Geoffrey J. Gordon is a professor at the Machine Learning Department at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and director of research at the Microsoft Montréal lab. He is known for his research in statistical relational learning (a subdiscipline of artificial intelligence and machine learning) and on anytime dynamic variants of the A search algorithm. His research interests include multi-agent planning, reinforcement learning, decision-theoretic planning, statistical models of difficult data (e.g. maps, video, text), computational learning theory, and game theory. Gordon received a B.A. in computer science from Cornell University in 1991, and a PhD at Carnegie Mellon in 1999.
Stochastic parrot
In machine learning, the term stochastic parrot is a metaphor that frames large language models as systems that statistically mimic text without real understanding. The word "stochastic" – from the ancient Greek "στοχαστικός" (stokhastikos, 'based on guesswork') – is a term from probability theory meaning "randomly determined". The word "parrot" refers to parrots' ability to mimic human speech. The term was introduced in a 2021 paper on AI ethics titled "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜" and authored by Timnit Gebru, Emily M. Bender, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Margaret Mitchell. The paper outlined possible risks associated with large language models (LLMs). In December 2020, it was the subject of a workplace dispute between Gebru (then co-leader of Google's Ethical Artificial Intelligence Team) and Google, which had requested the retraction of the paper. The incident culminated in Gebru's controversial departure from the company. The paper was later presented at the 2021 ACM Conference, and the term "stochastic parrot" has seen widespread use in academic research concerning generative AI and LLMs. The term has been interpreted negatively as an insult towards AI. == Background == Timnit Gebru is an AI ethics researcher, Emily M. Bender is a linguist specializing in computational linguistics, and Margaret Mitchell is a computer scientist specializing in algorithmic bias. Gebru had joined Google in 2018, where she co-led a team on the ethics of artificial intelligence with Mitchell. In late 2020, the paper "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜" was co-written by Gebru and five other researchers, four of whom were Google employees. The paper argues that large language models (LLMs) present significant risks such as environmental and financial costs, inscrutability leading to unknown dangerous biases, and potential for deception as LLMs do not understand the concepts underlying what they learn. The paper states that LLMs are "stitching together sequences of linguistic forms ... observed in its vast training data, according to probabilistic information about how they combine, but without any reference to meaning." Therefore, they are labeled "stochastic parrots". === Dismissal of Gebru by Google === After the paper was submitted for consideration to the 2021 ACM Conference, Google requested that Gebru either retract the paper from the conference or remove the names of Google employees from it. Gebru refused to do so without further discussion, and emailed Google Research vice president Megan Kacholia that if the company could not explain the request for retraction and address other concerns regarding similar projects, she would plan to resign after a transition period, stating that they could "work on a last date". The following day, on December 2, 2020, Gebru received an email saying that Google was "accepting her resignation". Her abrupt firing sparked protests by Google employees and negative publicity for the company. == Usage == The phrase has been used by AI skeptics to signify that LLMs lack understanding of the meaning of their outputs. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, used the term shortly after the release of ChatGPT in December 2022, tweeting "i am a stochastic parrot, and so r u". The term was nominated as the 2023 AI-related Word of the Year by the American Dialect Society. == Debate == Some LLMs, such as ChatGPT, have become capable of interacting with users in convincingly human-like conversations. The development of these new systems has deepened the discussion of the extent to which LLMs understand or are simply "parroting". According to machine learning researchers Lindholm, Wahlström, Lindsten, and Schön, the term "stochastic parrot" highlights two vital limitations of LLMs: LLMs are limited by the data they are trained on and are simply stochastically repeating contents of datasets. Because they are just making up outputs based on training data, LLMs do not understand if they are saying something incorrect or inappropriate. Lindholm et al. noted that, with poor quality datasets and other limitations, a learning machine might produce results that are "dangerously wrong". === Subjective experience === In the mind of a human being, words and language correspond to things one has experienced. For LLMs, according to proponents of the theory, words correspond only to other words and patterns of usage fed into their training data. Proponents of the idea of stochastic parrots thus conclude that statements about LLMs are due to "the human tendency to attribute meaning to text", and claim this occurs despite the LLMs not actually understanding language. === Fine-tuning === Kelsey Piper argued that the claim that LLMs are stochastic parrots or mere "next-token predictors" focuses on pre-training, ignoring that modern LLMs are also fine-tuned to follow instructions and to prefer accurate answers. === Hallucinations and mistakes === The tendency of LLMs to pass off false information as fact is held as support. Called hallucinations or confabulations, LLMs will occasionally synthesize information that matches some pattern. LLMs may fail to distinguish fact and fiction, which leads to the claim that they can't connect words to a comprehension of the world, as humans do. Furthermore, LLMs may fail to decipher complex or ambiguous grammar cases that rely on understanding the meaning of language. For example: The wet newspaper that fell down off the table is my favorite newspaper. But now that my favorite newspaper fired the editor I might not like reading it anymore. Can I replace 'my favorite newspaper' by 'the wet newspaper that fell down off the table' in the second sentence? GPT-4, an LLM released in March 2023, responded yes, not understanding that the meaning of "newspaper" is different in these two