Multiple Discriminant Analysis (MDA) is a multivariate dimensionality reduction technique. It has been used to predict signals as diverse as neural memory traces and corporate failure. MDA is not directly used to perform classification. It merely supports classification by yielding a compressed signal amenable to classification. The method described in Duda et al. (2001) §3.8.3 projects the multivariate signal down to an M−1 dimensional space where M is the number of categories. MDA is useful because most classifiers are strongly affected by the curse of dimensionality. In other words, when signals are represented in very-high-dimensional spaces, the classifier's performance is catastrophically impaired by the overfitting problem. This problem is reduced by compressing the signal down to a lower-dimensional space as MDA does. MDA has been used to reveal neural codes.
Lucy–Hook coaddition method
The Lucy–Hook coaddition method is an image processing technique for combining sub-stepped astronomical image data onto a finer grid. The method allows the option of resolution and contrast enhancement or the choice of a conservative, re-convolved, output. Tests with very deep Hubble Space Telescope Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) imaging data of excellent quality show that these methods can be very effective and allow fine-scale features to be studied better than on the unprocessed images. The Lucy–Hook coaddition method is an extension of the standard Richardson–Lucy deconvolution iterative restoration method. For many purposes it may be more convenient to combine dithered datasets using the Drizzle method.
Information gain ratio
In decision tree learning, information gain ratio is a ratio of information gain to the intrinsic information. It was proposed by Ross Quinlan, to reduce a bias towards multi-valued attributes by taking the number and size of branches into account when choosing an attribute. Information gain is also known as mutual information. == Information gain calculation == Information gain is the reduction in entropy produced from partitioning a set with attributes a {\displaystyle a} and finding the optimal candidate that produces the highest value: IG ( T , a ) = H ( T ) − H ( T | a ) , {\displaystyle {\text{IG}}(T,a)=\mathrm {H} {(T)}-\mathrm {H} {(T|a)},} where T {\displaystyle T} is a random variable and H ( T | a ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} {(T|a)}} is the entropy of T {\displaystyle T} given the value of attribute a {\displaystyle a} . The information gain is equal to the total entropy for an attribute if for each of the attribute values a unique classification can be made for the result attribute. In this case the relative entropies subtracted from the total entropy are 0. == Split information calculation == The split information value for a test is defined as follows: SplitInformation ( X ) = − ∑ i = 1 n N ( x i ) N ( x ) ∗ log 2 N ( x i ) N ( x ) {\displaystyle {\text{SplitInformation}}(X)=-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{{\frac {\mathrm {N} (x_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (x)}}\log {_{2}}{\frac {\mathrm {N} (x_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (x)}}}} where X {\displaystyle X} is a discrete random variable with possible values x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x i {\displaystyle {x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{i}}} and N ( x i ) {\displaystyle N(x_{i})} being the number of times that x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} occurs divided by the total count of events N ( x ) {\displaystyle N(x)} where x {\displaystyle x} is the set of events. The split information value is a positive number that describes the potential worth of splitting a branch from a node. This in turn is the intrinsic value that the random variable possesses and will be used to remove the bias in the information gain ratio calculation. == Information gain ratio calculation == The information gain ratio is the ratio between the information gain and the split information value: IGR ( T , a ) = IG ( T , a ) / SplitInformation ( T ) {\displaystyle {\text{IGR}}(T,a)={\text{IG}}(T,a)/{\text{SplitInformation}}(T)} IGR ( T , a ) = − ∑ i = 1 n P ( T ) log P ( T ) − ( − ∑ i = 1 n P ( T | a ) log P ( T | a ) ) − ∑ i = 1 n N ( t i ) N ( t ) ∗ log 2 N ( t i ) N ( t ) {\displaystyle {\text{IGR}}(T,a)={\frac {-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\mathrm {P} (T)\log \mathrm {P} (T)}-(-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\mathrm {P} (T|a)\log \mathrm {P} (T|a)})}{-\sum _{i=1}^{n}{{\frac {\mathrm {N} (t_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (t)}}\log {_{2}}{\frac {\mathrm {N} (t_{i})}{\mathrm {N} (t)}}}}}} == Example == Using weather data published by Fordham University, the table was created below: Using the table above, one can find the entropy, information gain, split information, and information gain ratio for each variable (outlook, temperature, humidity, and wind). These calculations are shown in the tables below: Using the above tables, one can deduce that Outlook has the highest information gain ratio. Next, one must find the statistics for the sub-groups of the Outlook variable (sunny, overcast, and rainy), for this example one will only build the sunny branch (as shown in the table below): One can find the following statistics for the other variables (temperature, humidity, and wind) to see which have the greatest effect on the sunny element of the outlook variable: Humidity was found to have the highest information gain ratio. One will repeat the same steps as before and find the statistics for the events of the Humidity variable (high and normal): Since the play values are either all "No" or "Yes", the information gain ratio value will be equal to 1. Also, now that one has reached the end of the variable chain with Wind being the last variable left, they can build an entire root to leaf node branch line of a decision tree. Once finished with reaching this leaf node, one would follow the same procedure for the rest of the elements that have yet to be split in the decision tree. This set of data was relatively small, however, if a larger set was used, the advantages of using the information gain ratio as the splitting factor of a decision tree can be seen more. == Advantages == Information gain ratio biases the decision tree against considering attributes with a large number of distinct values. For example, suppose that we are building a decision tree for some data describing a business's customers. Information gain ratio is used to decide which of the attributes are the most relevant. These will be tested near the root of the tree. One of the input attributes might be the customer's telephone number. This attribute has a high information gain, because it uniquely identifies each customer. Due to its high amount of distinct values, this will not be chosen to be tested near the root. == Disadvantages == Although information gain ratio solves the key problem of information gain, it creates another problem. If one is considering an amount of attributes that have a high number of distinct values, these will never be above one that has a lower number of distinct values. == Difference from information gain == Information gain's shortcoming is created by not providing a numerical difference between attributes with high distinct values from those that have less. Example: Suppose that we are building a decision tree for some data describing a business's customers. Information gain is often used to decide which of the attributes are the most relevant, so they can be tested near the root of the tree. One of the input attributes might be the customer's credit card number. This attribute has a high information gain, because it uniquely identifies each customer, but we do not want to include it in the decision tree: deciding how to treat a customer based on their credit card number is unlikely to generalize to customers we haven't seen before. Information gain ratio's strength is that it has a bias towards the attributes with the lower number of distinct values. Below is a table describing the differences of information gain and information gain ratio when put in certain scenarios.
Sharpness aware minimization
Sharpness Aware Minimization (SAM) is an optimization algorithm used in machine learning that aims to improve model generalization. The method seeks to find model parameters that are located in regions of the loss landscape with uniformly low loss values, rather than parameters that only achieve a minimal loss value at a single point. This approach is described as finding "flat" minima instead of "sharp" ones. The rationale is that models trained this way are less sensitive to variations between training and test data, which can lead to better performance on unseen data. The algorithm was introduced in a 2020 paper by a team of researchers including Pierre Foret, Ariel Kleiner, Hossein Mobahi, and Behnam Neyshabur. == Underlying Principle == SAM modifies the standard training objective by minimizing a "sharpness-aware" loss. This is formulated as a minimax problem where the inner objective seeks to find the highest loss value in the immediate neighborhood of the current model weights, and the outer objective minimizes this value: min w max ‖ ϵ ‖ p ≤ ρ L train ( w + ϵ ) + λ ‖ w ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \min _{w}\max _{\|\epsilon \|_{p}\leq \rho }L_{\text{train}}(w+\epsilon )+\lambda \|w\|_{2}^{2}} In this formulation: w {\displaystyle w} represents the model's parameters (weights). L train {\displaystyle L_{\text{train}}} is the loss calculated on the training data. ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } is a perturbation applied to the weights. ρ {\displaystyle \rho } is a hyperparameter that defines the radius of the neighborhood (an L p {\displaystyle L_{p}} ball) to search for the highest loss. An optional L2 regularization term, scaled by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } , can be included. A direct solution to the inner maximization problem is computationally expensive. SAM approximates it by taking a single gradient ascent step to find the perturbation ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } . This is calculated as: ϵ ( w ) = ρ ∇ L train ( w ) ‖ ∇ L train ( w ) ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \epsilon (w)=\rho {\frac {\nabla L_{\text{train}}(w)}{\|\nabla L_{\text{train}}(w)\|_{2}}}} The optimization process for each training step involves two stages. First, an "ascent step" computes a perturbed set of weights, w adv = w + ϵ ( w ) {\displaystyle w_{\text{adv}}=w+\epsilon (w)} , by moving towards the direction of the highest local loss. Second, a "descent step" updates the original weights w {\displaystyle w} using the gradient calculated at these perturbed weights, ∇ L train ( w adv ) {\displaystyle \nabla L_{\text{train}}(w_{\text{adv}})} . This update is typically performed using a standard optimizer like SGD or Adam. == Application and Performance == SAM has been applied in various machine learning contexts, primarily in computer vision. Research has shown it can improve generalization performance in models such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Vision Transformers (ViTs) on image datasets including ImageNet, CIFAR-10, and CIFAR-100. The algorithm has also been found to be effective in training models with noisy labels, where it performs comparably to methods designed specifically for this problem. Some studies indicate that SAM and its variants can improve out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization, which is a model's ability to perform well on data from distributions not seen during training. Other areas where it has been applied include gradual domain adaptation and mitigating overfitting in scenarios with repeated exposure to training examples. == Limitations == A primary limitation of SAM is its computational cost. By requiring two gradient computations (one for the ascent and one for the descent) per optimization step, it approximately doubles the training time compared to standard optimizers. The theoretical convergence properties of SAM are still under investigation. Some research suggests that with a constant step size, SAM may not converge to a stationary point. The accuracy of the single gradient step approximation for finding the worst-case perturbation may also decrease during the training process. The effectiveness of SAM can also be domain-dependent. While it has shown benefits for computer vision tasks, its impact on other areas, such as GPT-style language models where each training example is seen only once, has been reported as limited in some studies. Furthermore, while SAM seeks flat minima, some research suggests that not all flat minima necessarily lead to good generalization. The algorithm also introduces the neighborhood size ρ {\displaystyle \rho } as a new hyperparameter, which requires tuning. == Research, Variants, and Enhancements == Active research on SAM focuses on reducing its computational overhead and improving its performance. Several variants have been proposed to make the algorithm more efficient. These include methods that attempt to parallelize the two gradient computations, apply the perturbation to only a subset of parameters, or reduce the number of computation steps required. Other approaches use historical gradient information or apply SAM steps intermittently to lower the computational burden. To improve performance and robustness, variants have been developed that adapt the neighborhood size based on model parameter scales (Adaptive SAM or ASAM) or incorporate information about the curvature of the loss landscape (Curvature Regularized SAM or CR-SAM). Other research explores refining the perturbation step by focusing on specific components of the gradient or combining SAM with techniques like random smoothing. Theoretical work continues to analyze the algorithm's behavior, including its implicit bias towards flatter minima and the development of broader frameworks for sharpness-aware optimization that use different measures of sharpness.
