AI Art Legality

AI Art Legality — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  PerfKitBenchmarker

  PerfKit Benchmarker is an open source benchmarking tool used to measure and compare cloud offerings. PerfKit Benchmarker is licensed under the Apache 2 license terms. PerfKit Benchmarker is a community effort involving over 500 participants including researchers, academic institutions and companies together with the originator, Google. == General == PerfKit Benchmarker (PKB) is a community effort to deliver a repeatable, consistent, and open way of measuring Cloud Performance. It supports a growing list of cloud providers including: Alibaba Cloud, Amazon Web Services, CloudStack, DigitalOcean, Google Cloud Platform, Kubernetes, Microsoft Azure, OpenStack, Rackspace, IBM Bluemix (Softlayer). In addition to Cloud Providers to supports container orchestration including Kubernetes [1] and Mesos [2] and local "static" workstations and clusters of computers [3]. The goal is to create an open source living benchmark [framework] that represents how Cloud developers are building applications, evaluating Cloud alternatives, learning how to architect applications for each cloud. Living because it will change and morph quickly as developers change. PerfKit Benchmarker measures the end to end time to provision resources in the cloud, in addition to reporting on the most standard metrics of peak performance, e.g.: latency, throughput, time-to-complete, IOPS. PerfKit Benchmarker reduces the complexity in running benchmarks on supported cloud providers by unified and simple commands. It's designed to operate via vendor provided command line tools. PerfKit Benchmarker contains a canonical set of public benchmarks. All benchmarks are running with default/initial state and configuration (Not tuned to in favor of any providers). This provides a way to benchmark across cloud platforms, while getting a transparent view of application throughput, latency, variance, and overhead. == History == PerfKit Benchmarker (PKB) was started by Anthony F. Voellm, Alain Hamel, and Eric Hankland at Google in 2014. Once an initial "alpha" was in place Anthony F. Voellm and Ivan Santa Maria Filho built a community including ARM, Broadcom, Canonical, CenturyLink, Cisco, CloudHarmony, CloudSpectator, EcoCloud@EPFL, Intel, Mellanox, Microsoft, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Rackspace, Red Hat, Tradeworx Inc., and Thesys Technologies LLC. This community worked together behind the scenes in a private GitHub project to create an open way to measure cloud performance. This community released the first public "beta" was released on February 11, 2015, and announced in a blog post at which point the GitHub project was open to everyone. After almost a year and with large adaption (600+ participants on GitHub) the V1.0.0 was released along with a detailed architectural design on December 10, 2015. == Benchmarks == A list of available benchmarks from PerfKitBenchmarker: (The latest set of benchmarks can be found at GitHub readme file.) == Industry participants == Since Google open sourced the PerfKitBenchmarker, it became a community effort from over 30 leading researchers, academic schools and industry companies. Those organizations include: ARM, Broadcom, Canonical, CenturyLink, Cisco, CloudHarmony, Cloud Spectator, EcoCloud@EPFL, Intel, Mellanox, Microsoft, Qualcomm Technologies, Rackspace, Red Hat, and Thesys Technologies. In addition, Stanford and MIT are leading quarterly discussions on default benchmarks and settings proposed by the community. EcoCloud@EPFL is integrating CloudSuite into PerfKit Benchmarker. == Example runs == On Google Cloud Platform On AWS On Azure On Rackspace On a local machine

  Read more →
• 

  Cartesian genetic programming

  Cartesian genetic programming is a form of genetic programming that uses a graph representation to encode computer programs. It grew from a method of evolving digital circuits developed by Julian F. Miller and Peter Thomson in 1997. The term ‘Cartesian genetic programming’ first appeared in 1999 and was proposed as a general form of genetic programming in 2000. It is called ‘Cartesian’ because it represents a program using a two-dimensional grid of nodes. Miller's keynote explains how CGP works. He edited a book entitled Cartesian Genetic Programming, published in 2011 by Springer. The open source project dCGP implements a differentiable version of CGP developed at the European Space Agency by Dario Izzo, Francesco Biscani and Alessio Mereta able to approach symbolic regression tasks, to find solution to differential equations, find prime integrals of dynamical systems, represent variable topology artificial neural networks and more.

  Read more →
• 

  Genotypic and phenotypic repair

  Genotypic and phenotypic repair are optional components of an evolutionary algorithm (EA). An EA reproduces essential elements of biological evolution as a computer algorithm in order to solve demanding optimization or planning tasks, at least approximately. A candidate solution is represented by a - usually linear - data structure that plays the role of an individual's chromosome. New solution candidates are generated by mutation and crossover operators following the example of biology. These offspring may be defective, which is corrected or compensated for by genotypic or phenotypic repair. == Description == Genotypic repair, also known as genetic repair, is the removal or correction of impermissible entries in the chromosome that violate restrictions. In phenotypic repair, the corrections are only made in the genotype-phenotype mapping and the chromosome remains unchanged. Michalewicz wrote about the importance of restrictions in real-world applications: "In general, constraints are an integral part of the formulation of any problem". Restriction violations are application-specific and therefore it depends on the current problem whether and which type of repair is useful. They can usually also be treated by a correspondingly extended evaluation and it depends on the problem which measures are possible and which is the most suitable. If a phenotypic repair is feasible, then it is usually the most efficient compared to the other measures. A survey on repair methods used as constraint handling techniques can be found in. Violations of the range limits of genes should be avoided as far as possible by the formulation of the genome. If this is not possible or if restrictions within the search space defined by the genome are involved, their violations are usually handled by the evaluation. This can be done, for example, by penalty functions that lower the fitness. Repair is often also required for combinatorial tasks. The application of a 1- or n-point crossover operator can, for example, lead to genes being missing in one of the child genomes that are present in duplicate in the other. In this case, a suitable genotypic repair measure is to move the surplus genes to the other genome in a positional manner. The use of the aforementioned operators in combinatorial tasks has also proven to be useful in combination with crossover types specially developed for permutations, at least for certain problems. Particularly in combinatorial problems, it has been observed that genotypic repair can promote premature convergence to a suboptimum, but can also significantly accelerate a successful search. Studies on various tasks have shown that this is application-dependent. An effective measure to avoid premature convergence is generally the use of structured populations instead of the usual panmictic ones. Sequence restrictions play a role in many scheduling tasks, for example when it comes to planning workflows. If, for example, it is specified that step A must be carried out before step B and the gene of step B is located before the gene of A in the chromosome, then there is an impermissible gene sequence. This is because the scheduling operation of step B requires the planned end of step A for correct scheduling, but this is not yet scheduled at the time gene B is processed. The problem can be solved in two ways: The scheduling operation of step B is postponed until the gene from step A has been processed. The genome remains unchanged and the repair only influences the genotype-phenotype mapping. Since only the phenotype is changed, this is referred to as phenotypic repair. If, on the other hand, the gene of step B is moved behind the gene of step A, this is a genotypic repair. The same applies to the alternative shift of gene A in front of gene B. In this case, genotypic repair has the disadvantage that it prevents a meaningful restructuring of the gene sequence in the chromosome if this requires several intermediate steps (mutations) that at least partially violate restrictions.

