Adaptive reasoning strategies for complex AI tasks

Multi-Stage Prompt Design

Understanding the landscape of complex AI tasks requires a nuanced appreciation of both the capabilities and limitations of current AI systems, particularly in the realm of adaptive reasoning strategies. As AI continues to evolve, one of the most challenging aspects is designing systems that can adaptively reason through tasks that are not only complex but also dynamic in nature.


Adaptive reasoning in AI involves the ability of a system to modify its approach based on new information, feedback, or changes in the environment. This is critical in scenarios where static algorithms fall short, such as in autonomous driving where road conditions change, or in medical diagnostics where patient symptoms evolve over time. However, the development of such adaptive strategies is not without its hurdles, and this is where the concept of prompt engineering comes into play.


Prompt engineering, the art of crafting inputs that guide AI to produce desired outputs, highlights a significant limitation in the current AI landscape. While AI models, especially large language models, have shown remarkable proficiency in understanding and generating human-like text, their performance heavily relies on the quality and specificity of the prompts provided. Dynamic prompt chaining supports complex multi step automation tasks retrieval augmented generation methods Speech synthesis. In tasks requiring adaptive reasoning, the challenge intensifies. A prompt that works well in one context might not be effective in another, even if the task appears similar on the surface. This variability introduces a layer of unpredictability, making it difficult to ensure consistent AI performance across diverse scenarios.


Moreover, the dependency on prompt engineering underscores a broader issue: AIs struggle with true understanding and contextual adaptability. True adaptive reasoning would imply an AI systems ability to learn from a broad range of experiences, generalize this learning, and apply it in novel situations without explicit guidance. Current models often need tailored prompts to perform optimally, which can be seen as a workaround for their lack of deep, intrinsic understanding of the world.


The limitations become evident when AI faces tasks that require nuanced decision-making or when the environment presents unexpected challenges. For instance, in strategic games or real-time strategy scenarios, an AI might excel with predefined prompts but falter when the game dynamics shift in unforeseen ways. Here, the AIs inability to self-adjust its strategy based on emerging patterns or opponent behaviors becomes a clear bottleneck.


In conclusion, while AI has made significant strides in handling complex tasks through adaptive reasoning, the reliance on prompt engineering reveals the gaps in AIs capability to truly understand and adapt. As we move forward, the focus must be on developing AI that can autonomously evolve its reasoning strategies, reducing the need for human-crafted prompts. This evolution will not only enhance AIs utility in dynamic environments but also bring us closer to systems that mimic human cognitive flexibility, albeit with the understanding that human oversight and ethical considerations remain paramount.

In the realm of artificial intelligence, the foundation of understanding cognitive biases is crucial, especially when we delve into the development of adaptive reasoning strategies for complex AI tasks. Cognitive biases, which are systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, are not exclusive to human cognition; they can inadvertently be embedded within AI systems through the data they learn from and the algorithms that govern their decision-making processes. This realization has sparked a significant need for adaptive strategies that can mitigate these biases and enhance AIs ability to reason effectively in complex scenarios.


Consider an AI tasked with medical diagnosis. Traditional AI models might rely heavily on historical data, which could be biased due to underrepresentation of certain demographics or overrepresentation of common conditions. Here, cognitive biases like confirmation bias, where the AI might favor data that confirms pre-existing patterns, can lead to suboptimal or even erroneous outcomes. To counteract this, adaptive reasoning strategies become indispensable. These strategies involve dynamically adjusting the AIs learning process to account for and correct biases as they are identified. For instance, implementing fairness-aware algorithms can ensure that the AI does not perpetuate existing biases by giving equal weight to underrepresented groups in its learning dataset.


Another aspect is the development of meta-learning algorithms, which allow AI to learn how to learn from a variety of tasks, thereby enhancing its adaptability. This approach helps AI to not only recognize and adapt to new patterns but also to unlearn or adjust previously learned biases when they are found to be detrimental. Such strategies mimic human learning processes where experience and feedback lead to refined understanding and decision-making.


Moreover, the integration of human oversight in the form of human-in-the-loop systems provides a practical layer of adaptive strategy. Humans can identify when an AIs decision seems off due to bias and can intervene, providing feedback that helps the AI adjust its reasoning. This symbiotic relationship fosters a learning environment where AI can evolve its strategies in real-time, enhancing its performance in complex, dynamic environments.