contexts; it is first an object and second an institution. === Benchmarks and experiments === One argument against the hypothesis that LLMs are stochastic parrot is their results on benchmarks for reasoning, common sense and language understanding. In 2023, some LLMs have shown good results on many language understanding tests, such as the Super General Language Understanding Evaluation (SuperGLUE). GPT-4 scored in the >90th-percentile on the Uniform Bar Examination and achieved 93% accuracy on the MATH benchmark of high-school Olympiad problems, results that exceed rote pattern-matching expectations. Such tests, and the smoothness of many LLM responses, help as many as 51% of AI professionals believe they can truly understand language with enough data, according to a 2022 survey. === Expert rebuttals === Some AI researchers dispute the notion that LLMs merely "parrot" their training data. Geoffrey Hinton, a pioneering figure in neural networks, counters that the metaphor misunderstands the prerequisite for accurate language prediction. He argues that "to predict the next word accurately, you have to understand the sentence", a view he presented on 60 Minutes in 2023. From this perspective, understanding is not an alternative to statistical prediction, but rather an emergent property required to perform it effectively at scale. Hinton also uses logical puzzles to demonstrate that LLMs actually understand language. A 2024 Scientific American investigation described a closed Berkeley workshop where state-of-the-art models solved novel tier-4 mathematics problems and produced coherent proofs, indicating reasoning abilities beyond memorization. The GPT-4 Technical Report showed human-level results on professional and academic exams (e.g., the Uniform Bar Exam and USMLE), challenging the "parrot" characterization. Anthropic conducted mechanistic interpretability research on Claude, using attribution graphs to identify circuits. The research showed how the LLM processes information via chains of fuzzy logical inference, and indicated an ability to plan ahead. They found that Claude 3.5 Haiku "employs remarkably general abstractions", forms "internally generated plans for its future outputs" and "works backwards from its longer-term goals". They noted that "The mechanisms of the model can apparently only be faithfully described using an overwhelmingly large causal graph." They also found that the model includes "mechanisms that could underlie a simple form of metacognition", in that it "thinks about" the level of its own knowledge before reaching its answer. === Interpretability === Another line of evidence against the 'stochastic parrot' claim comes from mechanistic interpretability, a research field dedicated to reverse-engineering LLMs to understand their internal workings. Rather than only observing the model's input-output behavior, these techniques probe the model's internal activations, which can be used to determine if they contain structured representations of the world. The goal is to investigate whether LLMs are merely manipulating surface statistics or if t
Blockmodeling
Blockmodeling is a set or a coherent framework, that is used for analyzing social structure and also for setting procedure(s) for partitioning (clustering) social network's units (nodes, vertices, actors), based on specific patterns, which form a distinctive structure through interconnectivity. It is primarily used in statistics, machine learning and network science. As an empirical procedure, blockmodeling assumes that all the units in a specific network can be grouped together to such extent to which they are equivalent. Regarding equivalency, it can be structural, regular or generalized. Using blockmodeling, a network can be analyzed using newly created blockmodels, which transforms large and complex network into a smaller and more comprehensible one. At the same time, the blockmodeling is used to operationalize social roles. While some contend that the blockmodeling is just clustering methods, Bonacich and McConaghy state that "it is a theoretically grounded and algebraic approach to the analysis of the structure of relations". Blockmodeling's unique ability lies in the fact that it considers the structure not just as a set of direct relations, but also takes into account all other possible compound relations that are based on the direct ones. The principles of blockmodeling were first introduced by Francois Lorrain and Harrison C. White in 1971. Blockmodeling is considered as "an important set of network analytic tools" as it deals with delineation of role structures (the well-defined places in social structures, also known as positions) and the discerning the fundamental structure of social networks. According to Batagelj, the primary "goal of blockmodeling is to reduce a large, potentially incoherent network to a smaller comprehensible structure that can be interpreted more readily". Blockmodeling was at first used for analysis in sociometry and psychometrics, but has now spread also to other sciences. == Definition == A network as a system is composed of (or defined by) two different sets: one set of units (nodes, vertices, actors) and one set of links between the units. Using both sets, it is possible to create a graph, describing the structure of the network. During blockmodeling, the researcher is faced with two problems: how to partition the units (e.g., how to determine the clusters (or classes), that then form vertices in a blockmodel) and then how to determine the links in the blockmodel (and at the same time the values of these links). In the social sciences, the networks are usually social networks, composed of several individuals (units) and selected social relationships among them (links). Real-world networks can be large and complex; blockmodeling is used to simplify them into smaller structures that can be easier to interpret. Specifically, blockmodeling partitions the units into clusters and then determines the ties among the clusters. At the same time, blockmodeling can be used to explain the social roles existing in the network, as it is assumed that the created cluster of units mimics (or is closely associated with) the units' social roles. Blockmodeling can thus be defined as a set of approaches for partitioning units into clusters (also known as positions) and links into blocks, which are further defined by the newly obtained clusters. A block (also blockmodel) is defined as a submatrix, that shows interconnectivity (links) between nodes, present in the same or different clusters. Each of these positions