  Read more →
• 

  NOMINATE (scaling method)

  NOMINATE (an acronym for nominal three-step estimation) is a multidimensional scaling application developed by US political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal in the early 1980s to analyze preferential and choice data, such as legislative roll-call voting behavior. In its most well-known application, members of the US Congress are placed on a two-dimensional map, with politicians who are ideologically similar (i.e. who often vote the same) being close together. One of these two dimensions corresponds to the familiar left–right political spectrum (liberal–conservative in the United States). As computing capabilities grew, Poole and Rosenthal developed multiple iterations of their NOMINATE procedure: the original D-NOMINATE method, W-NOMINATE, and most recently DW-NOMINATE (for dynamic, weighted NOMINATE). In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE. In 2016, the society awarded Poole its Career Achievement Award, stating that "the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores." == Procedure == The main procedure is an application of multidimensional scaling techniques to political choice data. Though there are important technical differences between these types of NOMINATE scaling procedures, all operate under the same fundamental assumptions. First, that alternative choices can be projected on a basic, low-dimensional (often two-dimensional) Euclidean space. Second, within that space, individuals have utility functions which are bell-shaped (normally distributed), and maximized at their ideal point. Because individuals also have symmetric, single-peaked utility functions which center on their ideal point, ideal points represent individuals' most preferred outcomes. That is, individuals most desire outcomes closest their ideal point, and will choose/vote probabilistically for the closest outcome. Ideal points can be recovered from observing choices, with individuals exhibiting similar preferences placed more closely than those behaving dissimilarly. It is helpful to compare this procedure to producing maps based on driving distances between cities. For example, Los Angeles is about 1,800 miles from St. Louis; St. Louis is about 1,200 miles from Miami; and Miami is about 2,700 miles from Los Angeles. From this (dis)similarities data, any map of these three cities should place Miami far from Los Angeles, with St. Louis somewhere in between (though a bit closer to Miami than Los Angeles). Just as cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco would be clustered on a map, NOMINATE places ideologically similar legislators (e.g., liberal Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.)) closer to each other, and farther from dissimilar legislators (e.g., conservative Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)) based on the degree of agreement between their roll call voting records. At the heart of the NOMINATE procedures (and other multidimensional scaling methods, such as Poole's Optimal Classification method) are algorithms they utilize to arrange individuals and choices in low dimensional (usually two-dimensional) space. Thus, NOMINATE scores provide "maps" of legislatures. Using NOMINATE procedures to study congressional roll call voting behavior from the First Congress to the present-day, Poole and Rosenthal published Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting in 1997 and the revised edition Ideology and Congress in 2007. In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were named the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE, a recognition conferred to "individual(s) for developing statistical software that makes a significant research contribution". In 2016, Keith T. Poole was awarded the Society for Political Methodology's Career Achievement Award. The citation for this award reads, in part, "One can say perfectly correctly, and without any hyperbole: the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores. NOMINATE has produced data that entire bodies of our discipline—and many in the press—have relied on to understand the U.S. Congress." == Dimensions == Poole and Rosenthal demonstrate that—despite the many complexities of congressional representation and politics—roll call voting in both the House and the Senate can be organized and explained by no more than two dimensions throughout the sweep of American history. The first dimension (horizontal or x-axis) is the familiar left-right (or liberal-conservative) spectrum on economic matters. The second dimension (vertical or y-axis) picks up attitudes on cross-cutting, salient issues of the day (which include or have included slavery, bimetallism, civil rights, regional, and social/lifestyle issues). Rosenthal and Poole have initially argued that the first dimension refers to socio-economic matters and the second dimension to race-relations. However, the often confusing and residual nature of the second dimension has led to the second dimension being largely ignored by other researchers. For the most part, congressional voting is uni-dimensional, with most of the variation in voting patterns explained by placement along the liberal-conservative first dimension. While the first dimension of the DW-NOMINATE score is able to predict results at 83% accuracy, the addition of the second dimension only increases accuracy to 85%. Furthermore, the second dimension only provided a significant increase in accuracy for Congresses 1-99. As late as the 1990s, the second dimension was able to measure partisan splits in abortion and gun rights issues. However, a 2017 analysis found that since 1987, the votes of the US Congress had best fit a one-dimensional model, suggesting increasing party polarization after 1987. == Interpretation of nominate scores == For illustrative purposes, consider the following plots which use W-NOMINATE scores to scale members of Congress and uses the probabilistic voting model (in which legislators farther from the "cutting line" between "yea" and "nay" outcomes become more likely to vote in the predicted manner) to illustrate some major Congressional votes in the 1990s. Some of these votes, like the House's vote on President Clinton's welfare reform package (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996) are best modeled through the use of the first (economic liberal-conservative) dimension. On the welfare reform vote, nearly all Republicans joined the moderate-conservative bloc of House Democrats in voting for the bill, while opposition was virtually confined to the most liberal Democrats in the House. The errors (those representatives on the "wrong" side of the cutting line which separates predicted "yeas" and predicted "nays") are generally close to the cutting line, which is what we would expect. A legislator directly on the cutting line is indifferent between voting "yea" and "nay" on the measure. All members are shown on the left panel of the plot, while only errors are shown on the right panel: Economic ideology also dominates the Senate vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1995: On other votes, however, a second dimension (which has recently come to represent attitudes on cultural and lifestyle issues) is important. For example, roll call votes on gun control routinely split party coalitions, with socially conservative "blue dog" Democrats joining most Republicans in opposing additional regulation and socially liberal Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting gun control. The addition of the second dimension accounts for these inter-party differences, and the cutting line is more horizontal than vertical (meaning the cleavage is found on the second dimension rather than the first dimension on these votes) This pattern was evident in the 1991 House vote to require waiting periods on handguns: == Political ideology == DW-NOMINATE scores have been used widely to describe the political ideology of political actors, political parties and political institutions. For instance, a score in the first dimension that is close to either pole means that such score is located at one of the extremes in the liberal-conservative scale. So, a score closer to 1 is described as conservative whereas a score closer to −1 can be described as liberal. Finally, a score at zero or close to zero is described as moderate. == Political polarization == Poole and Rosenthal (beginning with their 1984 article "The Polarization of American Politics") have also used NOMINATE data to show that, since the 1970s, party delegations in Congress have become ideologically homogeneous and distant from one another (a phenomenon known as "polarization"). Using DW-NOMINATE scores (which permit direct comparisons between members of different Congress

