In statistics and machine learning, leakage (also known as data leakage or target leakage) refers to the use of information during model training that would not be available at prediction time. This results in overly optimistic performance estimates, as the model appears to perform better during evaluation than it actually would in a production environment. Leakage is often subtle and indirect, making it difficult to detect and eliminate. It can lead a statistician or modeler to select a suboptimal model, which may be outperformed by a leakage-free alternative. == Leakage modes == Leakage can occur at multiple stages of the machine learning workflow. Broadly, its sources can be divided into two categories: those arising from features and those arising from training examples. === Feature leakage === Feature or column-wise leakage is caused by the inclusion of columns which are one of the following: a duplicate label, a proxy for the label, or the label itself. These features, known as anachronisms, will not be available when the model is used for predictions, and result in leakage if included when the model is trained. For example, including a "MonthlySalary" column when predicting "YearlySalary"; or "MinutesLate" when predicting "IsLate". === Training example leakage === Row-wise leakage is caused by improper sharing of information between rows of data. Types of row-wise leakage include: Premature featurization; leaking from premature featurization before Cross-validation/Train/Test split (must fit MinMax/ngrams/etc on only the train split, then transform the test set) Duplicate rows between train/validation/test (for example, oversampling a dataset to pad its size before splitting; or, different rotations/augmentations of a single image; bootstrap sampling before splitting; or duplicating rows to up sample the minority class) Non-independent and identically distributed random (non-IID) data Time leakage (for example, splitting a time-series dataset randomly instead of newer data in test set using a train/test split or rolling-origin cross-validation) Group leakage—not including a grouping split column (for example, Andrew Ng's group had 100k x-rays of 30k patients, meaning ~3 images per patient. The paper used random splitting instead of ensuring that all images of a patient were in the same split. Hence the model partially memorized the patients instead of learning to recognize pneumonia in chest x-rays.) A 2023 review found data leakage to be "a widespread failure mode in machine-learning (ML)-based science", having affected at least 294 academic publications across 17 disciplines, and causing a potential reproducibility crisis. == Detection == Data leakage in machine learning can be detected through various methods, focusing on performance analysis, feature examination, data auditing, and model behavior analysis. Performance-wise, unusually high accuracy or significant discrepancies between training and test results often indicate leakage. Inconsistent cross-validation outcomes may also signal issues. Feature examination involves scrutinizing feature importance rankings and ensuring temporal integrity in time series data. A thorough audit of the data pipeline is crucial, reviewing pre-processing steps, feature engineering, and data splitting processes. Detecting duplicate entries across dataset splits is also important. For language models, the Min-K% method can detect the presence of data in a pretraining dataset. It presents a sentence suspected to be present in the pretraining dataset, and computes the log-likelihood of each token, then compute the average of the lowest K of these. If this exceeds a threshold, then the sentence is likely present. This method is improved by comparing against a baseline of the mean and variance. Analyzing model behavior can reveal leakage. Models relying heavily on counter-intuitive features or showing unexpected prediction patterns warrant investigation. Performance degradation over time when tested on new data may suggest earlier inflated metrics due to leakage. Advanced techniques include backward feature elimination, where suspicious features are temporarily removed to observe performance changes. Using a separate hold-out dataset for final validation before deployment is advisable.