In conclusion, as AI systems become more integral to decision-making in various sectors, understanding and addressing cognitive biases is paramount. Adaptive reasoning strategies, which include fairness-aware learning, meta-learning, and human-AI collaboration, are not just enhancements but necessities. They ensure that AI systems can perform with a level of sophistication and impartiality that mirrors, and in some cases surpasses, human reasoning, thereby making AI a more reliable partner in tackling the complexities of the modern world.

Dynamic Prompt Adaptation Strategies

In the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, the development of adaptive reasoning strategies for complex AI tasks has become a focal point for researchers and practitioners alike. Advanced prompt engineering techniques play a crucial role in this domain, serving as a bridge between human-like reasoning and machine intelligence. These techniques are designed to elicit sophisticated reasoning processes from AI systems, enabling them to tackle intricate problems with greater efficacy.


At the heart of advanced prompt engineering lies the art of crafting prompts that not only guide AI systems towards specific outcomes but also encourage them to explore, adapt, and reason through the problem space. This involves a deep understanding of the AIs capabilities, limitations, and the nuances of the task at hand. By carefully structuring prompts, engineers can stimulate the AIs reasoning faculties, prompting it to consider multiple perspectives, weigh different options, and arrive at well-reasoned conclusions.


One of the key techniques in this realm is the use of multi-step prompts. These prompts break down complex tasks into a series of smaller, more manageable steps, each designed to elicit a specific reasoning process. For instance, in a scenario where an AI is tasked with diagnosing a medical condition, a multi-step prompt might first guide the AI to gather relevant patient data, then analyze this data for patterns, and finally, synthesize this analysis into a diagnostic conclusion. This approach not only enhances the AIs problem-solving capabilities but also makes its reasoning process more transparent and understandable to human users.


Another effective technique is the incorporation of counterfactual reasoning into prompts. By asking AI systems to consider "what if" scenarios, engineers can stimulate their ability to think beyond the given data and explore alternative outcomes. This is particularly useful in complex decision-making tasks where the consequences of different actions need to be evaluated. For example, in strategic planning for a business, counterfactual prompts can encourage the AI to simulate various market conditions and predict the impact of different strategies, thereby aiding in more informed decision-making.


Furthermore, the use of comparative prompts is a powerful method for enhancing adaptive reasoning. By prompting AI systems to compare and contrast different scenarios, solutions, or data sets, engineers can foster a more nuanced understanding and reasoning process. This technique is especially beneficial in tasks that require the synthesis of diverse information sources or the evaluation of multiple hypotheses.


In conclusion, advanced prompt engineering techniques are indispensable in the development of adaptive reasoning strategies for complex AI tasks. By thoughtfully designing prompts that guide, challenge, and stimulate AI systems, engineers can unlock their full reasoning potential, enabling them to tackle even the most intricate problems with sophistication and adaptability. As AI continues to evolve, the refinement and innovation of these techniques will undoubtedly play a pivotal role in shaping the future of intelligent systems.

Dynamic Prompt Adaptation Strategies

Evaluation Metrics for Prompt Effectiveness

Adaptive Feedback Loops: Iterative Refinement of Prompts Based on AI Performance for Adaptive Reasoning Strategies in Complex AI Tasks


Okay, so imagine youre teaching a robot to bake a cake. You give it a recipe – a prompt, in AI terms. It follows the instructions, maybe a little too literally. The cake comes out...interesting. Maybe it forgot the sugar, or added salt instead.


Thats where the "adaptive feedback loop" comes in. Its not just about saying "Thats wrong!" Its about understanding why it went wrong. Did the prompt lack clarity on the type of sugar? Did the robot misinterpret "pinch of salt"? We analyze the outcome, the AIs "performance," and use that information to tweak the recipe – the prompt.


This isnt a one-shot deal. We keep baking, analyzing, and refining. Each iteration gets us closer to a perfect cake. In the world of complex AI tasks, like, say, autonomous driving or medical diagnosis, the "cake" is a far more intricate challenge. The prompts are complex instructions, and the potential for error is huge.


Adaptive reasoning strategies are all about enabling the AI to learn and adjust its approach based on experience. But they need a good starting point, and thats where well-crafted prompts come in. The beauty of the adaptive feedback loop is that it allows us to iteratively improve those prompts, guiding the AI towards more nuanced and effective reasoning.