in the cluster is defined by a set of (in)direct ties to and from other social positions. These links (connections) can be directed or undirected; there can be multiple links between the same pair of objects or they can have weights on them. If there are not any multiple links in a network, it is called a simple network. A matrix representation of a graph is composed of ordered units, in rows and columns, based on their names. The ordered units with similar patterns of links are partitioned together in the same clusters. Clusters are then arranged together so that units from the same clusters are placed next to each other, thus preserving interconnectivity. In the next step, the units (from the same clusters) are transformed into a blockmodel. With this, several blockmodels are usually formed, one being core cluster and others being cohesive; a core cluster is always connected to cohesive ones, while cohesive ones cannot be linked together. Clustering of nodes is based on the equivalence, such as structural and regular. The primary objective of the matrix form is to visually present relations between the persons included in the cluster. These ties are coded dichotomously (as present or absent), and the rows in the matrix form indicate the source of the ties, while the columns represent the destination of the ties. Equivalence can have two basic approaches: the equivalent units have the same connection pattern to the same neighbors or these units have same or similar connection pattern to different neighbors. If the units are connected to the rest of network in identical ways, then they are structurally equivalent. Units can also be regularly equivalent, when they are equivalently connected to equivalent others. With blockmodeling, it is necessary to consider the issue of results being affected by measurement errors in the initial stage of acquiring the data. == Different approaches == Regarding what kind of network is undergoing blockmodeling, a different approach is necessary. Networks can be one–mode or two–mode. In the former all units can be connected to any other unit and where units are of the same type, while in the latter the units are connected only to the unit(s) of a different type. Regarding relationships between units, they can be single–relational or multi–relational networks. Further more, the networks can be temporal or multilevel and also binary (only 0 and 1) or signed (allowing negative ties)/values (other values are possible) networks. Different approaches to blockmodeling can be grouped into two main classes: deterministic blockmodeling and stochastic blockmodeling approaches. Deterministic blockmodeling is then further divided into direct and indirect blockmodeling approaches. Among direct blockmodeling approaches are: structural equivalence and regular equivalence. Structural equivalence is a state, when units are connected to the rest of the network in an identical way(s), while regular equivalence occurs when units are equally related to equivalent others (units are not necessarily sharing neighbors, but have neighbour that are themselves similar). Indirect blockmodeling approaches, where partitioning is dealt with as a traditional cluster analysis problem (measuring (dis)similarity results in a (dis)similarity matrix), are: conventional blockmodeling, generalized blockmodeling: generalized blockmodeling of binary networks, generalized blockmodeling of valued networks and generalized homogeneity blockmodeling, prespecified blockmodeling. According to Brusco and Steinley (2011), the blockmodeling can be categorized (using a number of dimensions): deterministic or stochastic blockmodeling, one–mode or two–mode networks, signed or unsigned networks, exploratory or confirmatory blockmodeling. == Blockmodels == Blockmodels (sometimes also block models) are structures in which: vertices (e.g., units, nodes) are assembled within a cluster, with each cluster identified as a vertex; from such vertices a graph can be constructed; combinations of all the links (ties), represented in a block as a single link between positions, while at the same time constructing one tie for each block. In a case, when there are no ties in a block, there will be no ties between the two positions that define the block. Computer programs can partition the social network according to pre-set conditions. When empirical blocks can be reasonably approximated in terms of ideal blocks, such blockmodels can be reduced to a blockimage, which is a representation of the original network, capturing its underlying 'functional anatomy'. Thus, blockmodels can "permit the data to characterize their own structure", and at the same time not seek to manifest a preconceived structure imposed by the researcher. Blockmodels can be created indirectly or directly, based on the construction of the criterion function. Indirect construction refers to a function, based on "compatible (dis)similarity measure between paris of units", while the direct construction is "a function measuring the fit of real blocks induced by a given clustering to the corresponding ideal blocks with perfect relations within each cluster and between clusters according to the considered types of connections (equivalence)". === Types === Blockmodels can be specified regarding the intuition, substance or the insight into the nature of the studied network; this can result in such models as follows: parent-child role systems, organizational hierarchies, systems of
Absorbing Markov chain
In the mathematical theory of probability, an absorbing Markov chain is a Markov chain in which every state can reach an absorbing state. An absorbing state is a state that, once entered, cannot be left. Like general Markov chains, there can be continuous-time absorbing Markov chains with an infinite state space. However, this article concentrates on the discrete-time discrete-state-space case. == Formal definition == A Markov chain is an absorbing chain if there is at least one absorbing state and it is possible to go from any state to at least one absorbing state in a finite number of steps. In an absorbing Markov chain, a state that is not absorbing is called transient. === Canonical form === Let an absorbing Markov chain with transition matrix P have t transient states and r absorbing states. The rows of P represent sources, while columns represent destinations. By ordering the transient states before the absorbing states, it can be assumed that P has the form P = [ Q R 0 I r ] , {\displaystyle P={\begin{bmatrix}Q&R\\\mathbf {0} &I_{r}\end{bmatrix}},} where Q is a t-by-t