Affordable affluence refers to a cultural phenomenon where consumers use accessible luxury goods and lifestyles to project status and align themselves with a higher social class, without requiring substantial wealth. This concept is embodied by brands such as Aritzia and Erewhon, which position themselves as offering high-end, trendy, or health-conscious products that are relatively accessible to the average consumer. A related concept is quiet luxury, where the ultra-wealthy signal wealth through subtle means. Quiet luxury emphasizes the widening gap between the ultra-wealthy and the general public, whereas accessible affluence provides a way for the general public to indulge in the lifestyle of the ultra-wealthy. == Origin of the term == An early use of the phrase in this context in a 2023 article in The Cut called "Meet the People Working 3 Jobs to Afford Erewhon." One of the interviewees used Erewhon as an archetype of affordable affluence. It was described as “a way for regular people to position themselves adjacent to the upper class.” == Background and description == The phenomenon arises due to an individual's desire to showcase status. For years, companies have strategized how to target the average consumers by providing a product that signals an elevated social status. For instance, Aritzia partnered with celebrities and micro-influencers to make it an aspirational brand at an affordable cost. Erewhon similarly has allowed middle class consumers to subtly signal a higher degree of perceived wealth by purchasing higher priced, but still attainable items. It has allowed middle-class individuals to feel as though they are part of an exclusive culture. This phenomenon has been seen particularly with Gen Z and Millennials in the setting of financial hardships in the 2020s. Affordable affluence is an example of the lipstick effect. Because traditional status symbols such as expensive cars became relatively more unattainable, posting clips on social media that showcase affordable affluence become an alternative status symbol. Particularly with food, the perception has evolved from a necessity to a luxury. A McKinsey & Company report demonstrated that these generations place a higher importance on groceries than restaurants, travel, and beauty/fashion.
Switch (app)
Switch was a mobile-only job-matching app that connected candidates directly to hiring managers. Candidates could upload their resumes and connect their social and professional media profiles, but remain anonymous while searching. Users received a daily set of job recommendations that fit their backgrounds and salary criteria, and swipe right to apply. Employers post many jobs on Switch directly, which eliminates the need for third-party job boards and recruiters, and connects job seekers to hiring managers. Switch reveals a candidate’s identity to one employer at a time, only after the candidate matches with that employer. When candidates and employers match, they can chat within the app. Switch is available for iOS, with an Android version in development. == History == === Founding === Yarden Tadmor founded Switch in New York City in January 2014. For the first 10 months, Tadmor funded the company himself. By December 2014, Switch had raised $1.4 million in funding from venture capitals firms Metamorphic Ventures, SG VC, BAM and Rhodium. Tadmor's inspiration for Switch came after being frustrated by his experience both as a job seeker, and also as a supervisor hiring at numerous technology startup companies. Tadmor has said of Switch, “We operate on the five-second resume principle, which is usually the amount of time a recruiter spends on a resume. They scan through the typical data points and move on.” Switch was designed for passive job seekers to browse openings discreetly and connect quickly. Originally, Switch served only the New York metro area technology sector while in early beta, but Tadmor always intended to expand into national coverage. Soon, the company started including all major metropolitan markets across the U.S. In May 2015, Switch announced it would start sourcing tech and media jobs from all the job boards available online. Later in 2015, Switch began to post jobs in smaller urban areas. The company also expanded industries and jobs to include restaurant staff, retail sales, healthcare, nursing and education. Tadmor subsequently founded Livekick, a one-on-one private fitness and yoga instruction company, based in New York. == Operation == In May 2015, Switch reported generating over 400,000 job applications. The company said that nine of the 50 largest websites in the U.S. were using the service. It had grown its customer base to thousands of companies in a few months from launch including Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, IBM, Yahoo!, eBay, DropBox, SoundCloud, and Wikipedia. John Cline, software development manager at eBay, told ABC’s Good Morning America that Switch is now his “main way of finding new prospective employees.” Switch uses a double opt-in technique, meaning job seekers and employers must both say yes before moving forward. They also use swiping technology and intelligent matching algorithms to connect job seekers and employers. The user experience is different for each group, but the major attraction for both sides is the speed at which they can be connected. === Features === Swipe is a major aspect of