Its like having a conversation with the AI, a conversation where the language of instruction is constantly evolving based on the AIs responses. With each turn of the loop, the AI gets a clearer picture of what we want it to do, and we get a better understanding of how to guide it. Its a collaborative process, a dance between human intention and AI execution, constantly refined by the feedback generated along the way. And that, in essence, is how adaptive feedback loops help AI tackle the truly complex stuff.

Dynamic Prompt Composition: Combining Multiple Prompting Strategies for Adaptive Reasoning in Complex AI Tasks


In the realm of artificial intelligence, where tasks grow increasingly complex, the ability to adapt and reason effectively is paramount. One innovative approach to tackling this challenge is through Dynamic Prompt Composition, which involves the strategic combination of multiple prompting techniques. This method enhances AIs capacity to handle intricate problems by providing a versatile framework for interaction and problem-solving.


At its core, Dynamic Prompt Composition is about flexibility. Imagine an AI tasked with diagnosing a rare medical condition. Instead of relying on a single type of prompt, such as a direct question or a command, the AI might employ a sequence of prompts that mimic human thought processes. Initially, it might use an open-ended prompt to gather general symptoms, akin to a doctors initial consultation. Then, based on the response, it could shift to more specific, hypothetical scenarios to narrow down possibilities, much like a differential diagnosis in medicine. This layered approach allows the AI to adapt its reasoning path dynamically, responding to the complexity and nuances of the task at hand.


What makes this strategy particularly powerful is its ability to incorporate various prompting styles tailored to the context. For instance, in a scenario where an AI is assisting in legal research, it might start with a broad query to understand the legal context, then use prompts that encourage logical deduction or analogy to explore precedents. This not only mirrors human legal reasoning but also leverages the strengths of different prompting techniques to cover all bases of the legal inquiry.


Furthermore, Dynamic Prompt Composition fosters a learning environment where AI can improve over time. Each interaction provides feedback on the effectiveness of different prompt combinations, allowing the system to refine its strategy. This iterative process is crucial for tasks where the landscape changes or where new information becomes available, like in real-time strategic games or financial forecasting.


However, the success of this method hinges on a deep understanding of the tasks nature. The AI must be programmed to recognize when to shift from one type of prompt to another, ensuring that the transition is seamless and logical. This requires not just sophisticated algorithms but also a nuanced appreciation of the tasks domain, which might involve collaboration with domain experts during the development phase.


In conclusion, Dynamic Prompt Composition stands as a beacon of innovation in AI, particularly for tasks that demand adaptive reasoning. By weaving together various prompting strategies, AI systems can navigate the complexities of real-world problems with a finesse that approaches human-like adaptability. As AI continues to evolve, this approach promises to unlock new potentials, making AI not just a tool for solving problems but a partner in reasoning and decision-making.

In the realm of artificial intelligence, the concept of meta-prompting has emerged as a pivotal technique in enhancing the capabilities of AI systems, particularly when addressing complex tasks that require adaptive reasoning strategies. Meta-prompting involves guiding the AIs reasoning process explicitly, offering a structured approach to how AI interprets and responds to intricate challenges.


At its core, meta-prompting is about providing AI with a higher-level framework for problem-solving. Imagine teaching a student not just the content of a subject but also how to approach learning that subject. Similarly, meta-prompting equips AI with the how of reasoning, allowing it to navigate through the nuances of tasks that might otherwise seem overwhelming due to their complexity or the ambiguity involved.


For complex AI tasks, adaptive reasoning strategies are crucial. These tasks often involve dynamic environments where the rules or goals might change, requiring the AI to adjust its strategy on-the-fly. Here, meta-prompting acts as a strategic guide. For instance, in a scenario where an AI must optimize a logistics network adapting to real-time traffic conditions, traditional prompting might only focus on the immediate goal of route optimization. However, with meta-prompting, the AI is instructed to consider factors like future traffic patterns, cost efficiency over time, and even environmental impact, thereby adopting a more holistic approach.


The beauty of meta-prompting lies in its ability to make AI reasoning more transparent and manageable. By explicitly guiding the AI through steps like hypothesis formation, data analysis, and iterative refinement, we ensure that the AIs decision-making process is not just efficient but also explainable. This transparency is vital in applications where trust in AI decisions is paramount, such as in healthcare diagnostics or financial forecasting.


Moreover, meta-prompting encourages AI to self-reflect on its reasoning processes. This self-awareness allows AI to identify when its current strategy might be suboptimal and prompts it to explore alternative approaches or refine existing ones. This aspect is particularly beneficial in environments where the AI must learn from its mistakes or adapt to new information quickly.