Softplus
In mathematics and machine learning, the softplus function is f ( x ) = ln ( 1 + e x ) . {\displaystyle f(x)=\ln(1+e^{x}).} It is a smooth approximation (in fact, an analytic function) to the ramp function, which is known as the rectifier or ReLU (rectified linear unit) in machine learning. For large negative x {\displaystyle x} it is ln ( 1 + e x ) = ln ( 1 + ϵ ) ⪆ ln 1 = 0 {\displaystyle \ln(1+e^{x})=\ln(1+\epsilon )\gtrapprox \ln 1=0} , so just above 0, while for large positive x {\displaystyle x} it is ln ( 1 + e x ) ⪆ ln ( e x ) = x {\displaystyle \ln(1+e^{x})\gtrapprox \ln(e^{x})=x} , so just above x {\displaystyle x} . The names softplus and SmoothReLU are used in machine learning. The name "softplus" (2000), by analogy with the earlier softmax (1989) is presumably because it is a smooth (soft) approximation of the positive part of x, which is sometimes denoted with a superscript plus, x + := max ( 0 , x ) {\displaystyle x^{+}:=\max(0,x)} . == Alternative forms == This function can be approximated as: ln ( 1 + e x ) ≈ { ln 2 , x = 0 , x 1 − e − x / ln 2 , x ≠ 0 {\displaystyle \ln \left(1+e^{x}\right)\approx {\begin{cases}\ln 2,&x=0,\\[6pt]{\frac {x}{1-e^{-x/\ln 2}}},&x\neq 0\end{cases}}} By making the change of variables x = y ln ( 2 ) {\displaystyle x=y\ln(2)} , this is equivalent to log 2 ( 1 + 2 y ) ≈ { 1 , y = 0 , y 1 − e − y , y ≠ 0. {\displaystyle \log _{2}(1+2^{y})\approx {\begin{cases}1,&y=0,\\[6pt]{\frac {y}{1-e^{-y}}},&y\neq 0.\end{cases}}} A sharpness parameter k {\displaystyle k} may be included: f ( x ) = ln ( 1 + e k x ) k , f ′ ( x ) = e k x 1 + e k x = 1 1 + e − k x . {\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {\ln(1+e^{kx})}{k}},\qquad \qquad f'(x)={\frac {e^{kx}}{1+e^{kx}}}={\frac {1}{1+e^{-kx}}}.} Additionally, the softplus function is equivalent to the log of the sigmoid function in the following way: − ln ( sigmoid ( − x ) ) = − ln ( 1 1 + e x ) = ln ( 1 + e x ) = softplus ( x ) {\displaystyle -\ln({\text{sigmoid}}(-x))=-\ln \left({\frac {1}{1+e^{x}}}\right)=\ln \left(1+e^{x}\right)={\text{softplus}}(x)} == Related functions == The derivative of softplus is the standard logistic function: f ′ ( x ) = e x 1 + e x = 1 1 + e − x {\displaystyle f'(x)={\frac {e^{x}}{1+e^{x}}}={\frac {1}{1+e^{-x}}}} The logistic function or the sigmoid function is a smooth approximation of the rectifier, the Heaviside step function. === LogSumExp === The multivariable generalization of single-variable softplus is the LogSumExp with the first argument set to zero: L S E 0 + ( x 1 , … , x n ) := LSE ( 0 , x 1 , … , x n ) = ln ( 1 + e x 1 + ⋯ + e x n ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {LSE_{0}} ^{+}(x_{1},\dots ,x_{n}):=\operatorname {LSE} (0,x_{1},\dots ,x_{n})=\ln(1+e^{x_{1}}+\cdots +e^{x_{n}}).} The LogSumExp function is LSE ( x 1 , … , x n ) = ln ( e x 1 + ⋯ + e x n ) , {\displaystyle \operatorname {LSE} (x_{1},\dots ,x_{n})=\ln(e^{x_{1}}+\cdots +e^{x_{n}}),} and its gradient is the softmax; the softmax with the first argument set to zero is the multivariable generalization of the logistic function. Both LogSumExp and softmax are used in machine learning. === Convex conjugate === The convex conjugate (specifically, the Legendre transformation) of the softplus function is the negative binary entropy function (with base e). This is because (following the definition of the Legendre transformation: the derivatives are inverse functions) the derivative of softplus is the logistic function, whose inverse function is the logit, which is the derivative of negative binary entropy. Softplus can be interpreted as logistic loss (as a positive number), so, by duality, minimizing logistic loss corresponds to maximizing entropy. This justifies the principle of maximum entropy as loss minimization.
Bazaart
Bazaart is an AI-powered design platform with image and video editing capabilities for iOS, Android, MacOS, and the web. == History == Bazaart was founded in 2012 in Israel. In April 2012, Bazaart launched a Facebook app called Pinvolve, which converts Facebook Pages into Pinterest pinboards. From June to August 2012, it participated in the DreamIt startup accelerator in New York and raised $25,000 from the accelerator. In July 2012, it launched its first version as an iPad app connected to Pinterest. In December 2013, it pivoted and launched a major version of its app, a "social" photoshop that allowed users to edit images which could be pulled in from the camera roll, social networks, and other sources. In July 2014, Bazaart reached one million downloads and in December was selected by Apple as Best of 2014. In 2015, Bazaart added Photoshop integration in a partnership with Adobe. In September 2020, Bazaart launched an Android app. In December 2020, Bazaart was selected by Google as Best of 2020. In January 2022, Bazaart added video editing capabilities. In 2023, the platform added AI-powered backgrounds and video background removal features.
