All the papers are peer reviewed and finalized after receiving at least 2 out of 4 expert comments .Higher value will be given to the originality and innovative content of the paper apart from the presentation.
This document provides an in-depth look at the process used in trying to solve real issues with the User Experience of a social bookmarking application. While it might be easy to simply take the first solution that works and assume that it’s the best solution, the first solution is very rarely the best solution. We found several solutions to several problems, and many of them worked and appeared to be decent solutions. It was only upon further investigation and doing more detailed research that we found hidden flaws in some solutions, issues with user satisfaction in other solutions, and even found some solutions that broke entirely under certain conditions.
This paper will describe the problems we faced in detail and then provide an explanation of the solutions evaluated for each problem, including the benefits and drawbacks of each solution. We will also identify the final solution chosen and why it was chosen.
EM has been shown to have favorable convergence properties, automatical satisfaction of constraints, and fast convergence. The next section explains the traditional approach to deriving the EM algorithm and proving its convergence property. Section 3.3 covers the interpretion the EM algorithm as the maximization of two quantities: the entropy and the expectation of complete-data likelihood. Then, the K-means algorithm and the EM algorithm are compared. The conditions under which the EM algorithm is reduced to the K-means are also explained. The discussion in Section 3.4 generalizes the EM algorithm described in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 to problems with partial-data and hidden-state. We refer to this new type of EM as the doubly stochastic EM. Finally, the chapter is concluded in Section 3.5.
K. Bhagwat, P. Salunkhe, and S. Bangar. International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication, 3 (2):
537--541(February 2015)