亚洲男人的天堂2018av,欧美草比,久久久久久免费视频精选,国色天香在线看免费,久久久久亚洲av成人片仓井空

$l^q$-regularization has been demonstrated to be an attractive technique in machine learning and statistical modeling. It attempts to improve the generalization (prediction) capability of a machine (model) through appropriately shrinking its coefficients. The shape of a $l^q$ estimator differs in varying choices of the regularization order $q$. In particular, $l^1$ leads to the LASSO estimate, while $l^{2}$ corresponds to the smooth ridge regression. This makes the order $q$ a potential tuning parameter in applications. To facilitate the use of $l^{q}$-regularization, we intend to seek for a modeling strategy where an elaborative selection on $q$ is avoidable. In this spirit, we place our investigation within a general framework of $l^{q}$-regularized kernel learning under a sample dependent hypothesis space (SDHS). For a designated class of kernel functions, we show that all $l^{q}$ estimators for $0< q < \infty$ attain similar generalization error bounds. These estimated bounds are almost optimal in the sense that up to a logarithmic factor, the upper and lower bounds are asymptotically identical. This finding tentatively reveals that, in some modeling contexts, the choice of $q$ might not have a strong impact in terms of the generalization capability. From this perspective, $q$ can be arbitrarily specified, or specified merely by other no generalization criteria like smoothness, computational complexity, sparsity, etc..

Better understanding of Large Language Models' (LLMs) legal analysis abilities can contribute to improving the efficiency of legal services, governing artificial intelligence, and leveraging LLMs to identify inconsistencies in law. This paper explores LLM capabilities in applying tax law. We choose this area of law because it has a structure that allows us to set up automated validation pipelines across thousands of examples, requires logical reasoning and maths skills, and enables us to test LLM capabilities in a manner relevant to real-world economic lives of citizens and companies. Our experiments demonstrate emerging legal understanding capabilities, with improved performance in each subsequent OpenAI model release. We experiment with retrieving and utilising the relevant legal authority to assess the impact of providing additional legal context to LLMs. Few-shot prompting, presenting examples of question-answer pairs, is also found to significantly enhance the performance of the most advanced model, GPT-4. The findings indicate that LLMs, particularly when combined with prompting enhancements and the correct legal texts, can perform at high levels of accuracy but not yet at expert tax lawyer levels. As LLMs continue to advance, their ability to reason about law autonomously could have significant implications for the legal profession and AI governance.

Discovering causal relationships from observational data is a challenging task that relies on assumptions connecting statistical quantities to graphical or algebraic causal models. In this work, we focus on widely employed assumptions for causal discovery when objects of interest are (multivariate) groups of random variables rather than individual (univariate) random variables, as is the case in a variety of problems in scientific domains such as climate science or neuroscience. If the group-level causal models are derived from partitioning a micro-level model into groups, we explore the relationship between micro and group-level causal discovery assumptions. We investigate the conditions under which assumptions like Causal Faithfulness hold or fail to hold. Our analysis encompasses graphical causal models that contain cycles and bidirected edges. We also discuss grouped time series causal graphs and variants thereof as special cases of our general theoretical framework. Thereby, we aim to provide researchers with a solid theoretical foundation for the development and application of causal discovery methods for variable groups.

When AI agents don't align their actions with human values they may cause serious harm. One way to solve the value alignment problem is by including a human operator who monitors all of the agent's actions. Despite the fact, that this solution guarantees maximal safety, it is very inefficient, since it requires the human operator to dedicate all of his attention to the agent. In this paper, we propose a much more efficient solution that allows an operator to be engaged in other activities without neglecting his monitoring task. In our approach the AI agent requests permission from the operator only for critical actions, that is, potentially harmful actions. We introduce the concept of critical actions with respect to AI safety and discuss how to build a model that measures action criticality. We also discuss how the operator's feedback could be used to make the agent smarter.

Ensuring the security of networked systems is a significant problem, considering the susceptibility of modern infrastructures and technologies to adversarial interference. A central component of this problem is how defensive resources should be allocated to mitigate the severity of potential attacks on the system. In this paper, we consider this in the context of a General Lotto game, where a defender and attacker deploys resources on the nodes of a network, and the objective is to secure as many links as possible. The defender secures a link only if it out-competes the attacker on both of its associated nodes. For bipartite networks, we completely characterize equilibrium payoffs and strategies for both the defender and attacker. Surprisingly, the resulting payoffs are the same for any bipartite graph. On arbitrary network structures, we provide lower and upper bounds on the defender's max-min value. Notably, the equilibrium payoff from bipartite networks serves as the lower bound. These results suggest that more connected networks are easier to defend against attacks. We confirm these findings with simulations that compute deterministic allocation strategies on large random networks. This also highlights the importance of randomization in the equilibrium strategies.