the Switch user experience. Job seekers swipe to apply to jobs, or left to pass on positions. Employers respond and swipe right to reciprocate interest, or left to eliminate the candidate. Direct connection between job seekers and employers allows hiring managers and job seekers to start an immediate conversation. Hiring managers can message with job seekers within the app, and both parties can quickly vet one another and decide whether to move forward. Easy profile creation from social media and in-app profile editing helps job seekers focus on finding a job. === Users === Job Seekers can either load their profile manually or pull in professional credentials from social media. They can post validated photos on their Facebook account. Switch’s matching algorithm analyzes the job seeker’s location, experience, and skills to bring them jobs they may be interested in. Job seekers swipe to apply and, if the employer shows interest too, only then does Switch’s system reveal the job seeker’s identity to the corporate recruiter or hiring manager. The job seeker and hiring manager can then chat through the app. Employers behave similarly to job seekers. Hiring managers or corporate recruiters sign up online, add open positions, then view Switch-recommended candidates or wait for job seekers to swipe right. Employers can select relevant job seekers by swiping right on their profiles, then chat directly in the app. === Subscriptions === The app is currently free for users and employers. == Company overview == === Financials === Switch closed out its seed round in May 2015 with $2 million in seed round funding. Investors include Marker VC, Metamorphic, Rhodium, 500 Startups, BAM, SG VC and Marcel Legrand. In a July 2015 interview with Tadmor, he claimed that Switch had raised $2.4 million to date. == Reception == Thanks to its swipe technology and double opt-in make-up, the media often refers to Switch as the Tinder for jobs. Switch has received features in lists and app reviews as an effective tool to improve your digital job search, particularly on the mobile platform. “It’s minimal effort to connect with relevant matches,” said Good Morning America workplace contributor Tory Johnson. “Which is what everybody wants to find.”
Label noise
Label noise refers to errors or inaccuracies in the class labels of data instances. This is a widespread issue in machine learning datasets, arising from human annotator mistakes, unclear labeling instructions, automated labeling methods, or adversarial attacks in supervised learning. Label noise can be roughly divided into random noise, where labels are flipped independently of input features, and systematic noise, where mislabeling is dependent on certain patterns or biases in the data. Label noise can be damaging to model performance, especially for complex models that may overfit to noisy labels rather than generalizable patterns. Many approaches have been proposed to deal with the effects of label noise, including robust loss functions, noise-tolerant algorithms, data cleaning methods, and semi-supervised learning approaches. To reduce the impact of wrong labels during training, techniques like label smoothing, sample reweighting and using trusted validation sets are used. The role of noise-robust training paradigms and curriculum learning strategies to improve resilience against mislabeled data is also explored in recent research.
Neural scaling law
In machine learning, a neural scaling law is an empirical scaling law that describes how neural network performance changes as key factors are scaled up or down. These factors typically include the number of parameters, training dataset size, and training cost. Some models also exhibit performance gains by scaling inference through increased test-time compute (TTC), extending neural scaling laws beyond training to the deployment phase. == Introduction == In general, a deep learning model can be characterized by four parameters: model size, training dataset size, training cost, and the post-training error rate (e.g., the test set error rate). Each of these variables can be defined as a real number, usually written as N , D , C , L {\displaystyle N,D,C,L} (respectively: parameter count, dataset size, computing cost, and loss). A neural scaling law is a theoretical or empirical statistical law between these parameters. There are also other parameters with other scaling laws. === Size of the model === In most cases, the model's size is simply the number of parameters. However, one complication arises with the use of sparse models, such as mixture-of-expert models. With sparse models, during inference, only a fraction of their parameters are used. In comparison, most other kinds of neural networks, such as transformer models, always use all their parameters during inference. === Size of the training dataset === The size of the training dataset is usually quantified by the number of data points within it. Larger training datasets are typically preferred, as they provide a richer and more diverse source of information from which the model can learn. This can lead to improved generalization performance when the model is applied to new, unseen data. However, increasing the size of the training dataset also increases the computational resources and time required for model training. With the "pretrain, then finetune" method used for most large language models, there are two kinds of training dataset: the pretraining dataset and the finetuning dataset. Their sizes have different effects on model performance. Generally, the finetuning dataset is less than 1% the size of pretraining dataset. In some cases, a small amount of high quality data suffices for finetuning, and more data does not necessarily improve performance. Many scaling laws, due to their inherent diminishing returns nature, value data based on a submodular set function which was shown in a paper on this topic. === Cost of training === Training cost is typically measured in terms of time (how long it takes to train the model) and computational resources (how much processing power and memory are required). It is important to note that the cost of training can be significantly reduced with efficient training algorithms, optimized software libraries, and parallel computing on specialized hardware such as GPUs or TPUs. The cost of training a neural network model is a function of several factors, including model size, training dataset size, the training algorithm complexity, and the computational resources available. In particular, doubling the training dataset size does not necessarily double the cost of training, because one may train the model for several times over the same dataset (each being an "epoch"). === Performance === The performance of a neural network model is evaluated based on its ability to accurately predict the output given some input data. Common metrics for evaluating model performance include: Negative log-likelihood per token (logarithm of perplexity) for language modeling; Accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score for classification tasks; Mean squared error (MSE) or mean absolute error (MAE) for regression tasks; Elo rating in a competition against other models, such as gameplay or preference by a human judge. Performance can be improved by using more data, larger models, different training algorithms, regularizing the model to prevent overfitting, and early stopping using a validation set. When the performance is a number bounded within the range of [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} , such as accuracy, precision, etc., it often scales as a sigmoid function of cost, as seen in the figures. == Examples == === (Hestness, Narang, et al, 2017) === The 2017 paper is a common reference point for neural scaling laws fitted by statistical analysis on experimental data. Previous works before the 2000s, as cited in the paper, were either theoretical or orders of magnitude smaller in scale. Whereas previous works generally found the scaling exponent to scale like L ∝ D − α {\displaystyle L\propto D^{-\alpha }} , with α ∈ { 0.5 , 1 , 2 } {\displaystyle \alpha \in \{0.5,1,2\}} , the paper found that α ∈ [ 0.07 , 0.35 ] {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0.07,0.35]} . Of the factors they varied, only task can change the exponent α {\displaystyle \alpha } . Changing the architecture optimizers, regularizers, and loss functions, would only change the proportionality factor, not the exponent. For example, for the same task, one architecture might have L = 1000 D − 0.3 {\displaystyle L=1000D^{-0.3}} while another might have L = 500 D − 0.3 {\displaystyle L=500D^{-0.3}} . They also found that for a given architecture, the number of parameters necessary to reach lowest levels of loss, given a fixed dataset size, grows like N ∝ D β {\displaystyle N\propto D^{\beta }} for another exponent β {\displaystyle \beta } . They studied machine translation with LSTM ( α ∼ 0.13 {\displaystyle \alpha \sim 0.13} ), generative language modelling with LSTM ( α ∈ [ 0.06 , 0.09 ] , β ≈ 0.7 {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0.06,0.09],\beta \approx 0.7} ), ImageNet classification with ResNet ( α ∈ [ 0.3 , 0.5 ] , β ≈ 0.6 {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0.3,0.5],\beta \approx 0.6} ), and speech recognition with two hybrid (LSTMs complemented by either CNNs or an attention decoder) architectures ( α ≈ 0.3 {\displaystyle \alpha \approx 0.3} ). === (Henighan, Kaplan, et al, 2020) === A 2020 analysis studied statistical relations between C , N , D , L {\displaystyle C,N,D,L} over a wide range of values and found similar scaling laws, over the range of N ∈ [ 10 3 , 10 9 ] {\displaystyle N\in [10^{3},10^{9}]} , C ∈ [ 10 12 , 10 21 ] {\displaystyle C\in [10^{12},10^{21}]} , and over multiple modalities (text, video, image, text to image, etc.). In particular, the scaling laws it found are (Table 1 of ): For each modality, they fixed one of the two C , N {\displaystyle C,N} , and varying the other one ( D {\displaystyle D} is varied along using D = C / 6 N {\displaystyle D=C/6N} ), the achievable test loss satisfies L = L 0 + ( x 0 x ) α {\displaystyle L=L_{0}+\left({\frac {x_{0}}{x}}\right)^{\alpha }} where x {\displaystyle x} is the varied variable, and L 0 , x 0 , α {\displaystyle L_{0},x_{0},\alpha } are parameters to be found by statistical fitting. The parameter α {\displaystyle \alpha } is the most important one. When N {\displaystyle N} is the varied variable, α {\displaystyle \alpha } ranges from 0.037 {\displaystyle 0.037} to 0.24 {\displaystyle 0.24} depending on the model modality. This corresponds to the α = 0.34 {\displaystyle \alpha =0.34} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. When C {\displaystyle C} is the varied