Art Recognition
Art Recognition is a Swiss technology company headquartered in Adliswil, within the Zurich metropolitan area, Switzerland. Art Recognition specializes in the application of artificial intelligence (AI) for art authentication and the detection of art forgeries. == Overview == Art Recognition was established in 2019 by Dr. Carina Popovici and Christiane Hoppe-Oehl. Art Recognition employs a combination of machine learning techniques, computer vision algorithms, and deep neural networks to assess the authenticity of artworks. The company's technology undergoes a process of data collection, dataset preparation, and training. === Academic partnerships and grants === Art Recognition has established a relationship with Innosuisse, a Swiss innovation agency, to expand its research and development initiatives. It has also formed a strategic collaboration with Nils Büttner, an art historian and professor at the State Academy of Fine Arts Stuttgart (ABK Stuttgart). === Notable developments === In May 2024, Art Recognition played a key role in identifying counterfeit artworks, including alleged Monets and Renoirs, being sold on eBay. Germann Auction in November 2024 became the first auction house to successfully conduct a sale of artwork authenticated entirely by artificial intelligence. As of January 2025, Art Recognition has appointed art crime expert and Pulitzer Prize finalist Noah Charney as an advisor. === Recognition and debates === The company was featured on the front page of The Wall Street Journal for its involvement in the authentication case of the Flaget Madonna, believed to have been partly painted by Raphael. A broadcast by the Swiss public television SRF covered how the algorithm can be used to detect art forgeries with high accuracy. The technology developed by Art Recognition has been recognized for its role in providing a technology-based art authentication solution, compared to traditional methods. == Controversial cases == Art Recognition's AI algorithm has been applied to several high-profile and controversial artworks, sparking significant interest and debate in the art world. Samson and Delilah at the National Gallery in London: The National Gallery's "Samson and Delilah", traditionally attributed to the artist Rubens, has also been examined using Art Recognition's AI, which has assessed the painting as non-authentic. De Brecy Tondo Madonna. A research team from Bradford University and the University of Nottingham initially attributed the painting to Raphael, employing an AI face recognition software, while the AI developed at Art Recognition returned a negative result. The Bradford group's AI was trained on 49 images, whereas Art Recognition employed a larger dataset of over 100 images. Lucian Freud Painting Controversy: Featured in The New Yorker, a painting attributed to Lucian Freud became a subject of dispute. Art Recognition's AI analysis played a big role in examining the painting's authenticity. Titian at Kunsthaus Zürich: A painting attributed to Titian, housed at Kunsthaus Zürich, has been a topic of debate among art experts. The application of Art Recognition's technology offered a new perspective. Following this debate, Kunsthaus Zürich has announced plans to initiate a comprehensive project aimed at resolving the authenticity questions surrounding the painting. Art Recognition has contributed to the authentication debate surrounding The Polish Rider, a painting traditionally attributed to Rembrandt but subject to scholarly debate.
Birkhoff algorithm
Birkhoff's algorithm (also called Birkhoff-von-Neumann algorithm) is an algorithm for decomposing a bistochastic matrix into a convex combination of permutation matrices. It was published by Garrett Birkhoff in 1946. It has many applications. One such application is for the problem of fair random assignment: given a randomized allocation of items, Birkhoff's algorithm can decompose it into a lottery on deterministic allocations. == Terminology == A bistochastic matrix (also called: doubly-stochastic) is a matrix in which all elements are greater than or equal to 0 and the sum of the elements in each row and column equals 1. An example is the following 3-by-3 matrix: ( 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}0.2&0.3&0.5\\0.6&0.2&0.2\\0.2&0.5&0.3\end{pmatrix}}} A permutation matrix is a special case of a bistochastic matrix, in which each element is either 0 or 1 (so there is exactly one "1" in each row and each column). An example is the following 3-by-3 matrix: ( 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}0&1&0\\0&0&1\\1&0&0\end{pmatrix}}} A Birkhoff decomposition (also called: Birkhoff-von-Neumann decomposition) of a bistochastic matrix is a presentation of it as a sum of permutation matrices with non-negative weights. For example, the above matrix can be presented as the following sum: 0.2 ( 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 ) + 0.2 ( 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ) + 0.1 ( 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 ) + 0.5 ( 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 ) {\displaystyle 