  Read more →
• 

  Quantum artificial life

  Quantum artificial life is the application of quantum algorithms with the ability to simulate biological behavior. Quantum computers offer many potential improvements to processes performed on classical computers, including machine learning and artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence applications are often inspired by the idea of mimicking human brains through closely related biomimicry. This has been implemented to a certain extent on classical computers (using neural networks), but quantum computers offer many advantages in the simulation of artificial life. Artificial life and artificial intelligence are extremely similar, with minor differences; the goal of studying artificial life is to understand living beings better, while the goal of artificial intelligence is to create intelligent beings. In 2016, Alvarez-Rodriguez et al. developed a proposal for a quantum artificial life algorithm with the ability to simulate life and Darwinian evolution. In 2018, the same research team led by Alvarez-Rodriguez performed the proposed algorithm on the IBM ibmqx4 quantum computer, and received optimistic results. The results accurately simulated a system with the ability to undergo self-replication at the quantum scale. == Artificial life on quantum computers == The growing advancement of quantum computers has led researchers to develop quantum algorithms for simulating life processes. Researchers have designed a quantum algorithm that can accurately simulate Darwinian Evolution. Since the complete simulation of artificial life on quantum computers has only been actualized by one group, this section shall focus on the implementation by Alvarez-Rodriguez, Sanz, Lomata, and Solano on an IBM quantum computer. Individuals were realized as two qubits, one representing the genotype of the individual and the other representing the phenotype. The genotype is copied to transmit genetic information through generations, and the phenotype is dependent on the genetic information as well as the individual's interactions with their environment. In order to set up the system, the state of the genotype is instantiated by some rotation of an ancillary state ( | 0 ⟩ ⟨ 0 | {\displaystyle |0\rangle \langle 0|} ). The environment is a two-dimensional spatial grid occupied by individuals and ancillary states. The environment is divided into cells that are able to possess one or more individuals. Individuals move throughout the grid and occupy cells randomly; when two or more individuals occupy the same cell they interact with each other. === Self replication === The ability to self-replicate is critical for simulating life. Self-replication occurs when the genotype of an individual interacts with an ancillary state, creating a genotype for a new individual; this genotype interacts with a different ancillary state in order to create the phenotype. During this interaction, one would like to copy some information about the initial state into the ancillary state, but by the no cloning theorem, it is impossible to copy an arbitrary unknown quantum state. However, physicists have derived different methods for quantum cloning which does not require the exact copying of an unknown state. The method that has been implemented by Alvarez-Rodriguez et al. is one that involves the cloning of the expectation value of some observable. For a unitary U {\displaystyle U} which copies the expectation value of some set of observables X {\displaystyle {\mathsf {X}}} of state ρ {\displaystyle \rho } into a blank state ρ e {\displaystyle \rho _{e}} , the cloning machine is defined by any ( U , ρ e , X ) {\displaystyle (U,\rho _{e},{\mathsf {X}})} that fulfill the following: ∀ ρ ∀ X ∈ X {\displaystyle \forall \rho \forall X\in {\mathsf {X}}} X ¯ = X 1 ¯ = X 2 ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {X}}={\bar {X_{1}}}={\bar {X_{2}}}} Where X ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {X}}} is the mean value of the observable in ρ {\displaystyle \rho } before cloning, X 1 ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {X_{1}}}} is the mean value of the observable in ρ {\displaystyle \rho } after cloning, and X 2 ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {X_{2}}}} is the mean value of the observable in ρ e {\displaystyle \rho _{e}} after cloning. Note that the cloning machine has no dependence on ρ {\displaystyle \rho } because we want to be able to clone the expectation of the observables for any initial state. It is important to note that cloning the mean value of the observable transmits more information than is allowed classically. The calculation of the mean value is defined naturally as: X ¯ = T r [ ρ X ] {\displaystyle {\bar {X}}=Tr[\rho X]} , X 1 ¯ = T r [ R X ⊗ I ] {\displaystyle {\bar {X_{1}}}=Tr[RX\otimes I]} , X 2 ¯ = T r [ R I ⊗ X ] {\displaystyle {\bar {X_{2}}}=Tr[RI\otimes X]} where R = U ρ ⊗ ρ e U † {\displaystyle R=U\rho \otimes \rho _{e}U^{\dagger }} The simplest cloning machine clones the expectation value of σ z {\displaystyle \sigma _{z}} in arbitrary state ρ = | ψ ⟩ ⟨ ψ | {\displaystyle \rho =|\psi \rangle \langle \psi |} to ρ e = | 0 ⟩ ⟨ 0 | {\displaystyle \rho _{e}=|0\rangle \langle 0|} using U = C N O T {\displaystyle U=CNOT} . This is the cloning machine implemented for self-replication by Alvarez-Rodriguez et al. The self-replication process clearly only requires interactions between two qubits, and therefore this cloning machine is the only one necessary for self replication. === Interactions === Interactions occur between individuals when the two take up the same space on the environmental grid. The presence of interactions between individuals provides an advantage for shorter-lifespan individuals. When two individuals interact, exchanges of information between the two phenotypes may or may not occur based on their existing values. When both individual's control qubits (genotypes) are alike, no information will be exchanged. When the control qubits differ, the target qubits (phenotype) will be exchanged between the two individuals. This procedure produces a constantly changing predator-prey dynamic in the simulation. Therefore, long-living qubits, with a larger genetic makeup in the simulation, are at a disadvantage. Since information is only exchanged when interacting with an individual of different genetic makeup, the short-lived population has the advantage. === Mutation === Mutations exist in the artificial world with limited probability, equivalent to their occurrence in the real world. There are two ways in which the individual can mutate: through random single qubit rotations and by errors in the self-replication process. There are two different operators that act on the individual and cause mutations. The M operation causes a spontaneous mutation within the individual by rotating a single qubit by parameter θ. The parameter θ is random for each mutation, which creates biodiversity within the artificial environment. The M operation is a unitary matrix which can be described as: M = ( cos ⁡ ( θ ) s i n ( θ ) s i n ( θ ) − c o s ( θ ) ) {\displaystyle M={\begin{pmatrix}\cos(\theta )&sin(\theta )\\sin(\theta )&-cos(\theta )\end{pmatrix}}} The other possible way for mutations to occur is due to errors in the replication process. Due to the no-cloning theorem, it is impossible to produce perfect copies of systems that are originally in unknown quantum states. However, quantum cloning machines make it possible to create imperfect copies of quantum states, in other words, the process introduces some degree of error. The error that exists in current quantum cloning machines is the root cause for the second kind of mutations in the artificial life experiment. The imperfect cloning operation can be seen as: U M ( θ ) = I 4 + 1 2 ( 0 0 0 1 ) ⊗ ( − 1 1 1 − 1 ) ( c o s θ + i s i n θ + 1 ) {\displaystyle U_{M}(\theta )=\mathrm {I} _{4}+{\frac {1}{2}}{\begin{pmatrix}0&0\\0&1\end{pmatrix}}\otimes {\begin{pmatrix}-1&1\\1&-1\end{pmatrix}}(cos\theta +isin\theta +1)} The two kinds of mutations affect the individual differently. While the spontaneous M operation does not affect the phenotype of the individual, the self-replicating error mutation, UM, alters both the genotype of the individual, and its associated lifetime. The presence of mutations in the quantum artificial life experiment is critical for providing randomness and biodiversity. The inclusion of mutations helps to increase the accuracy of the quantum algorithm. === Death === At the instant the individual is created (when the genotype is copied into the phenotype), the phenotype interacts with the environment. As time evolves, the interaction of the individual with the environment simulates aging which eventually leads to the death of the individual. The death of an individual occurs when the expectation value of σ z {\displaystyle \sigma _{z}} is within some ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } of 1 in the phenotype, or, equivalently, when ρ p = | 0 ⟩ ⟨ 0 | {\displaystyle \rho _{p}=|0\rangle \langle 0|} The Lindbladian describes the interaction of the individual with the environment: ρ

  Read more →
• 

  Sum of absolute transformed differences

  The sum of absolute transformed differences (SATD) is a block matching criterion widely used in fractional motion estimation for video compression. It works by taking a frequency transform, usually a Hadamard transform, of the differences between the pixels in the original block and the corresponding pixels in the block being used for comparison. The transform itself is often of a small block rather than the entire macroblock. For example, in x264, a series of 4×4 blocks are transformed rather than doing the more processor-intensive 16×16 transform. == Comparison to other metrics == SATD is slower than the sum of absolute differences (SAD), both due to its increased complexity and the fact that SAD-specific MMX and SSE2 instructions exist, while there are no such instructions for SATD. However, SATD can still be optimized considerably with SIMD instructions on most modern CPUs. The benefit of SATD is that it more accurately models the number of bits required to transmit the residual error signal. As such, it is often used in video compressors, either as a way to drive and estimate rate explicitly, such as in the Theora encoder (since 1.1 alpha2), as an optional metric used in wide motion searches, such as in the Microsoft VC-1 encoder, or as a metric used in sub-pixel refinement, such as in x264.