Purpose. In this study, we want to identify current possible causes for citing and referencing errors in scholarly literature to compare if something changed from the snapshot provided Sweetland in his 1989 paper. Design/methodology/approach. We analysed reference elements, i.e. bibliographic references, mentions, quotations, and respective in-text reference pointers, from 729 articles published in 147 journals across the 27 subject areas. Findings. The outcomes of our analysis pointed out that bibliographic errors have been perpetuated for decades and that their possible causes have increased, despite the encouraged use of technological facilities, i.e., the reference managers. Originality. As far as we know, our study is the best recent available analysis of errors in referencing and citing practices in the literature since Sweetland (1989).

This study analyzes the possible relationship between personality traits, in terms of Big Five (extraversion, agreeableness, responsibility, emotional stability and openness to experience), and social interactions mediated by digital platforms in different socioeconomic and cultural contexts. We considered data from a questionnaire and the experience of using a chatbot, as a mean of requesting and offering help, with students from 4 universities: University of Trento (Italy), the National University of Mongolia, the School of Economics of London (United Kingdom) and the Universidad Cat\'olica Nuestra Se\~nora de la Asunci\'on (Paraguay). The main findings confirm that personality traits may influence social interactions and active participation in groups. Therefore, they should be taken into account to enrich the recommendation of matching algorithms between people who ask for help and people who could respond not only on the basis of their knowledge and skills.

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is important for reliability assessment and enhancement of machine learning models. In deep learning, uncertainties arise not only from data, but also from the training procedure that often injects substantial noises and biases. These hinder the attainment of statistical guarantees and, moreover, impose computational challenges on UQ due to the need for repeated network retraining. Building upon the recent neural tangent kernel theory, we create statistically guaranteed schemes to principally \emph{quantify}, and \emph{remove}, the procedural uncertainty of over-parameterized neural networks with very low computation effort. In particular, our approach, based on what we call a procedural-noise-correcting (PNC) predictor, removes the procedural uncertainty by using only \emph{one} auxiliary network that is trained on a suitably labeled data set, instead of many retrained networks employed in deep ensembles. Moreover, by combining our PNC predictor with suitable light-computation resampling methods, we build several approaches to construct asymptotically exact-coverage confidence intervals using as low as four trained networks without additional overheads.

We study the Pareto frontier of two archetypal objectives in multi-armed bandits, namely, regret minimization (RM) and best arm identification (BAI) with a fixed horizon. It is folklore that the balance between exploitation and exploration is crucial for both RM and BAI, but exploration is more critical in achieving the optimal performance for the latter objective. To this end, we design and analyze the BoBW-lil'UCB$(\gamma)$ algorithm. Complementarily, by establishing lower bounds on the regret achievable by any algorithm with a given BAI failure probability, we show that (i) no algorithm can simultaneously perform optimally for both the RM and BAI objectives, and (ii) BoBW-lil'UCB$(\gamma)$ achieves order-wise optimal performance for RM or BAI under different values of $\gamma$. Our work elucidates the trade-off more precisely by showing how the constants in previous works depend on certain hardness parameters. Finally, we show that BoBW-lil'UCB outperforms a close competitor UCB$_\alpha$ (Degenne et al., 2019) in terms of the time complexity and the regret on diverse datasets such as MovieLens and Published Kinase Inhibitor Set.

Decision-making algorithms are being used in important decisions, such as who should be enrolled in health care programs and be hired. Even though these systems are currently deployed in high-stakes scenarios, many of them cannot explain their decisions. This limitation has prompted the Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) initiative, which aims to make algorithms explainable to comply with legal requirements, promote trust, and maintain accountability. This paper questions whether and to what extent explainability can help solve the responsibility issues posed by autonomous AI systems. We suggest that XAI systems that provide post-hoc explanations could be seen as blameworthy agents, obscuring the responsibility of developers in the decision-making process. Furthermore, we argue that XAI could result in incorrect attributions of responsibility to vulnerable stakeholders, such as those who are subjected to algorithmic decisions (i.e., patients), due to a misguided perception that they have control over explainable algorithms. This conflict between explainability and accountability can be exacerbated if designers choose to use algorithms and patients as moral and legal scapegoats. We conclude with a set of recommendations for how to approach this tension in the socio-technical process of algorithmic decision-making and a defense of hard regulation to prevent designers from escaping responsibility.