DOCSLIB.ORG

Acquire Signai

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Acquire Signai National Library Bibliothèque nationale I*m ofCanada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services seMces bibliographiques 395 Wellingtoii Street 395. me Wdiington OîtawaON K1AW OtÉawaON K1A ON4 Canada Canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothéque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distriibute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microfonn, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/^ de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othenvise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Abstract Efforts to extract information regarding the surficial composition of the ocean bottom have increased in the last decade as increases in the availability of computing power have corre- sponded with advances in signal processing techniques. The ability to extract information from acoustic echosounders is especially desirable due to the relatively low cost and ease of deployment of such systems. Products already exist for the acquisition and logging of echosounder retums. An acoustic remis comprked of the incoherent backscatter from individual scat- terers within the annulus of insonification that occurs when a spherically-spreading trans- mit pulse intersects with the ocean floor. The return is a convolution of the source ping, and the impulse response modeled by the backscatter profile. Most echosounders generate an envelope of the received signal. The bottom impulse response undergoes a dilation lin- ear with depth due to simple geometry which cm be corrected with tirne-scale normaliza- tion. Under certain circumstances it may be necessary to deconvolve the source ping from the envelope of the retum prior to time-scale normalization. It is shown that this cm be done by modelling the envelope generation function with a finite sum discrete convolution and the Hilbert transform of the source signal. A second-order Volterra kernel cm be denved using a standard predictor network with constrained optimization. Other factors which contribute to the quality of the return include off-vertical transducer angles which in fact improve the classification by elirninating the nulls that occur in the bonom impulse response due to transducer beam pattern. Spatial averaging can have the effect of beam widening if the transducer angle varies. Contents Abstract Contents List of Tables List of Figures xiii xvii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Motivation .................................................................................................1 1.2 Constraints .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .- -..- -.. .. ... ... -... -. .. -. .. .. ... -.-. -. .. .. .. - -3 1.3 Support .. .. ..... .. ... ........................ .... ........................--......-. ...... .. ...-.--.......-.... .............. 3 1.4 Thesis Outiine .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .... .. .... .. .. .. .. ... ......-.... ... ... ... .. .. .. --...-... .. .. ... .. ... .. ..-... ... .. .... ..4 1.5 Contributions to the FieId .....................................................-..........................-.......5 1.6 Typographie conventions .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. - -... -. .. .. .. -6 1-7 Trademarks and Copyrights .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .-. .. .. .. .. .. - -... -. .. -. .. .. .. .. .. ... .-6 2 Technical Background 7 2.1 Seabed Classification Overview ............................................................................... 7 2.1.1 hterpretation ...................................................................................................7 2.1.1.1 Sub-bottom profiling ........................................................................... 8 2.1.1.2 Surficial classification .........................................................................8 2.2 Echo-sounder Rems......*...................*.*....*~~....................................... .... ....... 10 2.2.1 Beam pattern ........................................ ......................................................... 11 2.2.2 Water column attenuation ............................................................................. 11 2.2.3 Spherical spreading ....................................................................................... 12 2.2.4 Water column reflectors ................................................................................ 13 2.2.5 Bottom impulse response .............................................................................. 13 2.2.5.1 Backscatter ................................ .. ............................................ 13 2.2.5.2 Volume reverberation ................................................................... -20 2.2.6 Source signai ............................................................................................... --33 2.2.7 Transducer time-varying gain ...................................................................... -23 7-28Envelope generation ................................................................................... 23 2.3 Surnmary ................................................................................................................ 24 3 Literature Survey 3.1 Historical Developrnent ......................................................................................... 25 3.1.1 The coherence era ....................................................................................... -25 3.1.1.1 Milligan et al, ( 1978) ........................................................................ 25 3.1.1.2 Dunsiger, Cochrane and Vetter, ( 198 1) ............................................. 27 3.1.1.3 Pace and Ceen, (1982) ...................................................................... 28 3.1.1.4 Cochrane and Dunsiger, ( 1983) ........................................................ 29 3.1.1.5 Orlowski, ( 1984) ..................................................... 30 3.1.2 The recent era ................................................................................................30 3.1.2.1 Reut, Pace and Keaton, ( 1985) .........................................................30 3.1.2.2 Jackson and Nesbitt. (1988) .............................................................. 31 3.1.2.3 Chivers. Emerson and Burns. ( 1990)................... .. ....................... 31 3.1 .2.4 Poulinquen and Lurton. ( 1992)........................................................ -33 3.1.2.5 LeBlanc et al, ( 1992) ........................................................................ 34 3 -2 Current Research ................................................................................................... -35 3.2.1 Parametric modelling .................................................................................... 35 3.2.1.1 Kavli. Carlin and Madsen. ( 1993)............................ .. .................... 35 3 .2.2 Scale- and frequency-based methods ...................................................... 36 3.2.2.1 Milvang et al. ( 1993) ... .................................................................... -36 3.3.2.3 Caughey et al. ( 1994)........................................................................ 36 3.2.3 Neural networks ............................................................................................ 37 3.2.3.1 McCleave. Owens and Ingles. ( 1992)............................................... 38 3.2.3.2 Kavli. Carlin and ~Madsen.( 1993)..................................................... 38 3.2.3.3 AIexandrou and Pantzartzis. ( 1993).................................................. 38 3.2.3.4 Zerr. Maillard and Gueriot. ( 1994) ................................................... 39 3.2.4 S hape analysis ............................................................................................... 39 3.2.4.1 Mayer. Clarke and Wells. ( 1993) ...................................................... 39 3.2.4.2 Milvang et al. ( 1993) ........................................................................ 40 3.2.4.3 Caughey et al. ( 1994)........................................................................ 40 3.2.4.4 Tan and Mayer. (in prep.) .................................................................. 40 3.2.5 Classification methods ............................................................................ 41 3.2.5.1 Kavli. Carlin and Madsen. ( 1993)..................................................... 41 vii 3.2.5.2 Tan and Mayer. (in prep.)............. ... ............................................ 1 3 -2-6 Sub-boîtom profiling ........... .... ............................................................. -42 3 .2.6 .1 Lambert, 1993 .................... .. ......................................................... 42 3.2.6.2 Caulfield ........................................................................................... -42 3.3 Summary ............................................................................................................ 43 4 Initial Processing 4.1 Generai procedures ................................................................................................ 44 4.1 -1 Run-time ....................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Algorithms for Machine Learning 2 Linear Separability
    15-451/651: Design & Analysis of Algorithms November 24, 2014 Lecture #26 last changed: December 7, 2014 1 Algorithms for Machine Learning Suppose you want to classify mails as spam/not-spam. Your data points are email messages, and say each email can be classified as a positive instance (it is spam), or a negative instance (it is not). It is unlikely that you'll get more than one copy of the same message: you really want to \learn" the concept of spam-ness, so that you can classify future emails correctly. Emails are too unstructured, so you may represent them as more structured objects. One simple way is to use feature vectors: say you have a long bit vector indexed by words and features (e.g., \money", \bank", \click here", poor grammar, mis-spellings, known-sender) and the ith bit is set if the ith feature occurs in your email. (You could keep track of counts of words, and more sophisticated features too.) Now this vector is given a single-bit label: 1 (spam) or -1 (not spam). d These positively- and negatively-labeled vectors are sitting in R , and ideally we want to find something about the structure of the positive and negative clouds-of-points so that future emails (represented by vectors in the same space) can be correctly classified. 2 Linear Separability How do we represent the concept of \spam-ness"? Given the geometric representation of the input, it is reasonable to represent the concept geometrically as well. Here is perhaps the simplest d formalization: we are given a set S of n pairs (xi; yi) 2 R × {−1; 1g, where each xi is a data point and yi is a label, where you should think of xi as the vector representation of the actual data point, and the label yi = 1 as \xi is a positive instance of the concept we are trying to learn" and yi = −1 1 as \xi is a negative instance".