matrix, R is a nonzero t-by-r matrix, 0 is an r-by-t zero matrix, and Ir is the r-by-r identity matrix. Thus, Q describes the probability of transitioning from some transient state to another while R describes the probability of transitioning from some transient state to some absorbing state. The probability of transitioning from i to j in exactly k steps is the (i,j)-entry of Pk, further computed below. When considering only transient states, the probability is found in the upper left of Pk, the (i,j)-entry of Qk. == Fundamental matrix == === Expected number of visits to a transient state === A basic property about an absorbing Markov chain is the expected number of visits to a transient state j starting from a transient state i (before being absorbed). This can be established to be given by the (i, j) entry of so-called fundamental matrix N, obtained by summing Qk for all k (from 0 to ∞). It can be proven that N := ∑ k = 0 ∞ Q k = ( I t − Q ) − 1 , {\displaystyle N:=\sum _{k=0}^{\infty }Q^{k}=(I_{t}-Q)^{-1},} where It is the t-by-t identity matrix. The computation of this formula is the matrix equivalent of the geometric series of scalars, ∑ k = 0 ∞ q k = 1 1 − q {\displaystyle {\textstyle \sum }_{k=0}^{\infty }q^{k}={\tfrac {1}{1-q}}} . With the matrix N in hand, also other properties of the Markov chain are easy to obtain. === Expected number of steps before being absorbed === The expected number of steps before being absorbed in any absorbing state, when starting in transient state i can be computed via a sum over transient states. The value is given by the ith entry of the vector t := N 1 , {\displaystyle \mathbf {t} :=N\mathbf {1} ,} where 1 is a length-t column vector whose entries are all 1. === Absorbing probabilities === By induction, P k = [ Q k ( I t − Q k ) N R 0 I r ] . {\displaystyle P^{k}={\begin{bmatrix}Q^{k}&(I_{t}-Q^{k})NR\\\mathbf {0} &I_{r}\end{bmatrix}}.} The probability of eventually being absorbed in the absorbing state j when starting from transient state i is given by the (i,j)-entry of the matrix B := N R {\displaystyle B:=NR} . The number of columns of this matrix equals the number of absorbing states r. An approximation of those probabilities can also be obtained directly from the (i,j)-entry of P k {\displaystyle P^{k}} for a large enough value of k, when i is the index of a transient, and j the index of an absorbing state. This is because ( lim k → ∞ P k ) i , t + j = B i , j {\displaystyle \left(\lim _{k\to \infty }P^{k}\right)_{i,t+j}=B_{i,j}} . === Transient visiting probabilities === The probability of visiting transient state j when starting at a transient state i is the (i,j)-entry of the matrix H := ( N − I t ) ( N dg ) − 1 , {\displaystyle H:=(N-I_{t})(N_{\operatorname {dg} })^{-1},} where Ndg is the diagonal matrix with the same diagonal as N. === Variance on number of transient visits === The variance on the number of visits to a transient state j with starting at a transient state i (before being absorbed) is the (i,j)-entry of the matrix N 2 := N ( 2 N dg − I t ) − N sq , {\displaystyle N_{2}:=N(2N_{\operatorname {dg} }-I_{t})-N_{\operatorname {sq} },} where Nsq is the Hadamard product of N with itself (i.e. each entry of N is squared). === Variance on number of steps === The variance on the number of steps before being absorbed when starting in transient state i is the ith entry of the vector ( 2 N − I t ) t − t sq , {\displaystyle (2N-I_{t})\mathbf {t} -\mathbf {t} _{\operatorname {sq} },} where tsq is the Hadamard product of t with itself (i.e., as with Nsq, each entry of t is squared). == Examples == === String generation === Consider the process of repeatedly flipping a fair coin until the sequence (heads, tails, heads) appears. This process is modeled by an absorbing Markov chain with transition matrix P = [ 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 0 0 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 / 2 0 0 1 / 2 0 0 0 1 ] . {\displaystyle P={\begin{bmatrix}1/2&1/2&0&0\\0&1/2&1/2&0\\1/2&0&0&1/2\\0&0&0&1\end{bmatrix}}.} The first state represents the empty string, the second state the string "H", the third state the string "HT", and the fourth state the string "HTH". Although in reality, the coin flips cease after the string "HTH" is generated, the perspective of the absorbing Markov chain is that the process has transitioned into the absorbing state representing the string "HTH" and, therefore, cannot leave. For this absorbing Markov chain, the fundamental matrix is N = ( I − Q ) − 1 = ( [ 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ] − [ 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 0 1 / 2 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 0 ] ) − 1 = [ 1 / 2 − 1 / 2 0 0 1 / 2 − 1 / 2 − 1 / 2 0 1 ] − 1 = [ 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 ] . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}N&=(I-Q)^{-1}=\left({\begin{bmatrix}1&0&0\\0&1&0\\0&0&1\end{bmatrix}}-{\begin{bmatrix}1/2&1/2&0\\0&1/2&1/2\\1/2&0&0\end{bmatrix}}\right)^{-1}\\[4pt]&={\begin{bmatrix}1/2&-1/2&0\\0&1/2&-1/2\\-1/2&0&1\end{bmatrix}}^{-1}={\begin{bmatrix}4&4&2\\2&4&2\\2&2&2\end{bmatrix}}.\end{aligned}}} The expected number of steps starting from each of the transient states is t = N 1 = [ 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 ] [ 1 1 1 ] = [ 10 8 6 ] . {\displaystyle \mathbf {t} =N\mathbf {1} ={\begin{bmatrix}4&4&2\\2&4&2\\2&2&2\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}1\\1\\1\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}10\\8\\6\end{bmatrix}}.} Therefore, the expected number of coin flips before observing the sequence (heads, tails, heads) is 10, the entry for the state representing the empty string. === Games of chance === Games based entirely on chance can be modeled by an absorbing Markov chain. A classic example of this is the ancient Indian board game Snakes and Ladders. The graph on the left plots the probability mass in the lone absorbing state that represents the final square as the transition matrix is raised to larger and larger powers. To determine the expected number of turns to complete the game, compute the vector t as described above and examine tstart, which is approximately 39.2. === Infectious disease testing === Infectious disease testing, either of blood products or in medical clinics, is often taught as an example of an absorbing Markov chain. The public U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) model for HIV and for hepatitis B, for example, illustrates the property that absorbing Markov chains can lead to the detection of disease, versus