  Read more →
• 

  CN2 algorithm

  The CN2 induction algorithm is a learning algorithm for rule induction. It is designed to work even when the training data is imperfect. It is based on ideas from the AQ algorithm and the ID3 algorithm. As a consequence it creates a rule set like that created by AQ but is able to handle noisy data like ID3. == Description of algorithm == The algorithm must be given a set of examples, TrainingSet, which have already been classified in order to generate a list of classification rules. A set of conditions, SimpleConditionSet, which can be applied, alone or in combination, to any set of examples is predefined to be used for the classification. routine CN2(TrainingSet) let the ClassificationRuleList be empty repeat let the BestConditionExpression be Find_BestConditionExpression(TrainingSet) if the BestConditionExpression is not nil then let the TrainingSubset be the examples covered by the BestConditionExpression remove from the TrainingSet the examples in the TrainingSubset let the MostCommonClass be the most common class of examples in the TrainingSubset append to the ClassificationRuleList the rule 'if ' the BestConditionExpression ' then the class is ' the MostCommonClass until the TrainingSet is empty or the BestConditionExpression is nil return the ClassificationRuleList routine Find_BestConditionExpression(TrainingSet) let the ConditionalExpressionSet be empty let the BestConditionExpression be nil repeat let the TrialConditionalExpressionSet be the set of conditional expressions, {x and y where x belongs to the ConditionalExpressionSet and y belongs to the SimpleConditionSet}. remove all formulae in the TrialConditionalExpressionSet that are either in the ConditionalExpressionSet (i.e., the unspecialized ones) or null (e.g., big = y and big = n) for every expression, F, in the TrialConditionalExpressionSet if F is statistically significant and F is better than the BestConditionExpression by user-defined criteria when tested on the TrainingSet then replace the current value of the BestConditionExpression by F while the number of expressions in the TrialConditionalExpressionSet > user-defined maximum remove the worst expression from the TrialConditionalExpressionSet let the ConditionalExpressionSet be the TrialConditionalExpressionSet until the ConditionalExpressionSet is empty return the BestConditionExpression

  Read more →
• 

  LogitBoost

  In machine learning and computational learning theory, LogitBoost is a boosting algorithm formulated by Jerome Friedman, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani. The original paper casts the AdaBoost algorithm into a statistical framework. Specifically, if one considers AdaBoost as a generalized additive model and then applies the cost function of logistic regression, one can derive the LogitBoost algorithm. == Minimizing the LogitBoost cost function == LogitBoost can be seen as a convex optimization. Specifically, given that we seek an additive model of the form f = ∑ t α t h t {\displaystyle f=\sum _{t}\alpha _{t}h_{t}} the LogitBoost algorithm minimizes the logistic loss: ∑ i log ⁡ ( 1 + e − y i f ( x i ) ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i}\log \left(1+e^{-y_{i}f(x_{i})}\right)}

  Read more →
• 

  ActivityPub

  ActivityPub is a protocol and open standard for decentralized social networking. It provides a client-to-server (C2S) API for creating and modifying content, as well as a federated server-to-server (S2S) protocol for delivering notifications and content to other servers. ActivityPub is the defining standard of the Fediverse, a decentralised social network of various social interaction models, and content types, which consists of independently managed instances of software such as Mastodon, Pixelfed and PeerTube, among others. ActivityPub is considered to be an update to the ActivityPump protocol used in pump.io, and the official W3C repository for ActivityPub is identified as a fork of ActivityPump. The creation of a new standard for decentralized social networking was prompted by the complexity of OStatus, the most commonly used protocol at the time. OStatus was built using a multitude of technologies (such as Atom, Salmon, WebSub and WebFinger), a product of the infrastructure used in GNU social (the originator and largest user of the OStatus protocol), which made it difficult to implement the protocol into new software. OStatus was also only designed to work with microblogging services, with little flexibility to the types of data that it could hold. The standard was first published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) as a W3C Recommendation in January 2018 by the Social Web Working Group (SocialWG), a working group chartered to build the protocols and vocabularies needed to create a standard for social functionality. Shortly after, further development was moved to the Social Web Community Group (SocialCG), the successor to the SocialWG. == Design == ActivityPub uses the ActivityStreams 2.0 format for building its content, which itself uses JSON-LD. The three main data types used in ActivityPub are Objects, Activities and Actors. Objects are the most common data type, and can be images, videos, or more abstract items such as locations or events. Activities are actions that create and modify objects, for example a Create activity creates an object. Actors are representative of an individual, a group, an application or a service, and are the owners of objects. Every actor type contains an inbox and outbox stream, which sends and receives activities for a user. In order to publish data (for example liking an article), a user creates an activity that declares that they liked an Article object and publishes it to their outbox, where it is then delivered by the ActivityPub server via a POST request to the inboxes listed in the activity's to, bto, cc and bcc fields. The receiving servers then account for the newly received activity and update the article by adding the like action to it. === Example data === An example actor object that represents a user account: An example activity that likes an article object: An example article object: == Project status == The SocialCG previously organized a yearly free conference called ActivityPub Conf about the future of ActivityPub. Triages are held regularly to review issues pertaining to the ActivityPub and ActivityStreams 2.0 specifications as part of the SocialCG. In 2023, Germany's Sovereign Tech Fund donated €152,000 to socialweb.coop with the goal of building a new suite for testing various ActivityPub implementations and their compliance with the specification. === Adoption === The initial wave of adoption for ActivityPub (circa 2016–2018) came from software that was already using OStatus as their federation protocol, such as Mastodon, GNU social and Pleroma. Following the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk in 2022, many groups of users that were critical of the acquisition migrated to Mastodon, bringing new attention to the ActivityPub protocol with it. Various major social media platforms and corporations have since pledged to implement ActivityPub support, including Tumblr, Flipboard and Meta Platforms' Threads. Threads introduced crossposting to ActivityPub in 2024 for users outside of the European Economic Area, however full 2-way compatibility remains incomplete as of 2025. == Criticism == === Accidental denial-of-service attacks === Poorly optimized ActivityPub implementations can cause unintentional distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on other websites and servers, due to the decentralized nature of the network. An example would be Mastodon's implementation of OpenGraph link previews, wherein every instance that receives a post that contains a link with OpenGraph metadata will download the associated data, such as a thumbnail, in a very short timeframe, which can slow down or crash servers as a result of the sudden burst of requests. === Account migration === ActivityPub has been criticized for not natively supporting moving accounts from one server to another, forcing implementations to build their own solutions. While there has been work on building a standardized system for migrating accounts using the Move activity via the Fediverse Enhancement Proposal organization, the current proposal only allows for basic follower migration, with all other data remaining linked to the original account. === Missing content and data === ActivityPub implementations have been criticized for missing replies and parts of reply threads from remote posts, and presenting outdated statistics (e.g. likes and reposts) about remote posts. However, this isn't a problem with the ActivityPub protocol itself, but with implementations not refreshing their content for updated data when needed. == Software using ActivityPub == === Future implementations === Flarum, an internet forum software Forgejo, a Git forge and development platform === Uncertain future implementations === GitLab, a Git forge and development platform which had previously had an open issue discussing the topic, but was later closed due to the development team moving focus to other areas. Tumblr, a microblogging platform. Despite previous statements from Automattic CEO Matt Mullenweg, ActivityPub integration has been delayed indefinitely. The integration would have been implemented with its WordPress migration, as the first-party plugin for interoperability would have been used for federation. Flickr, an image and video hosting site.