    [Show full text]
  • Geometrical and Statistical Properties of Systems of Linear Inequalities with Applications in Pattern Recognition
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRONIC COMPUTERS Geometrical and Statistical Properties of Systems of Linear Inequalities with Applications in Pattern Recognition THOMAS M. COVER Abstract-This paper develops the separating capacities of fami- in Ed. A dichotomy { X+, X- } of X is linearly separable lies of nonlinear decision surfaces by a direct application of a theorem if and only if there exists a weight vector w in Ed and a in classical combinatorial geometry. It is shown that a family of sur- faces having d degrees of freedom has a natural separating capacity scalar t such that of 2d pattern vectors, thus extending and unifying results of Winder x w > t, if x (E X+ and others on the pattern-separating capacity of hyperplanes. Apply- ing these ideas to the vertices of a binary n-cube yields bounds on x w<t, if xeX-. (3) the number of spherically, quadratically, and, in general, nonlinearly separable Boolean functions of n variables. The dichotomy { X+, X-} is said to be homogeneously It is shown that the set of all surfaces which separate a dichotomy linearly separable if it is linearly separable with t = 0. A of an infinite, random, separable set of pattern vectors can be charac- terized, on the average, by a subset of only 2d extreme pattern vec- vector w satisfying tors. In addition, the problem of generalizing the classifications on a w x >O, x E X+ labeled set of pattern points to the classification of a new point is defined, and it is found that the probability of ambiguous generaliza- w-x < 0o xCX (4) tion is large unless the number of training patterns exceeds the capacity of the set of separating surfaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Solvable Model for the Linear Separability of Structured Data
    entropy Article Solvable Model for the Linear Separability of Structured Data Marco Gherardi 1,2 1 Department of Physics, Università degli Studi di Milano, via Celoria 16, 20133 Milano, Italy; [email protected] 2 Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Sezione di Milano, via Celoria 16, 20133 Milano, Italy Abstract: Linear separability, a core concept in supervised machine learning, refers to whether the labels of a data set can be captured by the simplest possible machine: a linear classifier. In order to quantify linear separability beyond this single bit of information, one needs models of data structure parameterized by interpretable quantities, and tractable analytically. Here, I address one class of models with these properties, and show how a combinatorial method allows for the computation, in a mean field approximation, of two useful descriptors of linear separability, one of which is closely related to the popular concept of storage capacity. I motivate the need for multiple metrics by quantifying linear separability in a simple synthetic data set with controlled correlations between the points and their labels, as well as in the benchmark data set MNIST, where the capacity alone paints an incomplete picture. The analytical results indicate a high degree of “universality”, or robustness with respect to the microscopic parameters controlling data structure. Keywords: linear separability; storage capacity; data structure 1. Introduction Citation: Gherardi, M. Solvable Linear classifiers are quintessential models of supervised machine learning. Despite Model for the Linear Separability of their simplicity, or possibly because of it, they are ubiquitous: they are building blocks of Structured Data. Entropy 2021, 23, more complex architectures, for instance, in deep learning and support vector machines, 305.
    [Show full text]
  • Linear Separability in Non-Euclidean Geometry
    Linear Separability George M. Georgiou Linear Separability in Non-Euclidean Outline Geometry The problem Separating hyperplane Euclidean George M. Georgiou, Ph.D. Geometry Non-Euclidean Geometry Computer Science Department California State University, San Bernardino Three solutions Conclusion March 3, 2006 [email protected] 1 : 29 The problem Linear Separability Find a geodesic that separates two given sets of points on George M. Georgiou the Poincare´ disk non-Euclidean geometry model. Outline The problem Linear Separability Geometrically Separating hyperplane Euclidean Geometry Non-Euclidean Geometry Three solutions Conclusion 2 : 29 The problem Linear Separability Find a geodesic that separates two given sets of points on George M. Georgiou the Poincare´ disk non-Euclidean geometry model. Outline The problem Linear Separability Geometrically Separating hyperplane Euclidean Geometry Non-Euclidean Geometry Three solutions Conclusion 2 : 29 Linear Separability in Machine Learning Linear Separability George M. Georgiou Machine Learning is branch of AI, which includes areas Outline such as pattern recognition and artificial neural networks. The problem n Linear Separability Each point X = (x1, x2,..., xn) ∈ (vector or object) Geometrically R Separating belongs to two class C0 and C1 with labels -1 and 1, hyperplane respectively. Euclidean Geometry The two classes are linearly separable if there exists n+1 Non-Euclidean W = (w0, w1, w2,..., wn) ∈ such that Geometry R Three solutions w0 + w1x1 + w2x2 + ... + wnxn 0, if X ∈ C0 (1) Conclusion > w0 + w1x1 + w2x2 + ... + wnxn< 0, if X ∈ C1 (2) 3 : 29 Geometrically Linear Separability George M. Georgiou Outline The problem Linear Separability Geometrically Separating hyperplane Euclidean Geometry Non-Euclidean Geometry Three solutions Conclusion 4 : 29 “Linearizing” the circle Linear Separability George M.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Perceptron Learning