In conclusion, meta-prompting is not just a tool but a transformative approach in the field of AI, particularly for tasks demanding sophisticated reasoning. By guiding AI explicitly in its reasoning process, we unlock the potential for more adaptive, resilient, and intelligent systems capable of handling the ever-evolving challenges of the modern world. This method not only enhances the performance of AI but also aligns it more closely with human-like problem-solving, making AI a more intuitive and reliable partner in tackling complex tasks.

Okay, so were talking about figuring out which "adaptive reasoning" tricks work best when AI tackles really tough problems. Think of it like this: a human facing a complicated situation doesnt just blindly follow one plan. We adjust, improvise, and learn as we go. Adaptive reasoning is about giving AI that same flexibility.


But how do we know if one adaptive reasoning strategy is better than another? Thats where "evaluating and benchmarking" comes in. We need a way to measure how well these strategies actually perform. Its not enough to just say "this one feels smarter." We need hard data.


The challenge is defining what "good" even means in these complex scenarios. Is it speed? Accuracy? Robustness to unforeseen circumstances? Probably all of the above, but figuring out the right balance is tricky. And then we need benchmarks – standard problems that everyone can use to test their adaptive reasoning AI. These benchmarks need to be challenging enough to really push the systems, but also well-defined enough that we can compare results fairly.


Think of it like comparing different engine designs. You put them all in the same car and run them on the same track. The one that gets the best gas mileage while also going the fastest and breaking down the least is probably the best engine. But for AI, the "car" and the "track" are much more abstract – designing them is half the battle.


Ultimately, this whole effort is about pushing AI beyond rigid, pre-programmed solutions. We want AI that can learn, adapt, and make good decisions even when faced with the unexpected. And the only way to get there is through rigorous evaluation and benchmarking of these adaptive reasoning strategies, so we can actually understand what works, what doesn't, and why. It's a crucial step in building truly intelligent systems.

Okay, so, thinking about "Future Directions: Towards Self-Improving Prompt Engineering for Complex AI" with a focus on "Adaptive Reasoning Strategies for Complex AI Tasks"...its really about getting these AI systems to not just do what we tell them, but to figure out how to do it better, themselves.


Right now, were the prompt engineers. Were crafting these elaborate instructions, trying to anticipate every possible scenario and nudge the AI in the right direction. Its a very manual, time-consuming process. And honestly, its not scalable. To tackle truly complex problems – things that require nuanced understanding, creative problem-solving, and the ability to shift strategies on the fly – we need AI that can adapt its reasoning based on the specific task at hand.


Imagine an AI trying to diagnose a rare disease. Instead of just blindly following a pre-programmed diagnostic tree, it could analyze the patients symptoms, review relevant research papers, and even consider alternative diagnostic pathways based on the information it gathers. It would be like a doctor constantly refining their approach based on new evidence.


Thats where self-improving prompt engineering comes in. We need to develop mechanisms that allow the AI to learn from its successes and failures. Maybe it starts by trying different prompting strategies, evaluating the results, and then adjusting its approach for the next similar task. Or perhaps it can learn to decompose complex problems into smaller, more manageable sub-problems, and then solve each one using the most appropriate reasoning strategy.


The future is about AI that doesnt just execute instructions, but understands the underlying problem and can proactively optimize its approach. This requires research into areas like meta-learning, reinforcement learning, and even incorporating elements of cognitive science to model how humans adapt their reasoning in complex situations. Its a challenging path, but its the only way were going to unlock the full potential of AI for solving truly impactful problems. Its about moving from being prompt engineers to being architects of learning systems, empowering AI to become its own best problem-solver.