Correlation clustering
Clustering is the problem of partitioning data points into groups based on similarity or dissimilarity. Correlation clustering is a clustering framework in which a set of objects is partitioned into clusters based on pairwise similarity and dissimilarity information, without requiring the number of clusters to be specified in advance. == Description of the problem == In machine learning, correlation clustering (also known as cluster editing) considers settings in which pairwise similarity or dissimilarity relationships between objects are known. A standard formulation models the input as an unweighted complete graph G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} , where each edge is labeled either + {\displaystyle +} or − {\displaystyle -} (that is, the graph is a signed graph), indicating whether the corresponding endpoints are similar or dissimilar. The goal is to find a clustering (that is, a partition of V {\displaystyle V} ) that either maximizes the number of agreements—the sum of positive edges whose endpoints lie in the same cluster and negative edges whose endpoints lie in different clusters—or minimizes the number of disagreements—the sum of positive edges whose endpoints are separated and negative edges whose endpoints lie in the same cluster. Unlike other clustering methods such as k-means, correlation clustering does not require choosing the number of clusters k {\displaystyle k} in advance. It is not always possible to find a clustering with zero disagreements. For example, consider a triangle graph containing two positive edges and one negative edge. In this case, every clustering incurs at least one disagreement. Such configurations are referred to in the literature as bad triangles. From a computational perspective, optimizing the correlation clustering objective is challenging. The (decision version of the) problem is NP-complete. A large body of subsequent work has developed approximation algorithms for correlation clustering under various assumptions, including complete or general graphs and unweighted or weighted graphs, for both minimization and maximization objectives. This problem is considered one of the fundamental combinatorial optimization problems, and many algorithmic techniques have been developed to address it. The problem has also been studied extensively across multiple disciplines. A comprehensive literature review of early correlation clustering research is provided by Wahid and Hassini. == Formal Definitions == Let G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} be a graph with nodes V {\displaystyle V} and edges E {\displaystyle E} . A clustering of G {\displaystyle G} is a partition of its node set Π = { π 1 , … , π k } {\displaystyle \Pi =\{\pi _{1},\dots ,\pi _{k}\}} with V = π 1 ∪ ⋯ ∪ π k {\displaystyle V=\pi _{1}\cup \dots \cup \pi _{k}} and π i ∩ π j = ∅ {\displaystyle \pi _{i}\cap \pi _{j}=\emptyset } for i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} . For a given clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } , let δ ( Π ) = { { u , v } ∈ E ∣ { u , v } ⊈ π ∀ π ∈ Π } {\displaystyle \delta (\Pi )=\{\{u,v\}\in E\mid \{u,v\}\not \subseteq \pi \;\forall \pi \in \Pi \}} denote the subset of edges of G {\displaystyle G} whose endpoints are in different subsets of the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Now, let w : E → R ≥ 0 {\displaystyle w\colon E\to \mathbb {R} _{\geq 0}} be a function that assigns a non-negative weight to each edge of the graph and let E = E + ∪ E − {\displaystyle E=E^{+}\cup E^{-}} be a partition of the edges into attractive ( E + {\displaystyle E^{+}} ) and repulsive ( E − {\displaystyle E^{-}} ) edges; that is, the edges are signed. The minimum disagreement correlation clustering problem is the following optimization problem: minimize Π ∑ e ∈ E + ∩ δ ( Π ) w e + ∑ e ∈ E − ∖ δ ( Π ) w e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {minimize} }}&&\sum _{e\in E^{+}\cap \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}+\sum _{e\in E^{-}\setminus \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} Here, the set E + ∩ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{+}\cap \delta (\Pi )} contains the attractive edges whose endpoints are in different components with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } and the set E − ∖ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{-}\setminus \delta (\Pi )} contains the repulsive edges whose endpoints are in the same component with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Together these two sets contain all edges that disagree with the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Similarly to the minimum disagreement