    4 Perceptron Learning 4.1 Learning algorithms for neural networks In the two preceding chapters we discussed two closely related models, McCulloch–Pitts units and perceptrons, but the question of how to find the parameters adequate for a given task was left open. If two sets of points have to be separated linearly with a perceptron, adequate weights for the comput- ing unit must be found. The operators that we used in the preceding chapter, for example for edge detection, used hand customized weights. Now we would like to find those parameters automatically. The perceptron learning algorithm deals with this problem. A learning algorithm is an adaptive method by which a network of com- puting units self-organizes to implement the desired behavior. This is done in some learning algorithms by presenting some examples of the desired input- output mapping to the network. A correction step is executed iteratively until the network learns to produce the desired response. The learning algorithm is a closed loop of presentation of examples and of corrections to the network parameters, as shown in Figure 4.1. network test input-output compute the examples error fix network parameters Fig. 4.1. Learning process in a parametric system R. Rojas: Neural Networks, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996 78 4 Perceptron Learning In some simple cases the weights for the computing units can be found through a sequential test of stochastically generated numerical combinations. However, such algorithms which look blindly for a solution do not qualify as “learning”. A learning algorithm must adapt the network parameters accord- ing to previous experience until a solution is found, if it exists.
    [Show full text]
  • Linear Separation
    Supervised Learning (contd) Linear Separation Mausam (based on slides by UW-AI faculty) 1 Images as Vectors Binary handwritten characters Treat an image as a high- dimensional vector (e.g., by reading pixel values left to right, top to bottom row) p1 p 2 I Greyscale images pN 2 pN Pixel value pi can be 0 or 1 (binary image) or 0 to 255 (greyscale) 2 The human brain is extremely good at classifying images Can we develop classification methods by emulating the brain? 3 4 Neurons communicate via spikes Inputs Output spike (electrical pulse) Output spike roughly dependent on whether sum of all inputs reaches a threshold 5 Neurons as “Threshold Units” Artificial neuron: • m binary inputs (-1 or 1), 1 output (-1 or 1) • Synaptic weights wji • Threshold i w1i Weighted Sum Threshold Inputs uj w 2i Output vi (-1 or +1) (-1 or +1) w3i vi (wjiu j i ) j (x) = 1 if x > 0 and -1 if x 0 6 “Perceptrons” for Classification Fancy name for a type of layered “feed-forward” networks (no loops) Uses artificial neurons (“units”) with binary inputs and outputs Multilayer Single-layer 7 Perceptrons and Classification Consider a single-layer perceptron • Weighted sum forms a linear hyperplane wjiu j i 0 j • Everything on one side of this hyperplane is in class 1 (output = +1) and everything on other side is class 2 (output = -1) Any function that is linearly separable can be computed by a perceptron 8 Linear Separability Example: AND is linearly separable Linear hyperplane u1 u2 AND -1 -1 -1 u 2 (1,1) v 1 -1 -1 1 = 1.5 -1 1 -1 u1 1 1 1 -1
    [Show full text]
  • Supervised.Pdf
    patterns, predictions, and actions - 2021-09-27 1 3 Supervised learning Previously, we talked about the fundamentals of prediction and statistical modeling of populations. Our goal was, broadly speaking, to use available information described by a random variable X to conjecture about an unknown outcome Y. In the important special case of a binary outcome Y, we saw that we can write an optimal predictor Yb as a threshold of some function f : Yb(x) = 1 f (x) > t f g We saw that in many cases the optimal function is a ratio of two likelihood functions. This optimal predictor has a serious limitation in practice, however. To be able to compute the prediction for a given input, we need to know a probability density function for the positive instances in our problem and also one for the negative instances. But we are often unable to construct or unwilling to assume a particular density function. As a thought experiment, attempt to imagine what a probability density function over images labeled cat might look like. Coming up with such a density function appears to be a formidable task, one that’s not intuitively any easier than merely classifying whether an image contains a cat or not. In this chapter, we transition from a purely mathematical charac- terization of optimal predictors to an algorithmic framework. This framework has two components. One is the idea of working with fi- nite samples from a population. The other is the theory of supervised learning and it tells us how to use finite samples to build predictors algorithmically.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1811.05321V1 [Cs.LG] 11 Nov 2018 (E.G