0.2{\begin{pmatrix}0&1&0\\0&0&1\\1&0&0\end{pmatrix}}+0.2{\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\\0&1&0\\0&0&1\end{pmatrix}}+0.1{\begin{pmatrix}0&1&0\\1&0&0\\0&0&1\end{pmatrix}}+0.5{\begin{pmatrix}0&0&1\\1&0&0\\0&1&0\end{pmatrix}}} Birkhoff's algorithm receives as input a bistochastic matrix and returns as output a Birkhoff decomposition. == Tools == A permutation set of an n-by-n matrix X is a set of n entries of X containing exactly one entry from each row and from each column. A theorem by Dénes Kőnig says that: Every bistochastic matrix has a permutation-set in which all entries are positive.The positivity graph of an n-by-n matrix X is a bipartite graph with 2n vertices, in which the vertices on one side are n rows and the vertices on the other side are the n columns, and there is an edge between a row and a column if the entry at that row and column is positive. A permutation set with positive entries is equivalent to a perfect matching in the positivity graph. A perfect matching in a bipartite graph can be found in polynomial time, e.g. using any algorithm for maximum cardinality matching. Kőnig's theorem is equivalent to the following:The positivity graph of any bistochastic matrix admits a perfect matching.A matrix is called scaled-bistochastic if all elements are non-negative, and the sum of each row and column equals c, where c is some positive constant. In other words, it is c times a bistochastic matrix. Since the positivity graph is not affected by scaling:The positivity graph of any scaled-bistochastic matrix admits a perfect matching. == Algorithm == Birkhoff's algorithm is a greedy algorithm: it greedily finds perfect matchings and removes them from the fractional matching. It works as follows. Let i = 1. Construct the positivity graph GX of X. Find a perfect matching in GX, corresponding to a positive permutation set in X. Let z[i] > 0 be the smallest entry in the permutation set. Let P[i] be a permutation matrix with 1 in the positive permutation set. Let X := X − z[i] P[i]. If X contains nonzero elements, Let i = i + 1 and go back to step 2. Otherwise, return the sum: z[1] P[1] + ... + z[2] P[2] + ... + z[i] P[i]. The algorithm is correct because, after step 6, the sum in each row and each column drops by z[i]. Therefore, the matrix X remains scaled-bistochastic. Therefore, in step 3, a perfect matching always exists. == Run-time complexity == By the selection of z[i] in step 4, in each iteration at least one element of X becomes 0. Therefore, the algorithm must end after at most n2 steps. However, the last step must simultaneously make n elements 0, so the algorithm ends after at most n2 − n + 1 steps, which implies O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} . In 1960, Joshnson, Dulmage and Mendelsohn showed that Birkhoff's algorithm actually ends after at most n2 − 2n + 2 steps, which is tight in general (that is, in some cases n2 − 2n + 2 permutation matrices may be required). == Application in fair division == In the fair random assignment problem, there are n objects and n people with different preferences over the objects. It is required to give an object to each person. To attain fairness, the allocation is randomized: for each (person, object) pair, a probability is calculated, such that the sum of probabilities for each person and for each object is 1. The probabilistic-serial procedure can compute the probabilities such that each agent, looking at the matrix of probabilities, prefers his row of probabilities over the rows of all other people (this property is called envy-freeness). This raises the question of how to implement this randomized allocation in practice? One cannot just randomize for each object separately, since this may result in allocations in which some people get many objects while other people get no objects. Here, Birkhoff's algorithm is useful. The matrix of probabilities, calculated by the probabilistic-serial algorithm, is bistochastic. Birkhoff's algorithm can decompose it into a convex combination of permutation matrices. Each permutation matrix represents a deterministic assignment, in which every agent receives exactly one object. The coefficient of each such matrix is interpreted as a probability; based on the calculated probabilities, it is possible to pick one assignment at random and implement it. == Extensions == The problem of computing the Birkhoff decomposition with the minimum number of terms has been shown to be NP-hard, but some heuristics for computing it are known. This theorem can be extended for the general stochastic matrix with deterministic transition matrices. Budish, Che, Kojima and Milgrom generalize Birkhoff's algorithm to non-square matrices, with some constraints on the feasible assignments. They also present a decomposition algorithm that minimizes the variance in the expected values. Vazirani generalizes Birkhoff's algorithm to non-bipartite graphs. Valls et al. showed that it is possible to obtain an ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } -approximate decomposition with O ( log ( 1 / ϵ 2 ) ) {\displaystyle O(\log(1/\epsilon ^{2}))} permutations.