  Read more →
• 

  Julia (programming language)

  Julia is a dynamic general-purpose programming language. As a high-level language, distinctive aspects of Julia's design include a type system with parametric polymorphism, the use of multiple dispatch as a core programming paradigm, just-in-time compilation and a parallel garbage collection implementation. Notably, Julia does not support classes with encapsulated methods but instead relies on the types of all of a function's arguments to determine which method will be called. By default, Julia is run similarly to scripting languages, using its runtime, and allows for interactions, but Julia programs can also be compiled to small binary standalone executables (or to small libraries for e.g. Python), with e.g. the JuliaC.jl compiler. Julia programs can reuse libraries from other languages, and vice versa. Julia has interoperability with C, C++, Fortran, Rust, Python, and R. Additionally, some Julia packages have bindings to be used from Python and R as libraries. Julia is supported by programmer tools like IDEs (see below) and by notebooks like Pluto.jl, Jupyter, and since 2025, Google Colab officially supports Julia natively. Julia is sometimes used in embedded systems (e.g. has been used in a satellite in space on a Raspberry Pi Compute Module 4; 64-bit Pis work best with Julia, and Julia is supported in Raspbian). == History == Work on Julia began in 2009, when Jeff Bezanson, Stefan Karpinski, Viral B. Shah, and Alan Edelman set out to create a free language that was both high-level and fast. On 14 February 2012, the team launched a website with a blog post explaining the language's mission. In an interview with InfoWorld in April 2012, Karpinski said about the name of the language, Julia: "There's no good reason, really. It just seemed like a pretty name." Bezanson said he chose the name on the recommendation of a friend, then years later wrote: Maybe julia stands for "Jeff's uncommon lisp is automated"? Julia's syntax is stable, since version 1.0 in 2018, and Julia has a backward compatibility guarantee for 1.x and also a stability promise for the documented (stable) API, while in the years before in the early development prior to 0.7 the syntax (and semantics) was changed in new versions. All of the (registered package) ecosystem uses the new and improved syntax, and in most cases relies on new APIs that have been added regularly, and in some cases minor additional syntax added in a forward compatible way e.g. in Julia 1.7. In the 10 years since the 2012 launch of pre-1.0 Julia, the community has grown. The Julia package ecosystem has over 11.8 million lines of code (including docs and tests). The JuliaCon academic conference for Julia users and developers has been held annually since 2014 with JuliaCon2020 welcoming over 28,900 unique viewers, and then JuliaCon2021 breaking all previous records (with more than 300 JuliaCon2021 presentations available for free on YouTube, up from 162 the year before), and 43,000 unique viewers during the conference. Three of the Julia co-creators are the recipients of the 2019 James H. Wilkinson Prize for Numerical Software (awarded every four years) "for the creation of Julia, an innovative environment for the creation of high-performance tools that enable the analysis and solution of computational science problems." Also, Alan Edelman, professor of applied mathematics at MIT, has been selected to receive the 2019 IEEE Computer Society Sidney Fernbach Award "for outstanding breakthroughs in high-performance computing, linear algebra, and computational science and for contributions to the Julia programming language." Version 0.3 was released in August 2014. Both Julia 0.7 and version 1.0 were released on 8 August 2018. Julia 1.4 added syntax for generic array indexing to handle e.g. 0-based arrays. The memory model was also changed. Julia 1.5 released in August 2020 added record and replay debugging support, for Mozilla's rr tool. The release changed the behavior in the REPL (to soft scope) to the one used in Jupyter, but keeps full compatible with non-REPL code (that retains hard scope). Julia 1.6 was the largest release since 1.0, and it was the long-term support (LTS) version for the longest time. Since Julia 1.7 development is back to time-based releases, and it was released in November 2021 with e.g. a new default random-number generator and Julia 1.7.3 fixed at least one security issue. Julia 1.8 added options for hiding source code when compiling Julia source code to executables. Julia 1.9 has added the ability to precompile packages to native machine code, done automatically; to improve precompilation of packages a new package PrecompileTools.jl was introduced, for use by package developers. Julia 1.10 was released on 25 December 2023 with new features such as parallel garbage collection. Julia 1.11 was released on 7 October 2024, and with it 1.10.5 became the next long-term support (LTS) version (i.e. those became the only two supported versions), since replaced by 1.10.10 released on 27 June, and 1.6 is no longer an LTS version. Julia 1.11 adds e.g. the new public keyword to signal safe public API (Julia users are advised to use such API, not internals, of Julia or packages, and package authors advised to use the keyword, generally indirectly, e.g. prefixed with the @compat macro, from Compat.jl, to also support older Julia versions, at least the LTS version). Julia 1.12 was released on 7 October 2025 (and 1.12.5 on 9 February 2026), and with it a JuliaC.jl package including the juliac compiler that works with it, for making rather small binary executables (much smaller than was possible before; through the use of new so-called trimming feature). Julia 1.10 LTS is an officially still-supported branch, but the 1.11 branch has also been maintained after 1.12 release, with 1.11.8 released and then 1.11.9 released on 8 February 2026. === JuliaCon === Since 2014, the Julia Community has hosted an annual Julia Conference focused on developers and users. The first JuliaCon took place in Chicago and kickstarted the annual occurrence of the conference. Since 2014, the conference has taken place across a number of locations including MIT and the University of Maryland, Baltimore. The event audience has grown from a few dozen people to over 28,900 unique attendees during JuliaCon 2020, which took place virtually. JuliaCon 2021 also took place virtually with keynote addresses from professors William Kahan, the primary architect of the IEEE 754 floating-point standard (which virtually all CPUs and languages, including Julia, use), Jan Vitek, Xiaoye Sherry Li, and Soumith Chintala, a co-creator of PyTorch. JuliaCon grew to 43,000 unique attendees and more than 300 presentations (still freely accessible, plus for older years). JuliaCon 2022 will also be virtual held between July 27 and July 29, 2022, for the first time in several languages, not just in English. === Sponsors === The Julia language became a NumFOCUS fiscally sponsored project in 2014 in an effort to ensure the project's long-term sustainability. Jeremy Kepner at MIT Lincoln Laboratory was the founding sponsor of the Julia project in its early days. In addition, funds from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Intel, and agencies such as NSF, DARPA, NIH, NASA, and FAA have been essential to the development of Julia. Mozilla, the maker of Firefox web browser, with its research grants for H1 2019, sponsored "a member of the official Julia team" for the project "Bringing Julia to the Browser", meaning to Firefox and other web browsers. The Julia language is also supported by individual donors on GitHub. === The Julia company === JuliaHub, Inc. was founded in 2015 as Julia Computing, Inc. by Viral B. Shah, Deepak Vinchhi, Alan Edelman, Jeff Bezanson, Stefan Karpinski and Keno Fischer. In June 2017, Julia Computing raised US$4.6 million in seed funding from General Catalyst and Founder Collective, the same month was "granted $910,000 by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to support open-source Julia development, including $160,000 to promote diversity in the Julia community", and in December 2019 the company got $1.1 million funding from the US government to "develop a neural component machine learning tool to reduce the total energy consumption of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in buildings". In July 2021, Julia Computing announced they raised a $24 million Series A round led by Dorilton Ventures, which also owns Formula One team Williams Racing, that partnered with Julia Computing. Williams' Commercial Director said: "Investing in companies building best-in-class cloud technology is a strategic focus for Dorilton and Julia's versatile platform, with revolutionary capabilities in simulation and modelling, is hugely relevant to our business. We look forward to embedding Julia Computing in the world's most technologically advanced sport". In June 2023, JuliaHub received (again, now