    Correction of AI systems by linear discriminants: Probabilistic foundations A.N. Gorbana,b,∗, A. Golubkovc, B. Grechuka, E.M. Mirkesa,b, I.Y. Tyukina,b aDepartment of Mathematics, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK bLobachevsky University, Nizhni Novgorod, Russia cSaint-Petersburg State Electrotechnical University, Saint-Petersburg, Russia Abstract Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems sometimes make errors and will make errors in the future, from time to time. These errors are usually unexpected, and can lead to dramatic consequences. Intensive development of AI and its practical applications makes the problem of errors more important. Total re-engineering of the systems can create new errors and is not always possible due to the resources involved. The important challenge is to develop fast methods to correct errors without damaging existing skills. We formulated the technical requirements to the ‘ideal’ correctors. Such correctors include binary classifiers, which separate the situations with high risk of errors from the situations where the AI systems work properly. Surprisingly, for essentially high-dimensional data such methods are possible: simple linear Fisher discriminant can separate the situations with errors from correctly solved tasks even for exponentially large samples. The paper presents the probabilistic basis for fast non-destructive correction of AI systems. A series of new stochastic separation theorems is proven. These theorems provide new instruments for fast non-iterative correction of errors of legacy AI systems. The new approaches become efficient in high-dimensions, for correction of high-dimensional systems in high-dimensional world (i.e. for processing of essentially high-dimensional data by large systems). We prove that this separability property holds for a wide class of distributions including log-concave distributions and distributions with a special ‘SMeared Absolute Continuity’ (SmAC) property defined through relations between the volume and probability of sets of vanishing volume.
    [Show full text]
  • Hyperplane Separability and Convexity of Probabilistic Point Sets
    Hyperplane Separability and Convexity of Probabilistic Point Sets Martin Fink∗1, John Hershberger2, Nirman Kumar†3, and Subhash Suri‡4 1 University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA 2 Mentor Graphics Corp., Wilsonville, OR, USA 3 University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA 4 University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA Abstract We describe an O(nd) time algorithm for computing the exact probability that two d-dimensional probabilistic point sets are linearly separable, for any fixed d ≥ 2. A probabilistic point in d-space is the usual point, but with an associated (independent) probability of existence. We also show that the d-dimensional separability problem is equivalent to a (d + 1)-dimensional convex hull membership problem, which asks for the probability that a query point lies inside the convex hull of n probabilistic points. Using this reduction, we improve the current best bound for the convex hull membership by a factor of n [6]. In addition, our algorithms can handle “input degeneracies” in which more than k + 1 points may lie on a k-dimensional subspace, thus resolving an open problem in [6]. Finally, we prove lower bounds for the separability problem via a reduction from the k-SUM problem, which shows in particular that our O(n2) algorithms for 2-dimensional separability and 3-dimensional convex hull membership are nearly optimal. 1998 ACM Subject Classification I.3.5 Computational Geometry and Object Modeling, F.2.2 Nonnumerical Algorithms and Problems, G.3 Probability and Statistics Keywords and phrases probabilistic separability, uncertain data, 3-SUM hardness, topological sweep, hyperplane separation, multi-dimensional data Digital Object Identifier 10.4230/LIPIcs.SoCG.2016.38 1 Introduction Multi-dimensional point sets are a commonly used abstraction for modeling and analyzing data in many domains.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Feedforward Neural Networks
    EEL5840: Machine Intelligence Introduction to feedforward neural networks Introduction to feedforward neural networks 1. Problem statement and historical context A. Learning framework Figure 1 below illustrates the basic framework that we will see in artificial neural network learning. We assume that we want to learn a classification task G with n inputs and m outputs, where, y = G()x , (1) T T x = x1 x2 … xn and y = y1 y2 … ym . (2) In order to do this modeling, let us assume a model Γ with trainable parameter vector w , such that, z = Γ()xw, (3) where, T z = z1 z2 … zm . (4) Now, we want to minimize the error between the desired outputs y and the model outputs z for all possible inputs x . That is, we want to find the parameter vector w∗ so that, E()w∗ ≤E()w , ∀w , (5) where E()w denotes the error between G and Γ for model parameter vector w . Ideally, E()w is given by, E()w = ∫ yz– 2p()x dx (6) x where p()x denotes the probability density function over the input space x . Note that E()w in equation (6) is dependent on w through z [see equation (3)]. Now, in general, we cannot compute equation (6) directly; therefore, we typically compute E()w for a training data set of input/output data, {}()xi, yi , i ∈{12,,…,p}, (7) where xi is the n -dimensional input vector, T xi = xi1 xi2 … xin (8) corresponding to the i th training pattern, and yi is the m -dimensional output vector, x1 y1 x2 Unknown mapping G y2 ed outputs inputs … … x y n m desir z1 Trainable model Γ z2 … … zm model outputs Figure 1 - 1 - EEL5840: Machine Intelligence Introduction to feedforward neural networks T yi = yi1 yi2 … yim (9) corresponding to the i th training pattern, i ∈{12,,…,p}.