Zassenhaus algorithm
In mathematics, the Zassenhaus algorithm is a method to calculate a basis for the intersection and sum of two subspaces of a vector space. It is named after Hans Zassenhaus, but no publication of this algorithm by him is known. It is used in computer algebra systems. == Algorithm == === Input === Let V be a vector space and U, W two finite-dimensional subspaces of V with the following spanning sets: U = ⟨ u 1 , … , u n ⟩ {\displaystyle U=\langle u_{1},\ldots ,u_{n}\rangle } and W = ⟨ w 1 , … , w k ⟩ . {\displaystyle W=\langle w_{1},\ldots ,w_{k}\rangle .} Finally, let B 1 , … , B m {\displaystyle B_{1},\ldots ,B_{m}} be linearly independent vectors so that u i {\displaystyle u_{i}} and w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} can be written as u i = ∑ j = 1 m a i , j B j {\displaystyle u_{i}=\sum _{j=1}^{m}a_{i,j}B_{j}} and w i = ∑ j = 1 m b i , j B j . {\displaystyle w_{i}=\sum _{j=1}^{m}b_{i,j}B_{j}.} === Output === The algorithm computes the base of the sum U + W {\displaystyle U+W} and a base of the intersection U ∩ W {\displaystyle U\cap W} . === Algorithm === The algorithm creates the following block matrix of size ( ( n + k ) × ( 2 m ) ) {\displaystyle ((n+k)\times (2m))} : ( a 1 , 1 a 1 , 2 ⋯ a 1 , m a 1 , 1 a 1 , 2 ⋯ a 1 , m ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ a n , 1 a n , 2 ⋯ a n , m a n , 1 a n , 2 ⋯ a n , m b 1 , 1 b 1 , 2 ⋯ b 1 , m 0 0 ⋯ 0 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ b k , 1 b k , 2 ⋯ b k , m 0 0 ⋯ 0 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}a_{1,1}&a_{1,2}&\cdots &a_{1,m}&a_{1,1}&a_{1,2}&\cdots &a_{1,m}\\\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots \\a_{n,1}&a_{n,2}&\cdots &a_{n,m}&a_{n,1}&a_{n,2}&\cdots &a_{n,m}\\b_{1,1}&b_{1,2}&\cdots &b_{1,m}&0&0&\cdots &0\\\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots \\b_{k,1}&b_{k,2}&\cdots &b_{k,m}&0&0&\cdots &0\end{pmatrix}}} Using elementary row operations, this matrix is transformed to the row echelon form. Then, it has the following shape: ( c 1 , 1 c 1 , 2 ⋯ c 1 , m ∙ ∙ ⋯ ∙ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ c q , 1 c q , 2 ⋯ c q , m ∙ ∙ ⋯ ∙ 0 0 ⋯ 0 d 1 , 1 d 1 , 2 ⋯ d 1 , m ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 0 0 ⋯ 0 d ℓ , 1 d ℓ , 2 ⋯ d ℓ , m 0 0 ⋯ 0 0 0 ⋯ 0 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 0 0 ⋯ 0 0 0 ⋯ 0 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}c_{1,1}&c_{1,2}&\cdots &c_{1,m}&\bullet &\bullet &\cdots &\bullet \\\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots \\c_{q,1}&c_{q,2}&\cdots &c_{q,m}&\bullet &\bullet &\cdots &\bullet \\0&0&\cdots &0&d_{1,1}&d_{1,2}&\cdots &d_{1,m}\\\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots \\0&0&\cdots &0&d_{\ell ,1}&d_{\ell ,2}&\cdots &d_{\ell ,m}\\0&0&\cdots &0&0&0&\cdots &0\\\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots \\0&0&\cdots &0&0&0&\cdots &0\end{pmatrix}}} Here, ∙ {\displaystyle \bullet } stands for arbitrary numbers, and the vectors ( c p , 1 , c p , 2 , … , c p , m ) {\displaystyle (c_{p,1},c_{p,2},\ldots ,c_{p,m})} for every p ∈ { 1 , … , q } {\displaystyle p\in \{1,\ldots ,q\}} and ( d p , 