  Read more →
• 

  Neural gas

  Neural gas is an artificial neural network, inspired by the self-organizing map and introduced in 1991 by Thomas Martinetz and Klaus Schulten. The neural gas is a simple algorithm for finding optimal data representations based on feature vectors. The algorithm was coined "neural gas" because of the dynamics of the feature vectors during the adaptation process, which distribute themselves like a gas within the data space. It is applied where data compression or vector quantization is an issue, for example speech recognition, image processing or pattern recognition. As a robustly converging alternative to the k-means clustering it is also used for cluster analysis. == Algorithm == Suppose we want to model a probability distribution P ( x ) {\displaystyle P(x)} of data vectors x {\displaystyle x} using a finite number of feature vectors w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} , where i = 1 , ⋯ , N {\displaystyle i=1,\cdots ,N} . For each time step t {\displaystyle t} Sample data vector x {\displaystyle x} from P ( x ) {\displaystyle P(x)} Compute the distance between x {\displaystyle x} and each feature vector. Rank the distances. Let i 0 {\displaystyle i_{0}} be the index of the closest feature vector, i 1 {\displaystyle i_{1}} the index of the second closest feature vector, and so on. Update each feature vector by: w i k t + 1 = w i k t + ε ⋅ e − k / λ ⋅ ( x − w i k t ) , k = 0 , ⋯ , N − 1 {\displaystyle w_{i_{k}}^{t+1}=w_{i_{k}}^{t}+\varepsilon \cdot e^{-k/\lambda }\cdot (x-w_{i_{k}}^{t}),k=0,\cdots ,N-1} In the algorithm, ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } can be understood as the learning rate, and λ {\displaystyle \lambda } as the neighborhood range. ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } and λ {\displaystyle \lambda } are reduced with increasing t {\displaystyle t} so that the algorithm converges after many adaptation steps. The adaptation step of the neural gas can be interpreted as gradient descent on a cost function. By adapting not only the closest feature vector but all of them with a step size decreasing with increasing distance order, compared to (online) k-means clustering a much more robust convergence of the algorithm can be achieved. The neural gas model does not delete a node and also does not create new nodes. === Comparison with SOM === Compared to self-organized map, the neural gas model does not assume that some vectors are neighbors. If two vectors happen to be close together, they would tend to move together, and if two vectors happen to be apart, they would tend to not move together. In contrast, in an SOM, if two vectors are neighbors in the underlying graph, then they will always tend to move together, no matter whether the two vectors happen to be neighbors in the Euclidean space. The name "neural gas" is because one can imagine it to be what an SOM would be like if there is no underlying graph, and all points are free to move without the bonds that bind them together. == Variants == A number of variants of the neural gas algorithm exists in the literature so as to mitigate some of its shortcomings. More notable is perhaps Bernd Fritzke's growing neural gas, but also one should mention further elaborations such as the Growing When Required network and also the incremental growing neural gas. A performance-oriented approach that avoids the risk of overfitting is the Plastic Neural gas model. === Growing neural gas === Fritzke describes the growing neural gas (GNG) as an incremental network model that learns topological relations by using a "Hebb-like learning rule", only, unlike the neural gas, it has no parameters that change over time and it is capable of continuous learning, i.e. learning on data streams. GNG has been widely used in several domains, demonstrating its capabilities for clustering data incrementally. The GNG is initialized with two randomly positioned nodes which are initially connected with a zero age edge and whose errors are set to 0. Since in the GNG input data is presented sequentially one by one, the following steps are followed at each iteration: It is calculating the errors (distances) between the two closest nodes to the current input data. The error of the winner node (only the closest one) is respectively accumulated. The winner node and its topological neighbors (connected by an edge) are moving towards the current input by different fractions of their respective errors. The age of all edges connected to the winner node are incremented. If the winner node and the second-winner are connected by an edge, such an edge is set to 0. Else, an edge is created between them. If there are edges with an age larger than a threshold, they are removed. Nodes without connections are eliminated. If the current iteration is an integer multiple of a predefined frequency-creation threshold, a new node is inserted between the node with the largest error (among all) and its topological neighbor presenting the highest error. The link between the former and the latter nodes is eliminated (their errors are decreased by a given factor) and the new node is connected to both of them. The error of the new node is initialized as the updated error of the node which had the largest error (among all). The accumulated error of all nodes is decreased by a given factor. If the stopping criterion is not met, the algorithm takes a following input. The criterion might be a given number of epochs, i.e., a pre-set number of times where all data is presented, or the reach of a maximum number of nodes. === Incremental growing neural gas === Another neural gas variant inspired by the GNG algorithm is the incremental growing neural gas (IGNG). The authors propose the main advantage of this algorithm to be "learning new data (plasticity) without degrading the previously trained network and forgetting the old input data (stability)." === Growing when required === Having a network with a growing set of nodes, like the one implemented by the GNG algorithm was seen as a great advantage, however some limitation on the learning was seen by the introduction of the parameter λ, in which the network would only be able to grow when iterations were a multiple of this parameter. The proposal to mitigate this problem was a new algorithm, the Growing When Required network (GWR), which would have the network grow more quickly, by adding nodes as quickly as possible whenever the network identified that the existing nodes would not describe the input well enough. === Plastic neural gas === The ability to only grow a network may quickly introduce overfitting; on the other hand, removing nodes on the basis of age only, as in the GNG model, does not ensure that the removed nodes are actually useless, because removal depends on a model parameter that should be carefully tuned to the "memory length" of the stream of input data. The "Plastic Neural Gas" model solves this problem by making decisions to add or remove nodes using an unsupervised version of cross-validation, which controls an equivalent notion of "generalization ability" for the unsupervised setting. While growing-only methods only cater for the incremental learning scenario, the ability to grow and shrink is suited to the more general streaming data problem. == Implementations == To find the ranking i 0 , i 1 , … , i N − 1 {\displaystyle i_{0},i_{1},\ldots ,i_{N-1}} of the feature vectors, the neural gas algorithm involves sorting, which is a procedure that does not lend itself easily to parallelization or implementation in analog hardware. However, implementations in both parallel software and analog hardware were actually designed.