correlation clustering problem, the maximum agreement correlation clustering problem is defined as maximize Π ∑ e ∈ E + ∖ δ ( Π ) w e + ∑ e ∈ E − ∩ δ ( Π ) w e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {maximize} }}&&\sum _{e\in E^{+}\setminus \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}+\sum _{e\in E^{-}\cap \delta (\Pi )}w_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} Here, the set E + ∖ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{+}\setminus \delta (\Pi )} contains the attractive edges whose endpoints are in the same component with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } and the set E − ∩ δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle E^{-}\cap \delta (\Pi )} contains the repulsive edges whose endpoints are in different components with respect to the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Together these two sets contain all edges that agree with the clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } . Instead of formulating the correlation clustering problem in terms of non-negative edge weights and a partition of the edges into attractive and repulsive edges the problem is also formulated in terms of positive and negative edge costs without partitioning the set of edges explicitly. For given weights w : E → R ≥ 0 {\displaystyle w\colon E\to \mathbb {R} _{\geq 0}} and a given partition E = E + ∪ E − {\displaystyle E=E^{+}\cup E^{-}} of the edges into attractive and repulsive edges, the edge costs can be defined by c e = { w e if e ∈ E + − w e if e ∈ E − {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}c_{e}={\begin{cases}\;\;w_{e}&{\text{if }}e\in E^{+}\\-w_{e}&{\text{if }}e\in E^{-}\end{cases}}\end{aligned}}} for all e ∈ E {\displaystyle e\in E} . An edge whose endpoints are in different clusters is said to be cut. The set δ ( Π ) {\displaystyle \delta (\Pi )} of all edges that are cut is often called a multicut of G {\displaystyle G} . The minimum cost multicut problem is the problem of finding a clustering Π {\displaystyle \Pi } of G {\displaystyle G} such that the sum of the costs of the edges whose endpoints are in different clusters is minimal: minimize Π ∑ e ∈ δ ( Π ) c e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {minimize} }}&&\sum _{e\in \delta (\Pi )}c_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} Similar to the minimum cost multicut problem, coalition structure generation in weighted graph games is the problem of finding a clustering such that the sum of the costs of the edges that are not cut is maximal: maximize Π ∑ e ∈ E ∖ δ ( Π ) c e . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\underset {\Pi }{\operatorname {maximize} }}&&\sum _{e\in E\setminus \delta (\Pi )}c_{e}\;.\end{aligned}}} This formulation is also known as the clique partitioning problem. It can be shown that all four problems that are formulated above are equivalent. This means that a clustering that is optimal with respect to any of the four objectives is optimal for all of the four objectives. == Algorithms == If the graph admits a clustering with zero disagreements, then deleting all negative edges and computing the connected components of the remaining graph yields an optimal clustering. A necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of such a clustering was given by Davis: no cycle in the graph may contain exactly one negative edge. Bansal et al. discuss the NP-completeness proof and also present both a constant factor approximation algorithm and polynomial-time approximation scheme to find the clusters in this setting. Ailon et al. propose a randomized 3-approximation algorithm for the same problem. CC-Pivot(G=(V,E+,E−)) Pick random pivot i ∈ V Set C = { i } {\displaystyle C=\{i\}} , V'=Ø For all j ∈ V, j ≠ i; If (i,j) ∈ E+ then Add j to C Else (If (i,j) ∈ E−) Add j to V' Let G' be the subgraph induced by V' Return clustering C,CC-Pivot(G') The authors show that the above algorithm is a 3-approximation algorithm for correlation clustering. The best polynomial-time approximation algorithm known at the moment for this problem achieves a ~2.06 approximation by rounding a linear program, as shown by Chawla, Makarychev, Schramm, and Yaroslavtsev. Karpinski and Schudy proved existence of a polynomial time approximation scheme (PTAS) for that problem on complete graphs and fixed number of clusters. == Optimal number of clusters == In 2011, it was shown by Bagon and Galun that the optimization of the correlation clustering functional is closely related to well known discrete optimization methods. In their work they proposed a probabilistic analysis of the underlying implicit model that allows the correlation clustering functional to estimate the