1 , … , d p , m ) {\displaystyle (d_{p,1},\ldots ,d_{p,m})} for every p ∈ { 1 , … , ℓ } {\displaystyle p\in \{1,\ldots ,\ell \}} are nonzero. Then ( y 1 , … , y q ) {\displaystyle (y_{1},\ldots ,y_{q})} with y i := ∑ j = 1 m c i , j B j {\displaystyle y_{i}:=\sum _{j=1}^{m}c_{i,j}B_{j}} is a basis of U + W {\displaystyle U+W} and ( z 1 , … , z ℓ ) {\displaystyle (z_{1},\ldots ,z_{\ell })} with z i := ∑ j = 1 m d i , j B j {\displaystyle z_{i}:=\sum _{j=1}^{m}d_{i,j}B_{j}} is a basis of U ∩ W {\displaystyle U\cap W} . === Proof of correctness === First, we define π 1 : V × V → V , ( a , b ) ↦ a {\displaystyle \pi _{1}:V\times V\to V,(a,b)\mapsto a} to be the projection to the first component. Let H := { ( u , u ) ∣ u ∈ U } + { ( w , 0 ) ∣ w ∈ W } ⊆ V × V . {\displaystyle H:=\{(u,u)\mid u\in U\}+\{(w,0)\mid w\in W\}\subseteq V\times V.} Then π 1 ( H ) = U + W {\displaystyle \pi _{1}(H)=U+W} and H ∩ ( 0 × V ) = 0 × ( U ∩ W ) {\displaystyle H\cap (0\times V)=0\times (U\cap W)} . Also, H ∩ ( 0 × V ) {\displaystyle H\cap (0\times V)} is the kernel of π 1 | H {\displaystyle {\pi _{1}|}_{H}} , the projection restricted to H. Therefore, dim ( H ) = dim ( U + W ) + dim ( U ∩ W ) {\displaystyle \dim(H)=\dim(U+W)+\dim(U\cap W)} . The Zassenhaus algorithm calculates a basis of H. In the first m columns of this matrix, there is a basis y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} of U + W {\displaystyle U+W} . The rows of the form ( 0 , z i ) {\displaystyle (0,z_{i})} (with z i ≠ 0 {\displaystyle z_{i}\neq 0} ) are obviously in H ∩ ( 0 × V ) {\displaystyle H\cap (0\times V)} . Because the matrix is in row echelon form, they are also linearly independent. All rows which are different from zero ( ( y i , ∙ ) {\displaystyle (y_{i},\bullet )} and ( 0 , z i ) {\displaystyle (0,z_{i})} ) are a basis of H, so there are dim ( U ∩ W ) {\displaystyle \dim(U\cap W)} such z i {\displaystyle z_{i}} s. Therefore, the z i {\displaystyle z_{i}} s form a basis of U ∩ W {\displaystyle U\cap W} . == Example == Consider the two subspaces U = ⟨ ( 1 − 1 0 1 ) , ( 0 0 1 − 1 ) ⟩ {\displaystyle U=\left\langle \left({\begin{array}{r}1\\-1\\0\\1\end{array}}\right),\left({\begin{array}{r}0\\0\\1\\-1\end{array}}\right)\right\rangle } and W = ⟨ ( 5 0 − 3 3 ) , ( 0 5 − 3 − 2 ) ⟩ {\displaystyle W=\left\langle \left({\begin{array}{r}5\\0\\-3\\3\end{array}}\right),\left({\begin{array}{r}0\\5\\-3\\-2\end{array}}\right)\right\rangle } of the vector space R 4 {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{4}} . Using the standard basis, we create the following matrix of dimension ( 2 + 2 ) × ( 2 ⋅ 4 ) {\displaystyle (2+2)\times (2\cdot 4)} : ( 1 − 1 0 1 1 − 1 0 1 0 0 1 − 1 0 0 1 − 1 5 0 − 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 − 3 − 2 0 0 0 0 ) . {\displaystyle \left({\begin{array}{rrrrrrrr}1&-1&0&1&&1&-1&0&1\\0&0&1&-1&&0&0&1&-1\\\\5&0&-3&3&&0&0&0&0\\0&5&-3&-2&&0&0&0&0\end{array}}\right).