seminars:coll
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| seminars:coll [2015/02/14 21:49] – agogolev | seminars:coll [2017/01/05 23:20] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ====== Colloquium ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Unless stated otherwise, colloquia are scheduled for Thursdays 4:30-5:30pm in WH-100E with refreshments served from 4:00-4:25 pm in WH-102. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Organizers: [[people: | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[http:// | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | **Spring 2015** | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | * **February 19, 4: | ||
| + | // | ||
| + | typically means its approachable yet nontrivial problems have become | ||
| + | scarce. This is mainly due to a lack of tools. In this talk I will | ||
| + | present a new way to depict any smooth, closed oriented 4-manifold | ||
| + | that opens the doors to two of the most successful tools from | ||
| + | 3-manifolds: | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **February 26, 4: | ||
| + | // | ||
| + | solitons with genus in the singularity theory for mean curvature flow (rigorous construction of Ilmanen' | ||
| + | |||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | * **April 2, 4: | ||
| + | // | ||
| + | |||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **April 16, 4:00pm **\\ // | ||
| + | Is it Possible to Agree on What Makes an Exam Difficult? ** \\ <WRAP box 90%> | ||
| + | // | ||
| + | |||
| + | This discussion will present a framework that enables instructors to rate problem difficulty in an objective manner. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This discussion may be of interest to: | ||
| + | * Instructors: | ||
| + | * Curriculum developers: | ||
| + | * Learning Outcomes Assessors: interested in articulating outcomes that measure not only the type of student proficiency, | ||
| + | |||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **April 23**, No Colloquium. Special event: \\ **Hilton Memorial Lecture** at 3pm in Science II, Room 140.\\ Speaker: Ralf Spatzier (University of Michigan) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | * **April 30, 2:50pm**\\ < | ||
| + | beautiful class of positively curved (Riemannian) spaces is like the "Tip of the Iceberg" | ||
| + | |||
| + | In this talk, we will describe the current state of affair of the subject including tools and methods, with emphasis on the impact symmetries have had on the development during the last few decades.\\ | ||
| + | |||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **May 7, 4: | ||
| + | // | ||
| + | We consider a hyperbolic diffeomorphism f of a manifold M. | ||
| + | A linear cocycle over f is an automorphism of a vector bundle | ||
| + | over M that projects to f. An important example comes from | ||
| + | the differential of f or its restriction to an invariant sub-bundle | ||
| + | of the tangent bundle. For a trivial bundle, a linear cocycle can | ||
| + | be viewed as a GL(d, | ||
| + | We discuss what conclusions can be made about cocycles | ||
| + | based on their behavior at the periodic points of f. | ||
| + | In particular, we consider the questions when two cocycles | ||
| + | are cohomologous and when a cocycle is conformal or isometric. | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | \\ | ||
| + | \\ | ||
| + | **Fall 2014** | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **October 9**\\ // | ||
| + | // | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | * **December 1**\\ __//Time//: **1:10 pm**__\\ __// | ||
| + | |||
| + | In this talk we propose a nonparametric method of estimating distributions of phylogenetic trees, with the goal of identifying trees which are significantly different from the rest of the trees in the sample. Our method compares favorably with a similar recently-published method, featuring an improvement of one polynomial order of computational complexity (to quadratic in the number of trees analyzed), with simulation studies suggesting only a small penalty to classification accuracy. Application of our implemented software KDETrees to a set of Apicomplexa genes identified several unreliable sequence alignments which had escaped previous detection, as well as a gene independently reported as a possible case of horizontal gene transfer. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This is joint work with G. Weyenberg, P. Huggins, C. Schardl, and D. Howe.</ | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **December 1**\\ __//Time//: **3:30 pm**__\\ // | ||
| + | |||
| + | I will illustrate this powerful philosophy through complete examples, including elliptic curves, the tropical Grassmannian of planes of Speyer-Sturmfels, | ||
| + | |||
| + | This talk is based on joint works with M. Haebich, H. Markwig and A. Werner. | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **December 2**\\ __//Time//: **4:30 pm**__\\ // | ||
| + | |||