In synthetic semantic networks, recurring neural networks (RNNs) are designed for handling consecutive data, such as message, speech, and time collection, where the order of elements is essential. Unlike feedforward semantic networks, which process inputs independently, RNNs use frequent links, where the result of a nerve cell at once action is fed back as input to the network at the following time action. This allows RNNs to catch temporal dependencies and patterns within sequences. The essential building block of RNN is the persistent system, which keeps a hidden state—-- a kind of memory that is updated at each time step based on the present input and the previous covert state. This feedback system permits the network to learn from past inputs and include that expertise right into its present handling. RNNs have actually been successfully put on jobs such as unsegmented, linked handwriting acknowledgment, speech acknowledgment, natural language handling, and neural equipment translation. Nonetheless, conventional RNNs experience the vanishing slope issue, which limits their capacity to learn long-range dependencies. This problem was dealt with by the development of the long short-term memory (LSTM) style in 1997, making it the basic RNN variation for handling lasting dependences. Later on, gated recurrent units (GRUs) were introduced as a much more computationally efficient alternative. In the last few years, transformers, which rely upon self-attention mechanisms rather than reoccurrence, have come to be the dominant design for lots of sequence-processing tasks, specifically in natural language processing, as a result of their exceptional handling of long-range reliances and higher parallelizability. Nonetheless, RNNs continue to be relevant for applications where computational effectiveness, real-time handling, or the intrinsic sequential nature of information is crucial.

.

 

In machine learning, a common task is the study and construction of algorithms that can learn from and make predictions on data.[1] Such algorithms function by making data-driven predictions or decisions,[2] through building a mathematical model from input data. These input data used to build the model are usually divided into multiple data sets. In particular, three data sets are commonly used in different stages of the creation of the model: training, validation, and test sets.

The model is initially fit on a training data set,[3] which is a set of examples used to fit the parameters (e.g. weights of connections between neurons in artificial neural networks) of the model.[4] The model (e.g. a naive Bayes classifier) is trained on the training data set using a supervised learning method, for example using optimization methods such as gradient descent or stochastic gradient descent. In practice, the training data set often consists of pairs of an input vector (or scalar) and the corresponding output vector (or scalar), where the answer key is commonly denoted as the target (or label). The current model is run with the training data set and produces a result, which is then compared with the target, for each input vector in the training data set. Based on the result of the comparison and the specific learning algorithm being used, the parameters of the model are adjusted. The model fitting can include both variable selection and parameter estimation.

Successively, the fitted model is used to predict the responses for the observations in a second data set called the validation data set.[3] The validation data set provides an unbiased evaluation of a model fit on the training data set while tuning the model's hyperparameters[5] (e.g. the number of hidden units—layers and layer widths—in a neural network[4]). Validation data sets can be used for regularization by early stopping (stopping training when the error on the validation data set increases, as this is a sign of over-fitting to the training data set).[6] This simple procedure is complicated in practice by the fact that the validation data set's error may fluctuate during training, producing multiple local minima. This complication has led to the creation of many ad-hoc rules for deciding when over-fitting has truly begun.[6]

Finally, the test data set is a data set used to provide an unbiased evaluation of a final model fit on the training data set.[5] If the data in the test data set has never been used in training (for example in cross-validation), the test data set is also called a holdout data set. The term "validation set" is sometimes used instead of "test set" in some literature (e.g., if the original data set was partitioned into only two subsets, the test set might be referred to as the validation set).[5]

Deciding the sizes and strategies for data set division in training, test and validation sets is very dependent on the problem and data available.[7]

Training data set

[edit]
Simplified example of training a neural network in object detection: The network is trained by multiple images that are known to depict starfish and sea urchins, which are correlated with "nodes" that represent visual features. The starfish match with a ringed texture and a star outline, whereas most sea urchins match with a striped texture and oval shape. However, the instance of a ring textured sea urchin creates a weakly weighted association between them.
Subsequent run of the network on an input image (left):[8] The network correctly detects the starfish. However, the weakly weighted association between ringed texture and sea urchin also confers a weak signal to the latter from one of two intermediate nodes. In addition, a shell that was not included in the training gives a weak signal for the oval shape, also resulting in a weak signal for the sea urchin output. These weak signals may result in a false positive result for sea urchin.
In reality, textures and outlines would not be represented by single nodes, but rather by associated weight patterns of multiple nodes.

A training data set is a data set of examples used during the learning process and is used to fit the parameters (e.g., weights) of, for example, a classifier.[9][10]

For classification tasks, a supervised learning algorithm looks at the training data set to determine, or learn, the optimal combinations of variables that will generate a good predictive model.[11] The goal is to produce a trained (fitted) model that generalizes well to new, unknown data.[12] The fitted model is evaluated using “new” examples from the held-out data sets (validation and test data sets) to estimate the model’s accuracy in classifying new data.[5] To reduce the risk of issues such as over-fitting, the examples in the validation and test data sets should not be used to train the model.[5]

Most approaches that search through training data for empirical relationships tend to overfit the data, meaning that they can identify and exploit apparent relationships in the training data that do not hold in general.