} Using elementary row operations, we transform this matrix into the following matrix: ( 1 0 0 0 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 0 1 0 − 1 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 0 0 1 − 1 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 0 0 0 0 1 − 1 0 1 ) {\displaystyle \left({\begin{array}{rrrrrrrrr}1&0&0&0&&\bullet &\bullet &\bullet &\bullet \\0&1&0&-1&&\bullet &\bullet &\bullet &\bullet \\0&0&1&-1&&\bullet &\bullet &\bullet &\bullet \\\\0&0&0&0&&1&-1&0&1\end{array}}\right)} (Some entries have been replaced by " ∙ {\displaystyle \bullet } " because they are irrelevant to the result.) Therefore ( ( 1 0 0 0 ) , ( 0 1 0 − 1 ) , ( 0 0 1 − 1 ) ) {\displaystyle \left(\left({\begin{array}{r}1\\0\\0\\0\end{array}}\right),\left({\begin{array}{r}0\\1\\0\\-1\end{array}}\right),\left({\begin{array}{r}0\\0\\1\\-1\end{array}}\right)\right)} is a basis of U + W {\displaystyle U+W} , and ( ( 1 − 1 0 1 ) ) {\displaystyle \left(\left({\begin{array}{r}1\\-1\\0\\1\end{array}}\right)\right)} is a basis of U ∩ W {\displaystyle U\cap W} .
Causal AI
Causal AI is a technique in artificial intelligence that builds a causal model and can thereby make inferences using causality rather than just correlation. One practical use for causal AI is for organisations to explain decision-making and the causes for a decision. Systems based on causal AI, by identifying the underlying web of causality for a behaviour or event, provide insights that solely predictive AI models might fail to extract from historical data. An analysis of causality may be used to supplement human decisions in situations where understanding the causes behind an outcome is necessary, such as quantifying the impact of different interventions, policy decisions or performing scenario planning. A 2024 paper from Google DeepMind demonstrated mathematically that "Any agent capable of adapting to a sufficiently large set of distributional shifts must have learned a causal model". The paper offers the interpretation that learning to generalise beyond the original training set requires learning a causal model, concluding that causal AI is necessary for artificial general intelligence. == History == The concept of causal AI and the limits of machine learning were raised by Judea Pearl, the Turing Award-winning computer scientist and philosopher, in 2018's The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. Pearl asserted: “Machines' lack of understanding of causal relations is perhaps the biggest roadblock to giving them human-level intelligence.” In 2020, Columbia University established a Causal AI Lab under Director Elias Bareinboim. Professor Bareinboim's research focuses on causal and counterfactual inference and their applications to data-driven fields in the health and social sciences as well as artificial intelligence and machine learning. Technological research and consulting firm Gartner for the first time included causal AI in its 2022 Hype Cycle report, citing it as one of five critical technologies in accelerated AI automation. Causal AI is closely related to but distinct from fields such as causal inference, explainable AI and causal reasoning. While causal inference focuses on estimating cause-effect relationships (often from observational data), causal AI emphasises the integration of those causal models into AI systems for prediction, planning and adaptation.