the loss of detection through other means. In the standard CDC model, the Markov chain has five states, a state in which the individual is uninfected, then a state with infected but undetectable virus, a state with detectable virus, and absorbing states of having quit/been lost from the clinic, or of having been detected (the goal). The typical rates of transition between the Markov states are the probability p per unit time of being infected with the virus, w for the rate of window period removal (time until virus is detectable), q for quit/loss rate from the system, and d for detection, assuming a typical rate λ {\displaystyle \lambda } at which the health system administers tests of the blood product or patients in question. It follows that we can "walk along" the Markov model to identify the overall probability of detection for a person starting as undetected, by multiplying the probabilities of transition to each next state of the model as: p ( p + q ) w ( w + q ) d ( d + q ) {\displaystyle {\frac {p}{(p+q)}}{\frac {w}{(w+q)}}{\frac {d}{(d+q)}}} . The subsequent total absolute number of false negative tests—the primary CDC concern—would then be the rate of tests, multiplied by the probability of reaching the infected but undetectable state, times the duration of staying in the infected undetectable state: p ( p + q ) 1 ( w + q ) λ {\displaystyle {\frac {p}{(p+q)}}{\frac {1}{(w+q)}}\lambda } .
Blockmodeling
Blockmodeling is a set or a coherent framework, that is used for analyzing social structure and also for setting procedure(s) for partitioning (clustering) social network's units (nodes, vertices, actors), based on specific patterns, which form a distinctive structure through interconnectivity. It is primarily used in statistics, machine learning and network science. As an empirical procedure, blockmodeling assumes that all the units in a specific network can be grouped together to such extent to which they are equivalent. Regarding equivalency, it can be structural, regular or generalized. Using blockmodeling, a network can be analyzed using newly created blockmodels, which transforms large and complex network into a smaller and more comprehensible one. At the same time, the blockmodeling is used to operationalize social roles. While some contend that the blockmodeling is just clustering methods, Bonacich and McConaghy state that "it is a theoretically grounded and algebraic approach to the analysis of the structure of relations". Blockmodeling's unique ability lies in the fact that it considers the structure not just as a set of direct relations, but also takes into account all other possible compound relations that are based on the direct ones. The principles of blockmodeling were first introduced by Francois Lorrain and Harrison C. White in 1971. Blockmodeling is considered as "an important set of network analytic tools" as it deals with delineation of role structures (the well-defined places in social structures, also known as positions) and the discerning the fundamental structure of social networks. According to Batagelj, the primary "goal of blockmodeling is to reduce a large, potentially incoherent network to a smaller comprehensible structure that can be interpreted more readily". Blockmodeling was at first used for analysis in sociometry and psychometrics, but has now spread also to other sciences. == Definition == A network as a system is composed of (or defined by) two different sets: one set of units (nodes, vertices, actors) and one set of links between the units. Using both sets, it is possible to create a graph, describing the structure of the network. During blockmodeling, the researcher is faced with two problems: how to partition the units (e.g., how to determine the clusters (or classes), that then form vertices in a blockmodel) and then how to determine the links in the blockmodel (and at the same time the values of these links). In the social sciences, the networks are usually social networks, composed of several individuals (units) and selected social relationships among them (links). Real-world networks can be large and complex; blockmodeling is used to simplify them into smaller structures that can be easier to interpret. Specifically, blockmodeling partitions the units into clusters and then determines the ties among the clusters. At the same time, blockmodeling can be used to explain the social roles existing in the network, as it is assumed that the created cluster of units mimics (or is closely associated with) the units' social roles. Blockmodeling can thus be defined as a set of approaches for partitioning units into clusters (also known as positions) and links into blocks, which are further defined by the newly obtained clusters. A block (also blockmodel) is defined as a submatrix, that shows interconnectivity (links) between nodes, present in the same or different clusters. Each of these positions in the cluster is defined by a set of (in)direct ties to and from other social positions. These links (connections) can be directed or undirected; there can be multiple links between the same pair of objects or they can have weights on them. If there are not any multiple links in a network, it is called a simple network. A matrix representation of a graph is composed of ordered units, in rows and columns, based on their names. The ordered units with similar patterns of links are partitioned together in the same clusters. Clusters are then arranged together so that units from the same clusters are placed next to each other, thus preserving interconnectivity. In the next step, the units (from the same clusters) are transformed into a blockmodel. With this, several blockmodels are usually formed, one being core cluster and others being cohesive; a core cluster is always connected to cohesive ones, while cohesive ones cannot be linked together. Clustering of nodes is based on the equivalence, such as structural and regular. The primary objective of the matrix form is to visually present relations between the persons included in the cluster. These ties are coded dichotomously (as present or absent), and the rows in the matrix form indicate the source of the ties, while the columns represent the destination of the ties. Equivalence can have two basic approaches: the equivalent units have the same connection pattern to the same neighbors or these units have same or similar connection pattern to different neighbors. If the units are connected to the rest of network in identical ways, then they are structurally equivalent. Units can also be regularly equivalent, when they