When a training set is continuously expanded with new data, then this is incremental learning.

Validation data set

[edit]

A validation data set is a data set of examples used to tune the hyperparameters (i.e. the architecture) of a model. It is sometimes also called the development set or the "dev set".[13] An example of a hyperparameter for artificial neural networks includes the number of hidden units in each layer.[9][10] It, as well as the testing set (as mentioned below), should follow the same probability distribution as the training data set.

In order to avoid overfitting, when any classification parameter needs to be adjusted, it is necessary to have a validation data set in addition to the training and test data sets. For example, if the most suitable classifier for the problem is sought, the training data set is used to train the different candidate classifiers, the validation data set is used to compare their performances and decide which one to take and, finally, the test data set is used to obtain the performance characteristics such as accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F-measure, and so on. The validation data set functions as a hybrid: it is training data used for testing, but neither as part of the low-level training nor as part of the final testing.

The basic process of using a validation data set for model selection (as part of training data set, validation data set, and test data set) is:[10][14]

Since our goal is to find the network having the best performance on new data, the simplest approach to the comparison of different networks is to evaluate the error function using data which is independent of that used for training. Various networks are trained by minimization of an appropriate error function defined with respect to a training data set. The performance of the networks is then compared by evaluating the error function using an independent validation set, and the network having the smallest error with respect to the validation set is selected. This approach is called the hold out method. Since this procedure can itself lead to some overfitting to the validation set, the performance of the selected network should be confirmed by measuring its performance on a third independent set of data called a test set.

An application of this process is in early stopping, where the candidate models are successive iterations of the same network, and training stops when the error on the validation set grows, choosing the previous model (the one with minimum error).

Test data set

[edit]

A test data set is a data set that is independent of the training data set, but that follows the same probability distribution as the training data set. If a model fit to the training data set also fits the test data set well, minimal overfitting has taken place (see figure below). A better fitting of the training data set as opposed to the test data set usually points to over-fitting.

A test set is therefore a set of examples used only to assess the performance (i.e. generalization) of a fully specified classifier.[9][10] To do this, the final model is used to predict classifications of examples in the test set. Those predictions are compared to the examples' true classifications to assess the model's accuracy.[11]

In a scenario where both validation and test data sets are used, the test data set is typically used to assess the final model that is selected during the validation process. In the case where the original data set is partitioned into two subsets (training and test data sets), the test data set might assess the model only once (e.g., in the holdout method).[15] Note that some sources advise against such a method.[12] However, when using a method such as cross-validation, two partitions can be sufficient and effective since results are averaged after repeated rounds of model training and testing to help reduce bias and variability.[5][12]

 

A training set (left) and a test set (right) from the same statistical population are shown as blue points. Two predictive models are fit to the training data. Both fitted models are plotted with both the training and test sets. In the training set, the MSE of the fit shown in orange is 4 whereas the MSE for the fit shown in green is 9. In the test set, the MSE for the fit shown in orange is 15 and the MSE for the fit shown in green is 13. The orange curve severely overfits the training data, since its MSE increases by almost a factor of four when comparing the test set to the training set. The green curve overfits the training data much less, as its MSE increases by less than a factor of 2.

Confusion in terminology

[edit]

Testing is trying something to find out about it ("To put to the proof; to prove the truth, genuineness, or quality of by experiment" according to the Collaborative International Dictionary of English) and to validate is to prove that something is valid ("To confirm; to render valid" Collaborative International Dictionary of English). With this perspective, the most common use of the terms test set and validation set is the one here described. However, in both industry and academia, they are sometimes used interchanged, by considering that the internal process is testing different models to improve (test set as a development set) and the final model is the one that needs to be validated before real use with an unseen data (validation set). "The literature on machine learning often reverses the meaning of 'validation' and 'test' sets. This is the most blatant example of the terminological confusion that pervades artificial intelligence research."[16] Nevertheless, the important concept that must be kept is that the final set, whether called test or validation, should only be used in the final experiment.

Cross-validation

[edit]

In order to get more stable results and use all valuable data for training, a data set can be repeatedly split into several training and a validation data sets. This is known as cross-validation. To confirm the model's performance, an additional test data set held out from cross-validation is normally used.

It is possible to use cross-validation on training and validation sets, and within each training set have further cross-validation for a test set for hyperparameter tuning. This is known as nested cross-validation.