Data-driven model
Data-driven models are a class of computational models that primarily rely on historical data collected throughout a system's or process' lifetime to establish relationships between input, internal, and output variables. Commonly found in numerous articles and publications, data-driven models have evolved from earlier statistical models, overcoming limitations posed by strict assumptions about probability distributions. These models have gained prominence across various fields, particularly in the era of big data, artificial intelligence, and machine learning, where they offer valuable insights and predictions based on the available data. == Background == These models have evolved from earlier statistical models, which were based on certain assumptions about probability distributions that often proved to be overly restrictive. The emergence of data-driven models in the 1950s and 1960s coincided with the development of digital computers, advancements in artificial intelligence research, and the introduction of new approaches in non-behavioural modelling, such as pattern recognition and automatic classification. == Key Concepts == Data-driven models encompass a wide range of techniques and methodologies that aim to intelligently process and analyse large datasets. Examples include fuzzy logic, fuzzy and rough sets for handling uncertainty, neural networks for approximating functions, global optimization and evolutionary computing, statistical learning theory, and Bayesian methods. These models have found applications in various fields, including economics, customer relations management, financial services, medicine, and the military, among others. Machine learning, a subfield of artificial intelligence, is closely related to data-driven modelling as it also focuses on using historical data to create models that can make predictions and identify patterns. In fact, many data-driven models incorporate machine learning techniques, such as regression, classification, and clustering algorithms, to process and analyse data. In recent years, the concept of data-driven models has gained considerable attention in the field of water resources, with numerous applications, academic courses, and scientific publications using the term as a generalization for models that rely on data rather than physics. This classification has been featured in various publications and has even spurred the development of hybrid models in the past decade. Hybrid models attempt to quantify the degree of physically based information used in hydrological models and determine whether the process of building the model is primarily driven by physics or purely data-based. As a result, data-driven models have become an essential topic of discussion and exploration within water resources management and research. The term "data-driven modelling" (DDM) refers to the overarching paradigm of using historical data in conjunction with advanced computational techniques, including machine learning and artificial intelligence, to create models that can reveal underlying trends, patterns, and, in some cases, make predictions Data-driven models can be built with or without detailed knowledge of the underlying processes governing the system behavior, which makes them particularly useful when such knowledge is missing or fragmented.
Upper ontology
In information science, an upper ontology (also known as a top-level ontology, upper model, or foundation ontology) is an ontology (in the sense used in information science) that consists of very general terms (such as "object", "property", "relation") that are common across all domains. An important function of an upper ontology is to support broad semantic interoperability among a large number of domain-specific ontologies by providing a common starting point for the formulation of definitions. Terms in the domain ontology are ranked under the terms in the upper ontology, e.g., the upper ontology classes are superclasses or supersets of all the classes in the domain ontologies. A number of upper ontologies have been proposed, each with its own proponents. Library classification systems predate upper ontology systems. Though library classifications organize and categorize knowledge using general concepts that are the same across all knowledge domains, neither system is a replacement for the other. == Development == Any standard foundational ontology is likely to be contested among different groups, each with its own idea of "what exists". One factor exacerbating the failure to arrive at a common approach has been the lack of open-source applications that would permit the testing of different ontologies in the same computational environment. The differences have thus been debated largely on theoretical grounds, or are merely the result of personal preferences. Foundational ontologies can however be compared on the basis of adoption for the purposes of supporting interoperability across domain ontologies. No particular upper ontology has yet gained widespread acceptance as a de facto standard. Different organizations have attempted to define standards for specific domains. The 'Process Specification Language' (PSL) created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is one example. Another important factor leading to the absence of wide adoption of any existing upper ontology is the complexity. Some upper ontologies—Cyc is often cited as an example in this regard—are very large, ranging up to thousands of elements (classes, relations), with complex interactions among them and with a complexity similar to that of a human natural language, and the learning process can be even longer than for a natural language because of the unfamiliar format and logical rules. The motivation to overcome this learning barrier is largely absent because of the paucity of publicly accessible examples of use. As a result, those building domain ontologies for local applications tend to create the simplest possible domain-specific ontology, not related to any upper ontology. Such domain ontologies may function adequately for the local purpose, but they are very time-consuming to