2010–2011 (Year 0) I had just switched my major at Cal Poly State University from computer science to math. I wanted to double major but California was in a budget crisis and a few weeks before I tried submitting my double-major request the Provost for the CSU system put a blanket ban on double majors.

Data is abundant, data is big, and big is a problem. Let me start with an example. Let’s say you have a list of movie titles and you want to learn their genre: romance, action, drama, etc. And maybe in this scenario IMDB doesn’t exist so you can’t scrape the answer. Well, the title alone is almost never enough information.

So far in this series we’ve seen a lot of motivation and defined basic ideas of what a quantum circuit is. But on rereading my posts, I think we would all benefit from some concreteness. “Local” operations So by now we’ve understood that quantum circuits consist of a sequence of gates $ A_1, \dots, A_k$, where each $ A_i$ is an 8-by-8 matrix that operates “locally” on some choice of three (or fewer) qubits.

Problem: Estimate the number of distinct items in a data stream that is too large to fit in memory.

Here’s a bit of folklore I often hear (and retell) that’s somewhere between a joke and deep wisdom: if you’re doing a software interview that involves some algorithms problem that seems hard, your best bet is to use hash tables. More succinctly put: Google loves hash tables. As someone with a passion for math and theoretical CS, it’s kind of silly and reductionist.

Math and computer science are full of inequalities, but there is one that shows up more often in my work than any other. Of course, I’m talking about $$\displaystyle 1+x \leq e^{x}$$ This is The Inequality. I’ve been told on many occasions that the entire field of machine learning reduces to The Inequality combined with the Chernoff bound (which is proved using The Inequality). Why does it show up so often in machine learning?

Update 2017-01-09: Laci claims to have found a workaround to the previously posted error, and the claim is again quasipolynoimal time! Updated arXiv paper to follow. Update 2017-01-04: Laci has posted an update on his paper. The short version is that one small step of his analysis was not quite correct, and the result is that his algorithm is sub-exponential, but not quasipolynomial time.

I was recently an invited speaker in a series of STEM talks at Moraine Valley Community College. My talk was called “What can algorithms tell us about life, love, and happiness?” and it’s on Youtube now so you can go watch it. The central theme of the talk was the lens of computation, that algorithms and theoretical computer science can provide new and novel explanations for the natural phenomena we observe in the world.

If you haven’t read the first post on fairness, I suggest you go back and read it because it motivates why we’re talking about fairness for algorithms in the first place. In this post I’ll describe one of the existing mathematical definitions of “fairness,” its origin, and discuss its strengths and shortcomings.

There’s a well-understood phenomenon in machine learning called overfitting. The idea is best shown by a graph: overfitting Let me explain. The vertical axis represents the error of a hypothesis. The horizontal axis represents the complexity of the hypothesis. The blue curve represents the error of a machine learning algorithm’s output on its training data, and the red curve represents the generalization of that hypothesis to the real world.