Causes of error

[edit]
Comic strip demonstrating a fictional erroneous computer output (making a coffee 5 million degrees, from a previous definition of "extra hot"). This can be classified as both a failure in logic and a failure to include various relevant environmental conditions.[17]

Omissions in the training of algorithms are a major cause of erroneous outputs.[17] Types of such omissions include:[17]

  • Particular circumstances or variations were not included.
  • Obsolete data
  • Ambiguous input information
  • Inability to change to new environments
  • Inability to request help from a human or another AI system when needed

An example of an omission of particular circumstances is a case where a boy was able to unlock the phone because his mother registered her face under indoor, nighttime lighting, a condition which was not appropriately included in the training of the system.[17][18]

Usage of relatively irrelevant input can include situations where algorithms use the background rather than the object of interest for object detection, such as being trained by pictures of sheep on grasslands, leading to a risk that a different object will be interpreted as a sheep if located on a grassland.[17]

See also

[edit]
  • Statistical classification
  • List of datasets for machine learning research
  • Hierarchical classification

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Ron Kohavi; Foster Provost (1998). "Glossary of terms". Machine Learning. 30: 271–274. doi:10.1023/A:1007411609915.
  2. ^ Bishop, Christopher M. (2006). Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. New York: Springer. p. vii. ISBN 0-387-31073-8. Pattern recognition has its origins in engineering, whereas machine learning grew out of computer science. However, these activities can be viewed as two facets of the same field, and together they have undergone substantial development over the past ten years.
  3. ^ a b James, Gareth (2013). An Introduction to Statistical Learning: with Applications in R. Springer. p. 176. ISBN 978-1461471370.
  4. ^ a b Ripley, Brian (1996). Pattern Recognition and Neural Networks. Cambridge University Press. p. 354. ISBN 978-0521717700.
  5. ^ a b c d e f Brownlee, Jason (2017-07-13). "What is the Difference Between Test and Validation Datasets?". Retrieved 2017-10-12.
  6. ^ a b Prechelt, Lutz; Geneviève B. Orr (2012-01-01). "Early Stopping — But When?". In Grégoire Montavon; Klaus-Robert Müller (eds.). Neural Networks: Tricks of the Trade. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 53–67. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35289-8_5. ISBN 978-3-642-35289-8.
  7. ^ "Machine learning - Is there a rule-of-thumb for how to divide a dataset into training and validation sets?". Stack Overflow. Retrieved 2021-08-12.
  8. ^ Ferrie, C., & Kaiser, S. (2019). Neural Networks for Babies. Sourcebooks. ISBN 978-1492671206.cite book: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ a b c Ripley, B.D. (1996) Pattern Recognition and Neural Networks, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 354
  10. ^ a b c d "Subject: What are the population, sample, training set, design set, validation set, and test set?", Neural Network FAQ, part 1 of 7: Introduction (txt), comp.ai.neural-nets, Sarle, W.S., ed. (1997, last modified 2002-05-17)
  11. ^ a b Larose, D. T.; Larose, C. D. (2014). Discovering knowledge in data : an introduction to data mining. Hoboken: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118874059. ISBN 978-0-470-90874-7. OCLC 869460667.
  12. ^ a b c Xu, Yun; Goodacre, Royston (2018). "On Splitting Training and Validation Set: A Comparative Study of Cross-Validation, Bootstrap and Systematic Sampling for Estimating the Generalization Performance of Supervised Learning". Journal of Analysis and Testing. 2 (3). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 249–262. doi:10.1007/s41664-018-0068-2. ISSN 2096-241X. PMC 6373628. PMID 30842888.
  13. ^ "Deep Learning". Coursera. Retrieved 2021-05-18.
  14. ^ Bishop, C.M. (1995), Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 372
  15. ^ Kohavi, Ron (2001-03-03). "A Study of Cross-Validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation and Model Selection". 14. cite journal: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  16. ^ Ripley, Brian D. (2008-01-10). "Glossary". Pattern recognition and neural networks. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521717700. OCLC 601063414.
  17. ^ a b c d e Chanda SS, Banerjee DN (2022). "Omission and commission errors underlying AI failures". AI Soc. 39 (3): 1–24. doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01585-x. PMC 9669536. PMID 36415822.
  18. ^ Greenberg A (2017-11-14). "Watch a 10-Year-Old's Face Unlock His Mom's iPhone X". Wired.