relate accurately to other domain ontologies. To solve this problem, some genuinely top level ontologies have been developed, which are deliberately designed to have minimal overlap with any domain ontologies. Examples are Basic Formal Ontology and the DOLCE (see below). === Arguments for the infeasibility of an upper ontology === Historically, many attempts in many societies have been made to impose or define a single set of concepts as more primal, basic, foundational, authoritative, true or rational than all others. A common objection to such attempts points out that humans lack the sort of transcendent perspective — or God's eye view — that would be required to achieve this goal. Humans are bound by language or culture, and so lack the sort of objective perspective from which to observe the whole terrain of concepts and derive any one standard. Thomasson, under the headline "1.5 Skepticism about Category Systems", wrote: "category systems, at least as traditionally presented, seem to presuppose that there is a unique true answer to the question of what categories of entity there are – indeed the discovery of this answer is the goal of most such inquiries into ontological categories. [...] But actual category systems offered vary so much that even a short survey of past category systems like that above can undermine the belief that such a unique, true and complete system of categories may be found. Given such a diversity of answers to the question of what the ontological categories are, by what criteria could we possibly choose among them to determine which is uniquely correct?" Another objection is the problem of formulating definitions. Top level ontologies are designed to maximize support for interoperability across a large number of terms. Such ontologies must therefore consist of terms expressing very general concepts, but such concepts are so basic to our understanding that there is no way in which they can be defined, since the very process of definition implies that a less basic (and less well understood) concept is defined in terms of concepts that are more basic and so (ideally) more well understood. Very general concepts can often only be elucidated, for example by means of examples, or paraphrase. There is no self-evident way of dividing the world up into concepts, and certainly no non-controversial one There is no neutral ground that can serve as a means of translating between specialized (or "lower" or "application-specific") ontologies Human language itself is already an arbitrary approximation of just one among many possible conceptual maps. To draw any necessary correlation between English words and any number of intellectual concepts, that we might like to represent in our ontologies, is just asking for trouble. (WordNet, for instance, is successful and useful, precisely because it does not pretend to be a general-purpose upper ontology; rather, it is a tool for semantic / syntactic / linguistic disambiguation, which is richly embedded in the particulars and peculiarities of the English language.) Any hierarchical or topological representation of concepts must begin from some ontological, epistemological, linguistic, cultural, and ultimately pragmatic perspective. Such pragmatism does not allow for the exclusion of politics between persons or groups, indeed it requires they be considered as perhaps more basic primitives than any that are represented. Those who doubt the feasibility of general purpose ontologies are more inclined to ask "what specific purpose do we have in mind for this conceptual map of entities and what practical difference will this ontology make?" This pragmatic philosophical position surrenders all hope of devising the encoded ontology version of "The world is everything that is the case." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). Finally, there are objections similar to those against artificial intelligence. Technically, the complex concept acquisition and the social / linguistic interactions of human beings suggest any axiomatic foundation of "most basic" concepts must be cognitive biological or otherwise difficult to characterize since we don't have axioms for such systems. Ethically, any general-purpose ontology could quickly become an actual tyranny by recruiting adherents into a political program designed to propagate it and its funding means, and possibly defend it by violence. Historically, inconsistent and irrational belief systems have proven capable of commanding obedience to the detriment or harm of persons both inside and outside a society that accepts them. How much more harmful would a consistent rational one be, were it to contain even one or two basic assumptions incompatible with human life? === Arguments for the feasibility of an upper ontology === Many of those who doubt the possibility of developing wide agreement on a common upper ontology fall into one of two traps: they assert that there is no possibility of universal agreement on any conceptual scheme; but they argue that a practical common ontology does not need to have universal agreement, it only needs a large enough user community (as is the case for human languages) to make it profitable for developers to use it as a means to general interoperability, and for third-party developer to develop utilities to make it easier to use; and they point out that developers of data schemes find different representations congenial for their local purposes; but they do not demonstrate that these different representations are in fact logically inconsistent. In fact, different representations of assertions about the real world (though not philosophical models), if they accurately reflect the world, must be logically consistent, even if they focus on different aspects of the same physical object or phenomenon. If any two assertions about the real world are logically inconsistent, one or both must be wrong, and that is a topic for experimental investigation, not for ontological representation. In practice, representations of the real world are created as and known to be approximations to the basic reality, and their use is circumscribed by the limits of e