are equivalently connected to equivalent others. With blockmodeling, it is necessary to consider the issue of results being affected by measurement errors in the initial stage of acquiring the data. == Different approaches == Regarding what kind of network is undergoing blockmodeling, a different approach is necessary. Networks can be one–mode or two–mode. In the former all units can be connected to any other unit and where units are of the same type, while in the latter the units are connected only to the unit(s) of a different type. Regarding relationships between units, they can be single–relational or multi–relational networks. Further more, the networks can be temporal or multilevel and also binary (only 0 and 1) or signed (allowing negative ties)/values (other values are possible) networks. Different approaches to blockmodeling can be grouped into two main classes: deterministic blockmodeling and stochastic blockmodeling approaches. Deterministic blockmodeling is then further divided into direct and indirect blockmodeling approaches. Among direct blockmodeling approaches are: structural equivalence and regular equivalence. Structural equivalence is a state, when units are connected to the rest of the network in an identical way(s), while regular equivalence occurs when units are equally related to equivalent others (units are not necessarily sharing neighbors, but have neighbour that are themselves similar). Indirect blockmodeling approaches, where partitioning is dealt with as a traditional cluster analysis problem (measuring (dis)similarity results in a (dis)similarity matrix), are: conventional blockmodeling, generalized blockmodeling: generalized blockmodeling of binary networks, generalized blockmodeling of valued networks and generalized homogeneity blockmodeling, prespecified blockmodeling. According to Brusco and Steinley (2011), the blockmodeling can be categorized (using a number of dimensions): deterministic or stochastic blockmodeling, one–mode or two–mode networks, signed or unsigned networks, exploratory or confirmatory blockmodeling. == Blockmodels == Blockmodels (sometimes also block models) are structures in which: vertices (e.g., units, nodes) are assembled within a cluster, with each cluster identified as a vertex; from such vertices a graph can be constructed; combinations of all the links (ties), represented in a block as a single link between positions, while at the same time constructing one tie for each block. In a case, when there are no ties in a block, there will be no ties between the two positions that define the block. Computer programs can partition the social network according to pre-set conditions. When empirical blocks can be reasonably approximated in terms of ideal blocks, such blockmodels can be reduced to a blockimage, which is a representation of the original network, capturing its underlying 'functional anatomy'. Thus, blockmodels can "permit the data to characterize their own structure", and at the same time not seek to manifest a preconceived structure imposed by the researcher. Blockmodels can be created indirectly or directly, based on the construction of the criterion function. Indirect construction refers to a function, based on "compatible (dis)similarity measure between paris of units", while the direct construction is "a function measuring the fit of real blocks induced by a given clustering to the corresponding ideal blocks with perfect relations within each cluster and between clusters according to the considered types of connections (equivalence)". === Types === Blockmodels can be specified regarding the intuition, substance or the insight into the nature of the studied network; this can result in such models as follows: parent-child role systems, organizational hierarchies, systems of
Thunderspy
Thunderspy is a type of security vulnerability, based on the Intel Thunderbolt 3 port, first reported publicly on 10 May 2020, that can result in an evil maid (i.e., attacker of an unattended device) attack gaining full access to a computer's information in about five minutes, and may affect millions of Apple, Linux and Windows computers, as well as any computers manufactured before 2019, and some after that. According to Björn Ruytenberg, the discoverer of the vulnerability, "All the evil maid needs to do is unscrew the backplate, attach a device momentarily, reprogram the firmware, reattach the backplate, and the evil maid gets full access to the laptop. All of this can be done in under five minutes." The malicious firmware is used to clone device identities which makes classical DMA attack possible. == History == The Thunderspy security vulnerabilities were first publicly reported by Björn Ruytenberg of Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands on 10 May 2020. Thunderspy is similar to Thunderclap, another security vulnerability, reported in 2019, that also involves access to computer files through the Thunderbolt port. == Impact == The security vulnerability affects millions of Apple, Linux and Windows computers, as well as all computers manufactured before 2019, and some after that. However, this impact is restricted mainly to how precise a bad actor would have to be to execute the attack. Physical access to a machine with a vulnerable Thunderbolt controller is necessary, as well as a writable ROM chip for the Thunderbolt controller's firmware. Additionally, part of Thunderspy, specifically the portion involving re-writing the firmware of the controller, requires the device to be in sleep, or at least in some sort of powered-on state, to be effective. Machines that force power-off when the case is open may assist in resisting this attack to the extent that the feature (switch) itself resists tampering. Due to the nature of attacks that require extended physical access to hardware, it's unlikely the attack will affect users outside of a business or government environment. == Mitigation == The researchers claim there is no easy software solution, and may only be mitigated by disabling the Thunderbolt port altogether. However, the impacts of this attack (reading kernel level memory without the machine needing to be powered off) are largely mitigated by anti-intrusion features provided by many business machines. Intel claims enabling such features would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the attack. Microsoft's official security recommendations recommend disabling sleep mode while using BitLocker. Using hibernation in place of sleep mode turns the device off, mitigating potential risks of attack on encrypted data.