  Read more →
• 

  Homogeneity blockmodeling

  In mathematics applied to analysis of social structures, homogeneity blockmodeling is an approach in blockmodeling, which is best suited for a preliminary or main approach to valued networks, when a prior knowledge about these networks is not available. This is because homogeneity blockmodeling emphasizes the similarity of link (tie) strengths within the blocks over the pattern of links. In this approach, tie (link) values (or statistical data computed on them) are assumed to be equal (homogenous) within blocks. This approach to the generalized blockmodeling of valued networks was first proposed by Aleš Žiberna in 2007 with the basic idea, "that the inconsistency of an empirical block with its ideal block can be measured by within block variability of appropriate values". The newly–formed ideal blocks, which are appropriate for blockmodeling of valued networks, are then presented together with the definitions of their block inconsistencies. Similar approach to the homogeneity blockmodeling, dealing with direct approach for structural equivalence, was previously suggested by Stephen P. Borgatti and Martin G. Everett (1992).

  Read more →
• 

  ByLock

  ByLock was a smartphone application that allowed users to communicate via a private, encrypted connection. It was launched in March 2014 on Google Play, Apple App Store The app was downloaded over 600,000 times from its launch in April 2014 until March 2016, when it was permanently shut down. The Turkish National Intelligence Organization (Turkish: Millî İstihbarat Teşkilatı, MİT) stated that the app was downloaded mainly in Turkey and the users were “Fetullahist Terror Organisation (FETÖ) which was formerly known as “Gülen movement” members. == Gülen Movement controversy == In Turkey, possession of the app is deemed evidence of membership in the Gülen Movement, which was allegedly connected to the failed Turkish coup d'état attempt in July 2016. Users of ByLock were deemed terrorists in Turkish courts. According to Deutsche Welle, of the 215,000 former ByLock users, an estimated 23,000 have been detained by Turkish authorities. Some believe that the MİT and other Turkish authorities manipulated the ByLock database in order to arrest suspected members of the Gülen Movement. Tuncay Beşikçi, a computer forensic expert in Turkey, emphasized that "the demands to investigate and analyze ByLock data from independent institutions are refused by the Turkish courts. But it is not normal". Tuncay Beşikçi believes that this application is precisely one of the channels for Gülen molecules to communicate and can also monitor the activities of other members of the organization. He also stated that the developers behind the Mor Beyin app, deliberately set a plan in motion that would put thousands of innocent people in prison as a cover for the Gülen movement. In December 2017, Turkish authorities revealed that almost half the people who had been prosecuted for having ByLock on their smartphones would have their legal cases reviewed, as they could have been redirected to the app without their knowledge. Following the failed coup attempt on 15 July 2016, the use of the ByLock messaging application by members of the Gülen Movement was the sole evidence in investigations and prosecutions to justify arrests and convictions for "membership in an armed terrorist organization." However, these decisions have been considered human rights violations by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Some of the relevant decisions include the following: === Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights === On 20 July 2021, in the case of Tekin Akgün v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the use of the ByLock messaging application, unless supported by other evidence, does not create a reasonable suspicion of a crime. Based on this reasoning, the court found that the detention order violated Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to liberty and security. In the Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey decision on 26 September 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined an appeal against a conviction based on the use of ByLock. The Court ruled that the failure to provide an opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the ByLock data violated the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the ECHR). The Court also stated that the mere use of ByLock could not be considered sufficient evidence for membership in an armed terrorist organization. It further noted that local courts had established an automatic presumption of guilt based solely on ByLock use, creating a broad and unpredictable interpretation of the law, making it nearly impossible for the accused to exonerate themselves. Therefore, the Court concluded that the conviction based on the use of ByLock violated the principle of no punishment without law (Article 7 of the ECHR). On 22 July 2025, in the Demirhan and 238 Others case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) consolidated the applications of 239 individuals who had been convicted of "membership in an armed terrorist organization" based on their use of ByLock, as determined by 239 separate courts in Turkey. The Court ruled that the convictions violated the right to a fair trial under Article 6 and the principle of no punishment without law under Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ruling stated that the Turkish courts' "categorical approach" to the use of ByLock lacked legal foundation. In this context, it was emphasized that anyone who had used ByLock could not be convicted of membership in an armed terrorist organization based solely on this reasoning. The ruling also stated that, due to the large number of similar applications, the issue was "systemic in nature" and it called for a national solution to be developed by Turkey. While the Court did not order compensation for the 239 applicants, it emphasized that reopening the trial to ensure the enforcement of the violation ruling was the most appropriate remedy. This ruling, which confirms the violation finding in the Yüksel Yalçınkaya case of 26 September 2023, is considered a continuation of the ECHR's case law concerning trials based on ByLock evidence. === Decisions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and Working Group === In the İsmet Özçelik and Turgay Karaman v. Turkey decision, dated 28 May 2019 (Application No. 2980/2017), the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that the use of ByLock and allegations of depositing money into Bank Asya could not justify the applicants' arrests. In the Mestan Yayman v. Turkey decision (Opinion No. 42/2018 – 21 August 2018) by the UN Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, it was stated that using a public messaging application like ByLock cannot be considered criminal evidence, and that the use of such an application falls under the scope of freedom of thought and expression. The dozens of decisions later issued by the UN Human Rights Council Working Group are of the same nature.

  Read more →
• 

  Sammon mapping

  Sammon mapping or Sammon projection is an algorithm that maps a high-dimensional space to a space of lower dimensionality (see multidimensional scaling) by trying to preserve the structure of inter-point distances in high-dimensional space in the lower-dimension projection. It is particularly suited for use in exploratory data analysis. The method was proposed by John W. Sammon in 1969. It is considered a non-linear approach as the mapping cannot be represented as a linear combination of the original variables as possible in techniques such as principal component analysis, which also makes it more difficult to use for classification applications. Denote the distance between ith and jth objects in the original space by d i j ∗ {\displaystyle \scriptstyle d_{ij}^{}} , and the distance between their projections by d i j {\displaystyle \scriptstyle d_{ij}^{}} . Sammon's mapping aims to minimize the following error function, which is often referred to as Sammon's stress or Sammon's error: E = 1 ∑ i < j d i j ∗ ∑ i < j ( d i j ∗ − d i j ) 2 d i j ∗ . {\displaystyle E={\frac {1}{\sum \limits _{i Read more →

