 67 7.2.4 Evolving Parallel Programs using Indirect Encodings 68 8 Probabilistic Genetic Programming 8.1 Estimation of Distribution Algorithms 69 8.2 Pure EDA GP 71 8.3 Mixing Grammars and Probabilities 74 9 Multi-objective Genetic Programming 75 9.1 Combining Multiple Objectives into a Scalar Fitness Function 75 9.2 Keeping the Objectives Separate 76 9.2.1 Multi-objective Bloat and Complexity Control 77 9.2.2 Other Objectives 78 9.2.3 Non-Pareto Criteria 80 9.3 Multiple Objectives via Dynamic and Staged Fitness Functions 80 9.4 Multi-objective Optimisation via Operator Bias 81 10 Fast and Distributed Genetic Programming 83 10.1 Reducing Fitness Evaluations/Increasing their Effectiveness 83 10.2 Reducing Cost of Fitness with Caches 86 10.3 Parallel and Distributed GP are Not Equivalent 88 10.4 Running GP on Parallel Hardware 89 10.4.1 Master–slave GP 89 10.4.2 GP Running on GPUs 90 10.4.3 GP on FPGAs 92 10.4.4 Sub-machine-code GP 93 10.5 Geographically Distributed GP 93 11 GP Theory and its Applications 97 11.1 Mathematical Models 98 11.2 Search Spaces 99 11.3 Bloat 101 11.3.1 Bloat in Theory 101 11.3.2 Bloat Control in Practice 104 III Practical Genetic Programming 12 Applications 12.1 Where GP has Done Well 12.2 Curve Fitting, Data Modelling and Symbolic Regression 12.3 Human Competitive Results – the Humies 12.4 Image and Signal Processing 12.5 Financial Trading, Time Series, and Economic Modelling 12.6 Industrial Process Control 12.7 Medicine, Biology and Bioinformatics 12.8 GP to Create Searchers and Solvers – Hyper-heuristics xiii 12.9 Entertainment and Computer Games 127 12.10The Arts 127 12.11Compression 128 13 Troubleshooting GP 13.1 Is there a Bug in the Code? 13.2 Can you Trust your Results? 13.3 There are No Silver Bullets 13.4 Small Changes can have Big Effects 13.5 Big Changes can have No Effect 13.6 Study your Populations 13.7 Encourage Diversity 13.8 Embrace Approximation 13.9 Control Bloat 13.10 Checkpoint Results 13.11 Report Well 13.12 Convince your Customers 14 Conclusions Tricks of the Trade A Resources A.1 Key Books A.2 Key Journals A.3 Key International Meetings A.4 GP Implementations A.5 On-Line Resources 145 B TinyGP 151 B.1 Overview of TinyGP 151 B.2 Input Data Files for TinyGP 153 B.3 Source Code 154 B.4 Compiling and Running TinyGP 162 Bibliography 167 Inde

Learning Parallel Grammar Systems for a Human Activity Language

We have empirically discovered that the space of human actions has a linguistic structure. This is a sensory-motor space consisting of the evolution of the joint angles of the human body in movement. The space of human activity has its own phonemes, morphemes, and sentences. In kinetology, the phonology of human movement, we define atomic segments (kinetemes) that are used to compose human activity. In this paper, we present a morphological representation that explicitly contains the subset of actuators responsible for the activity, the synchronization rules modeling coordination among these actuators, and the motion pattern performed by each participating actuator. We model a human action with a novel formal grammar system, named Parallel Synchronous Grammar System (PSGS), adapted from Parallel Communicating Grammar Systems (PCGS). We propose a heuristic PArallel Learning (PAL) algorithm for the automatic inference of a PSGS. Our algorithm is used in the learning of human activity. Instead of a sequence of sentences, the input is a single string for each actuator in the body. The algorithm infers the components of the grammar system as a subset of actuators, a CFG grammar for the language of each component, and synchronization rules. Our framework is evaluated with synthetic data and real motion data from a large scale motion capture database containing around 200 different actions corresponding to verbs associated with voluntary observable movement. On synthetic data, our algorithm achieves 100% success rate with a noise level up to 7%

Text analysis and computers

Content: Erhard Mergenthaler: Computer-assisted content analysis (3-32); Udo Kelle: Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: an overview (33-63); Christian Mair: Machine-readable text corpora and the linguistic description of danguages (64-75); Jürgen Krause: Principles of content analysis for information retrieval systems (76-99); Conference Abstracts (100-131)