AdaBoost
AdaBoost (short for Adaptive Boosting) is a statistical classification meta-algorithm formulated by Yoav Freund and Robert Schapire in 1995, who won the 2003 Gödel Prize for their work. It can be used in conjunction with many types of learning algorithm to improve performance. The output of multiple weak learners is combined into a weighted sum that represents the final output of the boosted classifier. Usually, AdaBoost is presented for binary classification, although it can be generalized to multiple classes or bounded intervals of real values. AdaBoost is adaptive in the sense that subsequent weak learners (models) are adjusted in favor of instances misclassified by previous models. In some problems, it can be less susceptible to overfitting than other learning algorithms. The individual learners can be weak, but as long as the performance of each one is slightly better than random guessing, the final model can be proven to converge to a strong learner. Although AdaBoost is typically used to combine weak base learners (such as decision stumps), it has been shown to also effectively combine strong base learners (such as deeper decision trees), producing an even more accurate model. Every learning algorithm tends to suit some problem types better than others, and typically has many different parameters and configurations to adjust before it achieves optimal performance on a dataset. AdaBoost (with decision trees as the weak learners) is often referred to as the best out-of-the-box classifier. When used with decision tree learning, information gathered at each stage of the AdaBoost algorithm about the relative 'hardness' of each training sample is fed into the tree-growing algorithm such that later trees tend to focus on harder-to-classify examples. == Training == AdaBoost refers to a particular method of training a boosted classifier. A boosted classifier is a classifier of the form F T ( x ) = ∑ t = 1 T f t ( x ) {\displaystyle F_{T}(x)=\sum _{t=1}^{T}f_{t}(x)} where each f t {\displaystyle f_{t}} is a weak learner that takes an object x {\displaystyle x} as input and returns a value indicating the class of the object. For example, in the two-class problem, the sign of the weak learner's output identifies the predicted object class and the absolute value gives the confidence in that classification. Each weak learner produces an output hypothesis h {\displaystyle h} which fixes a prediction h ( x i ) {\displaystyle h(x_{i})} for each sample in the training set. At each iteration t {\displaystyle t} , a weak learner is selected and assigned a coefficient α t {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}} such that the total training error E t {\displaystyle E_{t}} of the resulting t {\displaystyle t} -stage boosted classifier is minimized. E t = ∑ i E [ F t − 1 ( x i ) + α t h ( x i ) ] {\displaystyle E_{t}=\sum _{i}E[F_{t-1}(x_{i})+\alpha _{t}h(x_{i})]} Here F t − 1 ( x ) {\displaystyle F_{t-1}(x)} is the boosted classifier that has been built up to the previous stage of training and f t ( x ) = α t h ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{t}(x)=\alpha _{t}h(x)} is the weak learner that is being considered for addition to the final classifier. === Weighting === At each iteration of the training process, a weight w i , t {\displaystyle w_{i,t}} is assigned to each sample in the training set equal to the current error E ( F t − 1 ( x i ) ) {\displaystyle E(F_{t-1}(x_{i}))} on that sample. These weights can be used in the training of the weak learner. For instance, decision trees can be grown which favor the splitting of sets of samples with large weights. == Derivation == This derivation follows Rojas (2009): Suppose we have a data set { ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x N , y N ) } {\displaystyle \{(x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{N},y_{N})\}} where each item x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} has an associated class y i ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,1\}} , and a set of weak classifiers { k 1 , … , k L } {\displaystyle \{k_{1},\ldots ,k_{L}\}} each of which outputs a classification k j ( x i ) ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle k_{j}(x_{i})\in \{-1,1\}} for each item. After the ( m − 1 ) {\displaystyle (m-1)} -th iteration our boosted classifier is a linear combination of the weak classifiers of the form: C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) = α 1 k 1 ( x i ) + ⋯ + α m − 1 k m − 1 ( x i ) , {\displaystyle C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})=\alpha _{1}k_{1}(x_{i})+\cdots +\alpha _{m-1}k_{m-1}(x_{i}),} where the class will be the sign of C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) {\displaystyle C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})} . At the m {\displaystyle m} -th iteration we want to extend this to a better boosted classifier by adding another weak classifier k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} , with another weight α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} : C m ( x i ) = C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) + α m k