variable, α {\displaystyle \alpha } ranges from 0.048 {\displaystyle 0.048} to 0.19 {\displaystyle 0.19} depending on the model modality. This corresponds to the β = 0.28 {\displaystyle \beta =0.28} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. Given fixed computing budget, optimal model parameter count is consistently around N o p t ( C ) = ( C 5 × 10 − 12 petaFLOP-day ) 0.7 = 9.0 × 10 − 7 C 0.7 {\displaystyle N_{opt}(C)=\left({\frac {C}{5\times 10^{-12}{\text{petaFLOP-day}}}}\right)^{0.7}=9.0\times 10^{-7}C^{0.7}} The parameter 9.0 × 10 − 7 {\displaystyle 9.0\times 10^{-7}} varies by a factor of up to 10 for different modalities. The exponent parameter 0.7 {\displaystyle 0.7} varies from 0.64 {\displaystyle 0.64} to 0.75 {\displaystyle 0.75} for different modalities. This exponent corresponds to the ≈ 0.5 {\displaystyle \approx 0.5} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. It's "strongly suggested" (but not statistically checked) that D o p t ( C ) ∝ N o p t ( C ) 0.4 ∝ C 0.28 {\displaystyle D_{opt}(C)\propto N_{opt}(C)^{0.4}\propto C^{0.28}} . This exponent corresponds to the ≈ 0.5 {\displaystyle \approx 0.5} from the Chinchilla scaling paper. The scaling law of L = L 0 + ( C 0 / C ) 0.048 {\displaystyle L=L_{0}+(C_{0}/C)^{0.048}} was confirmed during the training of GPT-3 (Figure 3.1 ). === Chinchilla scaling (Hoffmann, et al, 2022) === One particular scaling law ("Chinchilla scaling") states that, for a large language model (LLM) autoregressively trained for one epoch, with a cosine learning rate schedule, we have: { C = C 0 N D L = A N α + B D β + L 0 {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}C=C_{0}ND\\L={\frac {A}{N^{\alpha }}}+{\frac {B}{D^{\beta }}}+L_{0}\end{cases}}} where the variables are C {\displaystyle C} is the cost o
World model (artificial intelligence)
A world model in artificial intelligence is a machine learning system that builds an internal representation of an environment. The model predicts how that environment changes over time in response to actions. Researchers design world models to help agents plan, reason, and act without constant real-world trial and error. World models differ from systems that merely classify or generate outputs. They simulate dynamics such as physics, object interactions, and causality. Early ideas date to the 1990s. Modern versions power robots, autonomous driving, and interactive video generation. == History == Jürgen Schmidhuber introduced the term world model in machine learning in 1990. He proposed recurrent neural networks that predict future states from observations and use those predictions to train agents. David Ha and Schmidhuber revived the concept in a 2018 paper. Their agents learned to drive virtual cars and play video games inside self-generated simulations. Yann LeCun advanced the idea in a 2022 position paper titled "A Path Towards Autonomous Machine Intelligence". He argued that intelligence requires predictive models of the world rather than pure pattern matching. LeCun proposed the joint embedding predictive architecture (JEPA) as a practical foundation. LeCun and collaborators developed several JEPA variants. V-JEPA 2 reached state-of-the-art performance on video understanding and physical reasoning at the time. It supports zero-shot robot control in unfamiliar environments. Introduced in March 2026, LeWorldModel trains stably end-to-end from raw pixels and uses two loss terms and avoids hand-crafted heuristics. LeCun founded Advanced Machine Intelligence Labs in 2026 to further develop world models. Google DeepMind introduced Genie in 2024. The model learned interactive environments from unlabeled internet videos. Genie 2 followed in late 2024 and added three-dimensional generation. The Genie series set benchmarks for general-purpose simulation. Genie 3 was introduced in August 2025. It produces photorealistic, real-time interactive worlds from text prompts which are displayed at 24 frames per second and explored in real time with text or image prompts. The model supports persistent three-dimensional worlds and real-time interaction. Waymo adopted Genie 3 in February 2026 and used it to create a specialized world model for autonomous driving simulation, called the Waymo World Model. It produces synchronized camera and lidar outputs and creates edge cases that real robotaxis rarely encounter. The edge cases were reported to be unusual by PCMag. General Intuition announced a $133.7 million seed round. World Labs raised $1 billion. AMI raised $1.03 billion. In April 2026, Alibaba announced Happy Oyster, its world model designed for real-time and “flowy” world model. It includes a directing mode for world building based on text and image prompts and a wandering mode for exploring the resulting world. It can generate 3-minute in-world video clips. Also in April, World Labs, co-founded by Li Fei Fei, unveiled Spark 2.0, an open-source 3D Gaussian splatting rendering engine that targets smartphone-class devices. In June 2026, Nvidia released Cosmos 3, a family of open-weight models. It combines previously independent physical reasoning, world simulation, and action generation. Cosmos 3 integrates can process and generate text, image, video, audio, and action sequences. The model employs a Mixture-of-Transformers" (MoT) approach. An autoregressive (AR) transformer handles reasoning and next-token prediction, while a diffusion transformer (DT) does multimodal generation. Encoders (ViT for vision, VAE for visual/audio, and domain-specific for actions) and generate a shared representation space using 3D multi-dimensional rotary position embedding (mRoPE) for spatial and temporal information. The family includes Cosmos3-Nano (16B parameters) for workstations; Cosmos3-Super (64B parameters) for research. == Architecture == World models process raw sensory data such as video frames or lidar scans. They compress this input into compact latent representations. The system then predicts future representations rather than pixel-by-pixel reconstructions. Many modern world models use joint embedding predictive architecture (JEPA). An encoder turns observations into embeddings. A predictor estimates one or a suite of embeddings from the current one and an action. In some cases a critic chooses one embedding as the best result. A regularizer keeps embeddings well-behaved. The model trains by minimizing prediction error in embedding space. This approach avoids the high cost of generating every detail. Some architectures add explicit components. A fast reactive path handles immediate responses. A slower deliberative path performs longer-horizon planning. Video prediction accuracy or robot success rates are key metrics, but do not always predict real-world performance. Generative world models such as Genie 3 combine these with a simulator. They accept text prompts or layouts and output consistent video, lidar, or three-dimensional scenes. World models often train with self-supervised learning. They use large unlabeled datasets of video or robot interactions. Self-supervised learning can speed learning. Reinforcement learning can fine-tune a model for specific tasks. == Applications == World models support robot learning. Agents train inside simulations and transfer skills to the physical world. This reduces the need for dangerous or expensive real-world trials. Autonomous vehicles use world models to test rare events. Waymo's system simulates tornadoes or unusual pedestrian behavior. Companies train planners without putting vehicles on public roads. Interactive entertainment benefits from world models. Genie 3 lets users generate playable environments from simple descriptions. Game studios prototype levels faster. Scientific simulation gains from these models. Researchers model physical systems or biological processes at scale. Planners in logistics or urban design test strategies inside accurate digital twins. == Comparison with large language models == Both world models and large language models (LLMs) use inferencing on their inputs to make predictions. LLMs operate on textual inputs. They predict the next token in text sequences. They excel at language-oriented tasks such as translation or summarization. However, they lack understanding of physics. World models operate on sensor inputs such as pixels. They predict state changes in that data in latent space. This design supports planning and causal reasoning. LLMs generate fluent text but often fail at consistent physical predictions. Their architecture employs transformers with refinements such as mixture of experts. World models divide an inferencing task into work performed by encoders, predictors, simulators, and other pieces. They typically handle multimodal inputs such as video, lidar, radar, and audio, guided by textual prompting. LLMs power chatbots and code assistants. World models drive embodied agents that act in dynamic environments, such as autonomous driving. The two may be combined in hybrid systems. For example, a LLM handles instructions, while a world model manages low-level control. World model proponents such as LeCun claim that because LLMs are trained only on text, they have no ability to predict anything beyond text, such as real-world events. == Benchmarks == World model benchmarks test physical understanding, long-term consistency, planning, and generalization from sensor data. Meta introduced three benchmarks for V-JEPA 2. IntPhys 2 measures a model's ability to detect physics violations. It presents pairs of videos that diverge when one breaks physical rules. Humans score near 100% accuracy. V-JEPA 2 achieves little better than random chance on many conditions. Minimal Video Pairs (MVPBench) tests physical understanding through multiple-choice questions based on short video clips. It probes object interactions and causality. Something-Something tests action recognition. Epic-Kitchens-100 tests human action anticipation. DeepMind benchmark: Interactive evaluation measures consistency over minutes of interaction, memory of off-screen objects, and response to user actions or text prompts. Waymo benchmark: Output generation quality: Metrics include realism, controllability (via text prompts), and usefulness for training planners in simulated worlds. However, pixel reconstruction error rate with episodic rewards often fails. Other: Epic-Kitchens-100 (often measured with Recall@5) Ego4D 50 Salads, Breakfast, etc. Potential benchmarks: Zero-shot transfer to robots Long-horizon planning Implausible prediction rate
Symbolic regression