    [Show full text]
  • The Linear Separability Problem: Some Testing Methods D
    330 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL NETWORKS, VOL. 17, NO. 2, MARCH 2006 The Linear Separability Problem: Some Testing Methods D. Elizondo Abstract—The notion of linear separability is used widely in ma- chine learning research. Learning algorithms that use this concept to learn include neural networks (single layer perceptron and re- cursive deterministic perceptron), and kernel machines (support vector machines). This paper presents an overview of several of the methods for testing linear separability between two classes. The methods are divided into four groups: Those based on linear pro- gramming, those based on computational geometry, one based on neural networks, and one based on quadratic programming. The Fisher linear discriminant method is also presented. A section on the quantification of the complexity of classification problems is in- cluded. Index Terms—Class of separability, computational geometry, convex hull, Fisher linear discriminant, linear programming, linear separability, quadratic programming, simplex, support vector machine. I. INTRODUCTION WO SUBSETS and of are said to be linearly T separable (LS) if there exists a hyperplane of such that the elements of and those of lie on opposite sides of it. Fig. 1 shows an example of LS and NLS set of points. Squares and circles denote the two classes. Linear separability is an important topic in the domain of machine learning and cognitive psychology. A linear model is rather robust against noise and most likely will not over fit. Mul- tilayer non linear neural networks, such as the back propagation algorithm, work well for classification problems. However, as the experience of perceptrons has shown, there are many real life problems in which there is a linear separation.
    [Show full text]
  • Perceptron (Theory) + Linear Regression
    10-601 Introduction to Machine Learning Machine Learning Department School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Perceptron (Theory) + Linear Regression Matt Gormley Lecture 6 Feb. 5, 2018 1 Q&A Q: I can’t read the chalkboard, can you write larger? A: Sure. Just raise your hand and let me Know if you can’t read something. Q: I’m concerned that you won’t be able to read my solution in the homeworK template because it’s so tiny, can I use my own template? A: No. However, we do all of our grading online and can zoom in to view your solution! Make it as small as you need to. 2 Reminders • Homework 2: Decision Trees – Out: Wed, Jan 24 – Due: Mon, Feb 5 at 11:59pm • Homework 3: KNN, Perceptron, Lin.Reg. – Out: Mon, Feb 5 …possibly delayed – Due: Mon, Feb 12 at 11:59pm by two days 3 ANALYSIS OF PERCEPTRON 4 Geometric Margin Definition: The margin of example ! w.r.t. a linear sep. " is the distance from ! to the plane " ⋅ ! = 0 (or the negative if on wrong side) Margin of positive example !' !' w Margin of negative example !( !( Slide from Nina Balcan Geometric Margin Definition: The margin of example ! w.r.t. a linear sep. " is the distance from ! to the plane " ⋅ ! = 0 (or the negative if on wrong side) Definition: The margin )* of a set of examples + wrt a linear separator " is the smallest margin over points ! ∈ +. + + + w )* + ) + - * + - + - - - + - - Slide from Nina Balcan - - Geometric Margin Definition: The margin of example ! w.r.t. a linear sep.
    [Show full text]