m ( x i ) {\displaystyle C_{m}(x_{i})=C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})+\alpha _{m}k_{m}(x_{i})} So it remains to determine which weak classifier is the best choice for k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} , and what its weight α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} should be. We define the total error E {\displaystyle E} of C m {\displaystyle C_{m}} as the sum of its exponential loss on each data point, given as follows: E = ∑ i = 1 N e − y i C m ( x i ) = ∑ i = 1 N e − y i C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) e − y i α m k m ( x i ) {\displaystyle E=\sum _{i=1}^{N}e^{-y_{i}C_{m}(x_{i})}=\sum _{i=1}^{N}e^{-y_{i}C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})}e^{-y_{i}\alpha _{m}k_{m}(x_{i})}} Letting w i ( 1 ) = 1 {\displaystyle w_{i}^{(1)}=1} and w i ( m ) = e − y i C m − 1 ( x i ) {\displaystyle w_{i}^{(m)}=e^{-y_{i}C_{m-1}(x_{i})}} for m > 1 {\displaystyle m>1} , we have: E = ∑ i = 1 N w i ( m ) e − y i α m k m ( x i ) {\displaystyle E=\sum _{i=1}^{N}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-y_{i}\alpha _{m}k_{m}(x_{i})}} We can split this summation between those data points that are correctly classified by k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} (so y i k m ( x i ) = 1 {\displaystyle y_{i}k_{m}(x_{i})=1} ) and those that are misclassified (so y i k m ( x i ) = − 1 {\displaystyle y_{i}k_{m}(x_{i})=-1} ): E = ∑ y i = k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e − α m + ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e α m = ∑ i = 1 N w i ( m ) e − α m + ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ( e α m − e − α m ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}E&=\sum _{y_{i}=k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-\alpha _{m}}+\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{\alpha _{m}}\\&=\sum _{i=1}^{N}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-\alpha _{m}}+\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}\left(e^{\alpha _{m}}-e^{-\alpha _{m}}\right)\end{aligned}}} Since the only part of the right-hand side of this equation that depends on k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} is ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) {\textstyle \sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}} , we see that the k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} that minimizes E {\displaystyle E} is the one in the set { k 1 , … , k L } {\displaystyle \{k_{1},\ldots ,k_{L}\}} that minimizes ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) {\textstyle \sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}} [assuming that α m > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}>0} ], i.e. the weak classifier with the lowest weighted error (with weights w i ( m ) = e − y i C m − 1 ( x i ) {\displaystyle w_{i}^{(m)}=e^{-y_{i}C_{m-1}(x_{i})}} ). To determine the desired weight α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} that minimizes E {\displaystyle E} with the k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} that we just determined, we differentiate: d E d α m = d ( ∑ y i = k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e − α m + ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e α m ) d α m {\displaystyle {\frac {dE}{d\alpha _{m}}}={\frac {d(\sum _{y_{i}=k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-\alpha _{m}}+\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{\alpha _{m}})}{d\alpha _{m}}}} The value of α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} that minimizes the above expression is: α m = 1 2 ln ( ∑ y i = k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}={\frac {1}{2}}\ln \left({\frac {\sum _{y_{i}=k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}}{\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}}}\right)} We calculate the weighted error rate of the weak classifier to be ϵ m = ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ∑ i = 1 N w i ( m ) {\displaystyle \epsilon _{m}={\frac {\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}}{\sum _{i=1}^{N}w_{i}^{(m)}}}} , so it follows that: α m = 1 2 ln ( 1 − ϵ m ϵ m ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}={\frac {1}{2}}\ln \left({\frac {1-\epsilon _{m}}{\epsilon _{m}}}\right)} which is the negative logit function multiplied by 0.5. Due to the convexity of E {\displaystyle E} as a function of α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} , this new expression for α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} gives the global minimum of the loss function. Note: This derivation only applies when k m ( x i ) ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle k_{m}(x_{i})\in \{-1,1\}} , though it can be a good starting guess in other cases, such as when the weak learner is biased ( k m ( x ) ∈ { a , b } , a ≠ − b {\displaystyle k_{m}(x)\in \{a,b\},a\neq -b} ), has multiple leaves ( k m ( x ) ∈ { a , b , … , n } {\displaystyle k_{m}(x)\in \{a,b,\dots ,n\}} ) or is some other function k m ( x ) ∈ R {\displaystyle k_{m}(x)\in \mathbb {R} } . Thus we have derived the AdaBoost algorithm: At each