| + | In order for a statistical model to reflect the observed data, a goodness-of-fit test is applied. For instance, for the time-homogeneous Markov chain model, it is necessary to test if the assumption of time-homogeneity fits the observed data. In 1998, Diaconis-Sturmfels developed a Markov Chain Monte Carlo method (MCMC) for goodness-of-fit test by using Markov bases. A Markov basis is a set of moves between elements in the conditional sample space with the same sufficient statistics so that the transition graph for the MCMC is guaranteed to be connected for any observed value of the sufficient statistics. In algebraic terms, a Markov basis is a generating set of a toric ideal defined as the kernel of a monomial map between two polynomial rings. In algebraic statistics, the monomial map comes from the design matrix (configuration) associated with a statistical model. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In this talk we will consider a Markov basis and a Groebner basis for the toric ideal associate with the design matrix defined by the THMC model with $S \geq 2$ states without initial parameters for any time $T \geq 3$. First we will show the upper bound of the Markov degree, the degree of a minimal Markov base, of the THMC model with $S = 3$ for $T \geq 3$. In order to compute the upper bound, we use the model polytope — the convex hull of the columns of the design matrix. Here we will show the model polytope has only 24 facets for $T \geq 5$ and a complete description of the facets for $T \geq 3$. Finally, we will show a condition when the THMC with any $S \geq 2$ states for $T \geq 3$ have a square-free quadratic Groebner basis and Markov basis. One such example is the embedded discrete Markov chain (jump chain) of the Kimura three parameter model. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This is joint work with Davis Haws (IBM), Abraham Martin del Campo (IST Austria), and Akimichi Takemura (University of Tokyo).</ | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **December 3**\\ __//Time//: **5:00 pm** (Please note the postponed time.)__\\ // | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **December 4**\\ __//Time//: **4:30 pm**__\\ // | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **December 5**\\ __//Time//: **3:30 pm**__\\ // | ||
| + | which gives hints at a nice presentation for the cohomology and the Betti numbers.</ | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **December 5**\\ __//Time//: **5:00 pm** (Please note the postponed time.)__\\ // | ||
| + | the modern era with explosion of massive data. To address this problem, procedures based on quantile regression | ||
| + | and Least Absolute Deviation (LAD) regression have been developed in recent years. These methods essentially | ||
| + | estimate the conditional median (or quantile) function. They can be very different from the conditional mean | ||
| + | functions when distributions are asymmetric and heteroscedastic. How can we efficiently estimate the mean | ||
| + | regression functions in ultra-high dimensional setting with existence of only the second moment? To solve this | ||
| + | problem, we propose a penalized Huber loss with diverging parameter to reduce biases created by the traditional | ||
| + | Huber loss. Such a penalized robust approximate quadratic (RA-quadratic) loss will be called RA-Lasso. In the | ||
| + | ultra-high dimensional setting, where the dimensionality can grow exponentially with the sample size, our results | ||
| + | reveal that the RA-lasso estimator produces a consistent estimator at the same rate as the optimal rate under the | ||
| + | light-tail situation. We further study the computational convergence of RA-Lasso and show that the composite | ||
| + | gradient descent algorithm indeed produces a solution that admits the same optimal rate after sufficient | ||
| + | iterations. As a byproduct, we also establish the concentration inequality for estimating population mean when | ||
| + | there exists only the second moment. We compare RA-Lasso with other regularized robust estimators based on | ||
| + | quantile regression and LAD regression. Extensive simulation studies demonstrate the satisfactory finite-sample | ||
| + | performance of RA-Lasso.</ | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | * **December 8**\\ __//Time//: **5:00 pm**__\\ // | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **December 10**\\ __//Time//: **5:00 pm**__\\ // | ||
| + | |||
| + | This is a joint work with Guang Cheng (Purdue).</ | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **December 11**\\ __//Time//: **2:50 pm**__\\ // | ||
| + | |||
| + | This talk deals with three viewpoints from which a group can be analyzed, and the interplay between these. First, the source of many questions in geometric group theory is the topological viewpoint, in which spaces are distinguished up to homeomorphism, | ||
| + | |||
| + | I will conclude with a brief discussion of very recent joint work with J. Behrstock and A. Sisto, in which we define a class of spaces that includes mapping class groups, many cubical groups (which will have been defined), and most 3-manifold groups, and build tools to study the coarse geometry of such spaces from a common perspective. </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **December 12**\\ __//Time//: **5:00 pm**__\\ // | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **December 15**\\ __//Time//: **1:45 pm**__\\ // | ||