Symbolic regression (SR) is a type of regression analysis that searches the space of mathematical expressions to find the model that best fits a given dataset, both in terms of accuracy and simplicity. No particular model is provided as a starting point for symbolic regression. Instead, initial expressions are formed by randomly combining mathematical building blocks such as mathematical operators, analytic functions, constants, and state variables. Usually, a subset of these primitives will be specified by the person operating it, but that's not a requirement of the technique. The symbolic regression problem for mathematical functions has been tackled with a variety of methods, including recombining equations most commonly using genetic programming, as well as more recent methods utilizing Bayesian methods and neural networks. Another non-classical alternative method to SR is called Universal Functions Originator (UFO), which has a different mechanism, search-space, and building strategy. Further methods such as Exact Learning attempt to transform the fitting problem into a moments problem in a natural function space, usually built around generalizations of the Meijer-G function. By not requiring a priori specification of a model, symbolic regression isn't affected by human bias, or unknown gaps in domain knowledge. It attempts to uncover the intrinsic relationships of the dataset, by letting the patterns in the data itself reveal the appropriate models, rather than imposing a model structure that is deemed mathematically tractable from a human perspective. The fitness function that drives the evolution of the models takes into account not only error metrics (to ensure the models accurately predict the data), but also special complexity measures, thus ensuring that the resulting models reveal the data's underlying structure in a way that's understandable from a human perspective. This facilitates reasoning and favors the odds of getting insights about the data-generating system, as well as improving generalisability and extrapolation behaviour by preventing overfitting. Accuracy and simplicity may be left as two separate objectives of the regression—in which case the optimum solutions form a Pareto front—or they may be combined into a single objective by means of a model selection principle such as minimum description length. It has been proven that symbolic regression is an NP-hard problem. Nevertheless, if the sought-for equation is not too complex it is possible to solve the symbolic regression problem exactly by generating every possible function (built from some predefined set of operators) and evaluating them on the dataset in question. == Difference from classical regression == While conventional regression techniques seek to optimize the parameters for a pre-specified model structure, symbolic regression avoids imposing prior assumptions, and instead infers the model from the data. In other words, it attempts to discover both model structures and model parameters. This approach has the disadvantage of having a much larger space to search, because not only the search space in symbolic regression is infinite, but there are an infinite number of models which will perfectly fit a finite data set (provided that the model complexity isn't artificially limited). This means that it will possibly take a symbolic regression algorithm longer to find an appropriate model and parametrization, than traditional regression techniques. This can be attenuated by limiting the set of building blocks provided to the algorithm, based on existing knowledge of the system that produced the data; but in the end, using symbolic regression is a decision that has to be balanced with how much is known about the underlying system. Nevertheless, this characteristic of symbolic regression also has advantages: because the evolutionary algorithm requires diversity in order to effectively explore the search space, the result is likely to be a selection of high-scoring models (and their corresponding set of parameters). Examining this collection could provide better insight into the underlying process, and allows the user to identify an approximation that better fits their needs in terms of accuracy and simplicity. == Benchmarking == === SRBench === In 2021, SRBench was proposed as a large benchmark for symbolic regression. In its inception, SRBench featured 14 symbolic regression methods, 7 other ML methods, and 252 datasets from PMLB. The benchmark intends to be a living project: it encourages the submission of improvements, new datasets, and new methods, to keep track of the state of the art in SR. === SRBench Competition 2022 === In 2022, SRBench announced the competition Interpretable Symbolic Regression for Data Science, which was held at the GECCO conference in Boston, MA. The competition pitted nine leading symbolic regression algorithms against each other on a novel set of data problems and considered different evaluation criteria. The competition was organized in two tracks, a synthetic track and a real-world data track. ==== Synthetic Track ==== In the synthetic track, methods were compared according to five properties: re-discovery of exact expressions; feature selection; resistance to local optima; extrapolation; and sensitivity to noise. Rankings of the methods were: QLattice PySR (Python Symbolic Regression) uDSR (Deep Symbolic Optimization) ==== Real-world Track ==== In the real-world track, methods were trained to build interpretable predictive models for 14-day forecast counts of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in New York State. These models were reviewed by a subject expert and assigned trust ratings and evaluated for accuracy and simplicity. The ranking of the methods was: uDSR (Deep Symbolic Optimization) QLattice geneticengine (Genetic Engine) == Non-standard methods == Most symbolic regression algorithms prevent combinatorial explosion by implementing evolutionary algorithms that iteratively improve the best-fit expression over many generations. Recently, researchers have proposed algorithms utilizing other tactics in AI. Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark developed the "AI Feynman" algorithm, which attempts symbolic regression by training a neural network to represent the mystery function, then runs tests against the neural network to attempt to break up the problem into smaller parts. For example, if f ( x 1 , . . . , x i , x i + 1 , . . . , x n ) = g ( x 1 , . . . , x i ) + h ( x i + 1 , . . . , x n ) {\displaystyle f(x_{1},...,x_{i},x_{i+1},...,x_{n})=g(x_{1},...,x_{i})+h(x_{i+1},...,x_{n})} , tests against the neural network can recognize the separation and proceed to solve for g {\displaystyle g} and h {\displaystyle h} separately and with different variables as inputs. This is an example of divide and conquer, which reduces the size of the problem to be more manageable. AI Feynman also transforms the inputs and outputs of the mystery function in order to produce a new function which can be solved with other techniques, and performs dimensional analysis to reduce the number of independent variables involved. The algorithm was able to "discover" 100 equations from The Feynman Lectures on Physics, while a leading software using evolutionary algorithms, Eureqa, solved only 71. AI Feynman, in contrast to classic symbolic regression methods, requires a very large dataset in order to first train the neural network and is naturally biased towards equations that are common in elementary physics.
Instance selection
Instance selection (or dataset reduction, or dataset condensation) is an important data pre-processing step that can be applied in many machine learning (or data mining) tasks. Approaches for instance selection can be applied for reducing the original dataset to a manageable volume, leading to a reduction of the computational resources that are necessary for performing the learning process. Algorithms of instance selection can also be applied for removing noisy instances, before applying learning algorithms. This step can improve the accuracy in classification problems. Algorithm for instance selection should identify a subset of the total available data to achieve the original purpose of the data mining (or machine learning) application as if the whole data had been used. Considering this, the optimal outcome of IS would be the minimum data subset that can accomplish the same task with no performance loss, in comparison with the performance achieved when the task is performed using the whole available data. Therefore, every instance selection strategy should deal with a trade-off between the reduction rate of the dataset and the classification quality. == Instance selection algorithms == The literature provides several different algorithms for instance selection. They can be distinguished from each other according to several different criteria. Considering this, instance selection algorithms can be grouped in two main classes, according to what instances they select: algorithms that preserve the instances at the boundaries of classes and algorithms that preserve the internal instances of the classes. Within the category of algorithms that select instances at the boundaries it is possible to cite DROP3, ICF and LSBo. On the other hand, within the category of algorithms that select internal instances, it is possible to mention ENN and LSSm. In general, algorithm such as ENN and LSSm are used for removing harmful (noisy) instances from the dataset. They do not reduce the data as the algorithms that select border instances, but they remove instances at the boundaries that have a negative impact on the data mining task. They can be used by other instance selection algorithms, as a filtering step. For example, the ENN algorithm is used by DROP3 as the first step, and the LSSm algorithm is used by LSBo. There is also another group of algorithms that adopt different selection criteria. For example, the algorithms LDIS, CDIS and XLDIS select the densest instances in a given arbitrary neighborhood. The selected instances can include both, border and internal instances. The LDIS and CDIS algorithms are very simple and select subsets that are very representative of the original dataset. Besides that, since they search by the representative instances in each class separately, they are faster (in terms of time complexity and effective running time) than other algorithms, such as DROP3 and ICF. Besides that, there is a third category of algorithms that, instead of selecting actual instances of the dataset, select prototypes (that can be synthetic instances). In this category it is possible to include PSSA, PSDSP and PSSP. The three algorithms adopt the notion of spatial partition (a hyperrectangle) for identifying similar instances and extract prototypes for each set of similar instances. In general, these approaches can also be modified for selecting actual instances of the datasets. The algorithm ISDSP adopts a similar approach for selecting actual instances (instead of prototypes).