• 

  Stochastic block model

  The stochastic block model is a generative model for random graphs. This model tends to produce graphs containing communities, subsets of nodes characterized by being connected with one another with particular edge densities. For example, edges may be more common within communities than between communities. Its mathematical formulation was first introduced in 1983 in the field of social network analysis by Paul W. Holland et al. The stochastic block model is important in statistics, machine learning, and network science, where it serves as a useful benchmark for the task of recovering community structure in graph data. == Definition == The stochastic block model takes the following parameters: The number n {\displaystyle n} of vertices; a partition of the vertex set { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle \{1,\ldots ,n\}} into disjoint subsets C 1 , … , C r {\displaystyle C_{1},\ldots ,C_{r}} , called communities; a symmetric r × r {\displaystyle r\times r} matrix P {\displaystyle P} of edge probabilities. The edge set is then sampled at random as follows: any two vertices u ∈ C i {\displaystyle u\in C_{i}} and v ∈ C j {\displaystyle v\in C_{j}} are connected by an edge with probability P i j {\displaystyle P_{ij}} . An example problem is: given a graph with n {\displaystyle n} vertices, where the edges are sampled as described, recover the groups C 1 , … , C r {\displaystyle C_{1},\ldots ,C_{r}} . == Special cases == If the probability matrix is a constant, in the sense that P i j = p {\displaystyle P_{ij}=p} for all i , j {\displaystyle i,j} , then the result is the Erdős–Rényi model G ( n , p ) {\displaystyle G(n,p)} . This case is degenerate—the partition into communities becomes irrelevant—but it illustrates a close relationship to the Erdős–Rényi model. The planted partition model is the special case that the values of the probability matrix P {\displaystyle P} are a constant p {\displaystyle p} on the diagonal and another constant q {\displaystyle q} off the diagonal. Thus two vertices within the same community share an edge with probability p {\displaystyle p} , while two vertices in different communities share an edge with probability q {\displaystyle q} . Sometimes it is this restricted model that is called the stochastic block model. The case where p > q {\displaystyle p>q} is called an assortative model, while the case p < q {\displaystyle p P j k {\displaystyle P_{ii}>P_{jk}} whenever j ≠ k {\displaystyle j\neq k} : all diagonal entries dominate all off-diagonal entries. A model is called weakly assortative if P i i > P i j {\displaystyle P_{ii}>P_{ij}} whenever i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} : each diagonal entry is only required to dominate the rest of its own row and column. Disassortative forms of this terminology exist, by reversing all inequalities. For some algorithms, recovery might be easier for block models with assortative or disassortative conditions of this form. == Typical statistical tasks == Much of the literature on algorithmic community detection addresses three statistical tasks: detection, partial recovery, and exact recovery. === Detection === The goal of detection algorithms is simply to determine, given a sampled graph, whether the graph has latent community structure. More precisely, a graph might be generated, with some known prior probability, from a known stochastic block model, and otherwise from a similar Erdos-Renyi model. The algorithmic task is to correctly identify which of these two underlying models generated the graph. === Partial recovery === In partial recovery, the goal is to approximately determine the latent partition into communities, in the sense of finding a partition that is correlated with the true partition significantly better than a random guess. === Exact recovery === In exact recovery, the goal is to recover the latent partition into communities exactly. The community sizes and probability matrix may be known or unknown. == Statistical lower bounds and threshold behavior == Stochastic block models exhibit a sharp threshold effect reminiscent of percolation thresholds. Suppose that we allow the size n {\displaystyle n} of the graph to grow, keeping the community sizes in fixed proportions. If the probability matrix remains fixed, tasks such as partial and exact recovery become feasible for all non-degenerate parameter settings. However, if we scale down the probability matrix at a suitable rate as n {\displaystyle n} increases, we observe a sharp phase transition: for certain settings of the parameters, it will become possible to achieve recovery with probability tending to 1, whereas on the opposite side of the parameter threshold, the probability of recovery tends to 0 no matter what algorithm is used. For partial recovery, the appropriate scaling is to take P i j = P ~ i j / n {\displaystyle P_{ij}={\tilde {P}}_{ij}/n} for fixed P ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {P}}} , resulting in graphs of constant average degree. In the case of two equal-sized communities, in the assortative planted partition model with probability matrix P = ( p ~ / n q ~ / n q ~ / n p ~ / n ) , {\displaystyle P=\left({\begin{array}{cc}{\tilde {p}}/n&{\tilde {q}}/n\\{\tilde {q}}/n&{\tilde {p}}/n\end{array}}\right),} partial recovery is feasible with probability 1 − o ( 1 ) {\displaystyle 1-o(1)} whenever ( p ~ − q ~ ) 2 > 2 ( p ~ + q ~ ) {\displaystyle ({\tilde {p}}-{\tilde {q}})^{2}>2({\tilde {p}}+{\tilde {q}})} , whereas any estimator fails partial recovery with probability 1 − o ( 1 ) {\displaystyle 1-o(1)} whenever ( p ~ − q ~ ) 2 < 2 ( p ~ + q ~ ) {\displaystyle ({\tilde {p}}-{\tilde {q}})^{2}<2({\tilde {p}}+{\tilde {q}})} . For exact recovery, the appropriate scaling is to take P i j = P ~ i j log ⁡ n / n {\displaystyle P_{ij}={\tilde {P}}_{ij}\log n/n} , resulting in graphs of logarithmic average degree. Here a similar threshold exists: for the assortative planted partition model with r {\displaystyle r} equal-sized communities, the threshold lies at p ~ − q ~ = r {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\tilde {p}}}-{\sqrt {\tilde {q}}}={\sqrt {r}}} . In fact, the exact recovery threshold is known for the fully general stochastic block model. == Algorithms == In principle, exact recovery can be solved in its feasible range using maximum likelihood, but this amounts to solving a constrained or regularized cut problem such as minimum bisection that is typically NP-complete. Hence, no known efficient algorithms will correctly compute the maximum-likelihood estimate in the worst case. However, a wide variety of algorithms perform well in the average case, and many high-probability performance guarantees have been proven for algorithms in both the partial and exact recovery settings. Successful algorithms include spectral clustering of the vertices, semidefinite programming, forms of belief propagation, and community detection among others. == Variants == Several variants of the model exist. One minor tweak allocates vertices to communities randomly, according to a categorical distribution, rather than in a fixed partition. More significant variants include the degree-corrected stochastic block model, the hierarchical stochastic block model, the geometric block model, censored block model and the mixed-membership block model. == Topic models == Stochastic block model have been recognised to be a topic model on bipartite networks. In a network of documents and words, Stochastic block model can identify topics: group of words with a similar meaning. == Extensions to signed graphs == Signed graphs allow for both favorable and adverse relationships and serve as a common model choice for various data analysis applications, e.g., correlation clustering. The stochastic block model can be trivially extended to signed graphs by assigning both positive and negative edge weights or equivalently using a difference of adjacency matrices of two stochastic block models. == DARPA/MIT/AWS Graph Challenge: streaming stochastic block partition == GraphChallenge encourages community approaches to developing new solutions for analyzing graphs and sparse data derived from social media, sensor feeds, and scientific data to enable relationships between events to be discovered as they unfold in the field. Streaming stochastic block partition is one of the challenges since 2017. Spectral clustering has demonstrated outstanding performance compared to the original and even improved base algorithm, matching its quality of clusters while being multiple orders of magnitude faster.

  Read more →