Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.optics    |    Discussion relating to the science of op    |    12,750 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 11,872 of 12,750    |
|    haiticare2011@gmail.com to All    |
|    Search heuristics vs. detection methods    |
|    01 Jun 14 07:34:33    |
      When I lived in SF area, I often passed an AA gentleman fishing by the bay. He       had his fishing pole jammed in a rock pile. He made a point of saying, "Let       your pole do the fishing." After a while, it became a joke, as I would beat       him to the saying.              Maybe in another time frame and society, he would have been an AI engineer.       Maybe       not.              I never did fully satisfy myself what he meant, but in the case of knowledge       discovery by computer-sensor arrangements, all that is needed are heuristics       rather than certain certainties of which we are certain, certainly.              IOW, a way to find things out that works 'sometimes' is OK. Extra points if the       'sometimes' heuristic can report to itself it's success or failure -              In the case of neural nets, 95% of the work is done with something called a       Widrow-Hoff three layer back prop network. That is the work horse of pattern       discovery with ANN.              Here is the simple way in which it's success is self-reported. (though there       are        many others.) 20% of the training set is "held out" during training, eg, it is       not used for the training. What happens during training (by the 80% set) is       that       the hold out set accuracy peaks and then declines. The decline is of course       'over fitting.'              So the question is, does anyone have their favorite heuristic for looking at       data?              AND - It could be how you tell a cup of coffee is hot by feeling the cup       or looking at the steam.              But could also be imaging, spectroscopy, etc.              I don't expect a response here, but random thoughts OK.              jb              PS - And of course, ANN are not a general panacea. If ANN were really good,       they would be used for the pattern recognition part of speech recognition.       But they aren't - They play a supporting role in phoneme detection only.       The heart of the system is HMM - another AI paradigm entirely.       But ANN are easy to use and think about. When I interviewed at Google, the       question was "Design a complete email spam detector. (now)." White       boarding such a thing becomes easy with ANN as a component.       j              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca