AI Chatbot Miles

AI Chatbot Miles — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Per-pixel lighting

  In computer graphics, per-pixel lighting refers to any technique for lighting an image or scene that calculates illumination for each pixel on a rendered image. This is in contrast to other popular methods of lighting such as vertex lighting, which calculates illumination at each vertex of a 3D model and then interpolates the resulting values over the model's faces to calculate the final per-pixel color values. Per-pixel lighting is commonly used with techniques, such as blending, alpha blending, alpha to coverage, anti-aliasing, texture filtering, clipping, hidden-surface determination, Z-buffering, stencil buffering, shading, mipmapping, normal mapping, bump mapping, displacement mapping, parallax mapping, shadow mapping, specular mapping, shadow volumes, high-dynamic-range rendering, ambient occlusion (screen space ambient occlusion, screen space directional occlusion, ray-traced ambient occlusion), ray tracing, global illumination, and tessellation. Each of these techniques provides some additional data about the surface being lit or the scene and light sources that contributes to the final look and feel of the surface. Most modern video game engines implement lighting using per-pixel techniques instead of vertex lighting to achieve increased detail and realism. The id Tech 4 engine, used to develop such games as Brink and Doom 3, was one of the first game engines to implement a completely per-pixel shading engine. All versions of the CryENGINE, Frostbite Engine, and Unreal Engine, among others, also implement per-pixel shading techniques. Deferred shading is a recent development in per-pixel lighting notable for its use in the Frostbite Engine and Battlefield 3. Deferred shading techniques are capable of rendering potentially large numbers of small lights inexpensively (other per-pixel lighting approaches require full-screen calculations for each light in a scene, regardless of size). == History == While only recently have personal computers and video hardware become powerful enough to perform full per-pixel shading in real-time applications such as games, many of the core concepts used in per-pixel lighting models have existed for decades. Frank Crow published a paper describing the theory of shadow volumes in 1977. This technique uses the stencil buffer to specify areas of the screen that correspond to surfaces that lie in a "shadow volume", or a shape representing a volume of space eclipsed from a light source by some object. These shadowed areas are typically shaded after the scene is rendered to buffers by storing shadowed areas with the stencil buffer. Jim Blinn first introduced the idea of normal mapping in a 1978 SIGGRAPH paper. Blinn pointed out that the earlier idea of unlit texture mapping proposed by Edwin Catmull was unrealistic for simulating rough surfaces. Instead of mapping a texture onto an object to simulate roughness, Blinn proposed a method of calculating the degree of lighting a point on a surface should receive based on an established "perturbation" of the normals across the surface. == Hardware rendering == Real-time applications, such as video games, usually implement per-pixel lighting through the use of pixel shaders, allowing the GPU hardware to process the effect. The scene to be rendered is first rasterized onto a number of buffers storing different types of data to be used in rendering the scene, such as depth, normal direction, and diffuse color. Then, the data is passed into a shader and used to compute the final appearance of the scene, pixel-by-pixel. Deferred shading is a per-pixel shading technique that has recently become feasible for games. With deferred shading, a "g-buffer" is used to store all terms needed to shade a final scene on the pixel level. The format of this data varies from application to application depending on the desired effect, and can include normal data, positional data, specular data, diffuse data, emissive maps and albedo, among others. Using multiple render targets, all of this data can be rendered to the g-buffer with a single pass, and a shader can calculate the final color of each pixel based on the data from the g-buffer in a final "deferred pass". Because deferred shading assumes only one visible fragment per pixel sample, transparent objects are generally handled in a separate forward pass. == Software rendering == Per-pixel lighting is also performed in software on many high-end commercial rendering applications which typically do not render at interactive framerates. This is called offline rendering or software rendering. NVidia's mental ray rendering software, which is integrated with such suites as Autodesk's Softimage is a well-known example.

  Read more →
• 

  Recursive neural network

  A recursive neural network is a kind of deep neural network created by applying the same set of weights recursively over a structured input, to produce a structured prediction over variable-size input structures, or a scalar prediction on it, by traversing a given structure in topological order. These networks were first introduced to learn distributed representations of structure (such as logical terms), but have been successful in multiple applications, for instance in learning sequence and tree structures in natural language processing (mainly continuous representations of phrases and sentences based on word embeddings). == Architectures == === Basic === In the simplest architecture, nodes are combined into parents using a weight matrix (which is shared across the whole network) and a non-linearity such as the tanh {\displaystyle \tanh } hyperbolic function. If c 1 {\displaystyle c_{1}} and c 2 {\displaystyle c_{2}} are n {\displaystyle n} -dimensional vector representations of nodes, their parent will also be an n {\displaystyle n} -dimensional vector, defined as: p 1 , 2 = tanh ⁡ ( W [ c 1 ; c 2 ] ) {\displaystyle p_{1,2}=\tanh(W[c_{1};c_{2}])} where W {\displaystyle W} is a learned n × 2 n {\displaystyle n\times 2n} weight matrix. This architecture, with a few improvements, has been used for successfully parsing natural scenes, syntactic parsing of natural language sentences, and recursive autoencoding and generative modeling of 3D shape structures in the form of cuboid abstractions. === Recursive cascade correlation (RecCC) === RecCC is a constructive neural network approach to deal with tree domains with pioneering applications to chemistry and extension to directed acyclic graphs. === Unsupervised RNN === A framework for unsupervised RNN has been introduced in 2004. === Tensor === Recursive neural tensor networks use a single tensor-based composition function for all nodes in the tree. == Training == === Stochastic gradient descent === Typically, stochastic gradient descent (SGD) is used to train the network. The gradient is computed using backpropagation through structure (BPTS), a variant of backpropagation through time used for recurrent neural networks. == Properties == The universal approximation capability of RNNs over trees has been proved in literature. == Related models == === Recurrent neural networks === Recurrent neural networks are recursive artificial neural networks with a certain structure: that of a linear chain. Whereas recursive neural networks operate on any hierarchical structure, combining child representations into parent representations, recurrent neural networks operate on the linear progression of time, combining the previous time step and a hidden representation into the representation for the current time step. === Tree Echo State Networks === An efficient approach to implement recursive neural networks is given by the Tree Echo State Network within the reservoir computing paradigm. === Extension to graphs === Extensions to graphs include graph neural network (GNN), Neural Network for Graphs (NN4G), and more recently convolutional neural networks for graphs.

  Read more →
• 

  Harrison White

  Harrison Colyar White (March 21, 1930 – May 18, 2024) was an American sociologist who was the Giddings Professor of Sociology at Columbia University. White played an influential role in the “Harvard Revolution” in social networks and the New York School of relational sociology. He is credited with the development of a number of mathematical models of social structure including vacancy chains and blockmodels. He has been a leader of a revolution in sociology that is still in process, using models of social structure that are based on patterns of relations instead of the attributes and attitudes of individuals. Among social network researchers, White is widely respected. For instance, at the 1997 International Network of Social Network Analysis conference, the organizer held a special “White Tie” event, dedicated to White. Social network researcher Emmanuel Lazega refers to him as both “Copernicus and Galileo” because he invented both the vision and the tools. The most comprehensive documentation of his theories can be found in the book Identity and Control, first published in 1992. A major rewrite of the book appeared in June 2008. In 2011, White received the W.E.B. DuBois Career of Distinguished Scholarship Award from the American Sociological Association, which honors "scholars who have shown outstanding commitment to the profession of sociology and whose cumulative work has contributed in important ways to the advancement of the discipline." Before his retirement to live in Tucson, Arizona, White was interested in sociolinguistics and business strategy as well as sociology. == Life and career == === Early years === White was born on March 21, 1930, in Washington, D.C. He had three siblings and his father was a doctor in the US Navy. Although moving around to different Naval bases throughout his adolescence, he considered himself Southern, and Nashville, TN to be his home. At the age of 15, he entered the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), receiving his undergraduate degree at 20 years of age; five years later, in 1955, he received a doctorate in theoretical physics, also from MIT with John C. Slater as his advisor. His dissertation was titled A quantum-mechanical calculation of inter-atomic force constants in copper. This was published in the Physical Review as "Atomic Force Constants of Copper from Feynman's Theorem" (1958). While at MIT he also took a course with the political scientist Karl Deutsch, who White credits with encouraging him to move toward the social sciences. === Princeton University === After receiving his PhD in theoretical physics, he received a Fellowship from the Ford Foundation to begin his second doctorate in sociology at Princeton University. His dissertation advisor was Marion J. Levy. White also worked with Wilbert Moore, Fred Stephan, and Frank W. Notestein while at Princeton. His cohort was very small, with only four or five other graduate students including David Matza, and Stanley Udy. At the same time, he took up a position as an operations analyst at the Operations Research Office, Johns Hopkins University from 1955 to 1956. During this period, he worked with Lee S. Christie on Queuing with Preemptive Priorities or with Breakdown, which was published in 1958. Christie previously worked alongside mathematical psychologist R. Duncan Luce in the Small Group Laboratory at MIT while White was completing his first PhD in physics also at MIT. While continuing his studies at Princeton, White also spent a year as a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, California where he met Harold Guetzkow. Guetzkow was a faculty member at the Carnegie Institute of Technology, known for his application of simulations to social behavior and long-time collaborator with many other pioneers in organization studies, including Herbert A. Simon, James March, and Richard Cyert. Upon meeting Simon through his mutual acquaintance with Guetzkow, White received an invitation to move from California to Pittsburgh to work as an assistant professor of Industrial Administration and Sociology at the Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Institute of Technology (later Carnegie-Mellon University), where he stayed for a couple of years, between 1957 and 1959. In an interview, he claimed to have fought with the dean, Leyland Bock, to have the word "sociology" included in his title. It was also during his time at the Stanford Center for Advanced Study that White met his first wife, Cynthia A. Johnson, who was a graduate of Radcliffe College, where she had majored in art history. The couple's joint work on the French Impressionists, Canvases and Careers (1965) and “Institutional Changes in the French Painting World” (1964), originally grew out of a seminar on art in 1957 at the Center for Advanced Study led by Robert Wilson. White originally hoped to use sociometry to map the social structure of French art to predict shifts, but he had an epiphany that it was not social structure but institutional structure which explained the shift. It was also during these years that White, still a graduate student in sociology, wrote and published his first social scientific work, "Sleep: A Sociological Interpretation" in Acta Sociologica in 1960, together with Vilhelm Aubert, a Norwegian sociologist. This work was a phenomenological examination of sleep which attempted to "demonstrate that sleep was more than a straightforward biological activity... [but rather also] a social event". For his dissertation, White carried out empirical research on a research and development department in a manufacturing firm, consisting of interviews and a 110-item questionnaire with managers. He specifically used sociometric questions, which he used to model the "social structure" of relationships between various departments and teams in the organization. In May 1960 he submitted as his doctoral dissertation, titled Research and Development as a Pattern in Industrial Management: A Case Study in Institutionalisation and Uncertainty, earning a PhD in sociology from Princeton University. His first publication based on his dissertation was ''Management conflict and sociometric structure'' in the American Journal of Sociology. === University of Chicago === In 1959 James Coleman left the University of Chicago to found a new department of social relations at Johns Hopkins University, this left a vacancy open for a mathematical sociologist like White. He moved to Chicago to start working as an associate professor at the Department of Sociology. At that time, highly influential sociologists, such as Peter Blau, Mayer Zald, Elihu Katz, Everett Hughes, Erving Goffman were there. As Princeton only required one year in residence, and White took the opportunity to take positions at Johns Hopkins, Stanford, and Carnegie while still working on his dissertation, it was at Chicago that White credits as being his "real socialization in a way, into sociology." It was here that White advised his first two graduate students Joel H. Levine and Morris Friedell, both who went on to make contributions to social network analysis in sociology. While at the Center for Advanced Study, White began learning anthropology and became fascinated with kinship. During his stay at the University of Chicago White was able to finish An Anatomy of Kinship, published in 1963 within the Prentice-Hall series in Mathematical Analysis of Social Behavior, with James Coleman and James March as chief editors. The book received significant attention from many mathematical sociologists of the time, and contributed greatly to establish White as a model builder. === The Harvard Revolution === In 1963, White left Chicago to be an associate professor of sociology at the Harvard Department of Social Relations—the same department founded by Talcott Parsons and still heavily influenced by the structural-functionalist paradigm of Parsons. As White previously only taught graduate courses at Carnegie and Chicago, his first undergraduate course was An Introduction to Social Relations (see Influence) at Harvard, which became infamous among network analysts. As he "thought existing textbooks were grotesquely unscientific," the syllabus of the class was noted for including few readings by sociologists, and comparatively more readings by anthropologists, social psychologists, and historians. White was also a vocal critic of what he called the "attributes and attitudes" approach of Parsonsian sociology, and came to be the leader of what has been variously known as the “Harvard Revolution," the "Harvard breakthrough," or the "Harvard renaissance" in social networks. He worked closely with small group researchers George C. Homans and Robert F. Bales, which was largely compatible with his prior work in organizational research and his efforts to formalize network analysis. Overlapping White's early years, Charles Tilly, a graduate of the Harvard Department of Social

  Read more →
• 

  FERET database

  The Facial Recognition Technology (FERET) database is a dataset used for facial recognition system evaluation as part of the Face Recognition Technology (FERET) program. It was first established in 1993 under a collaborative effort between Harry Wechsler at George Mason University and Jonathon Phillips at the Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, Maryland. The FERET database serves as a standard database of facial images for researchers to use to develop various algorithms and report results. The use of a common database also allowed one to compare the effectiveness of different approaches in methodology and gauge their strengths and weaknesses. The facial images for the database were collected between December 1993 and August 1996, accumulating a total of 14,126 images pertaining to 1,199 individuals along with 365 duplicate sets of images that were taken on a different day. In 2003, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) released a high-resolution, 24-bit color version of these images. The dataset tested includes 2,413 still facial images, representing 856 individuals. The FERET database has been used by more than 460 research groups and is managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

  Read more →
• 

  Agent Ruby

  Agent Ruby (1998–2002) by Lynn Hershman Leeson is an interactive, multiuser work using artificial intelligence. == Description == On Agent Ruby's website, "Agent Ruby's Edream Portal," a female face moves her eyes and lips. Ruby, named from Hershman Leeson's own film, Teknolust, answers questions and often responds that she needs a better algorithm to answer questions not within her database. The work, created with AI, explores relationships between real and virtual worlds. Hershman Leeson had created an earlier version of Ruby, CyberRoberta, which was a custom-made doll with webcam eyes that interacted with the internet. The work in a gallery provides a screen and a sign inviting gallery-goers to "Chat with Ruby." == Artificial intelligence == In 2015 when Agent Ruby was exhibited at the gallery Modern Art Oxford, a review in Aesthetica Magazine described it as an artificial intelligence agent. A review in New Scientist noted that "Ruby is a fast learner, but perhaps not a natural conversationalist." A 2024 list of "25 Essential AI Artworks" published by ARTnews wrote that while "Agent Ruby's capabilities seem limited by today's standards," it was extensive for its day. == Publications and exhibitions == Agent Ruby was commissioned and displayed at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, Modern Art Oxford, and the ZKM Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe, Germany. The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA) presented Lynn Hershman Leeson: The Agent Ruby Files, March 30 through June 2, 2013 which presented the project server's archive of user conversations over the 12 years of exhibitions.

  Read more →
• 

  Evolutionary multimodal optimization

  In applied mathematics, multimodal optimization deals with optimization tasks that involve finding all or most of the multiple (at least locally optimal) solutions of a problem, as opposed to a single best solution. Evolutionary multimodal optimization is a branch of evolutionary computation, which is closely related to machine learning. Wong provides a short survey, wherein the chapter of Shir and the book of Preuss cover the topic in more detail. == Motivation == Knowledge of multiple solutions to an optimization task is especially helpful in engineering, when due to physical (and/or cost) constraints, the best results may not always be realizable. In such a scenario, if multiple solutions (locally and/or globally optimal) are known, the implementation can be quickly switched to another solution and still obtain the best possible system performance. Multiple solutions could also be analyzed to discover hidden properties (or relationships) of the underlying optimization problem, which makes them important for obtaining domain knowledge. In addition, the algorithms for multimodal optimization usually not only locate multiple optima in a single run, but also preserve their population diversity, resulting in their global optimization ability on multimodal functions. Moreover, the techniques for multimodal optimization are usually borrowed as diversity maintenance techniques to other problems. == Background == Classical techniques of optimization would need multiple restart points and multiple runs in the hope that a different solution may be discovered every run, with no guarantee however. Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) due to their population based approach, provide a natural advantage over classical optimization techniques. They maintain a population of possible solutions, which are processed every generation, and if the multiple solutions can be preserved over all these generations, then at termination of the algorithm we will have multiple good solutions, rather than only the best solution. Note that this is against the natural tendency of classical optimization techniques, which will always converge to the best solution, or a sub-optimal solution (in a rugged, “badly behaving” function). Finding and maintenance of multiple solutions is wherein lies the challenge of using EAs for multi-modal optimization. Niching is a generic term referred to as the technique of finding and preserving multiple stable niches, or favorable parts of the solution space possibly around multiple solutions, so as to prevent convergence to a single solution. The field of Evolutionary algorithms encompasses genetic algorithms (GAs), evolution strategy (ES), differential evolution (DE), particle swarm optimization (PSO), and other methods. Attempts have been made to solve multi-modal optimization in all these realms and most, if not all the various methods implement niching in some form or the other. == Multimodal optimization using genetic algorithms/evolution strategies == De Jong's crowding method, Goldberg's sharing function approach, Petrowski's clearing method, restricted mating, maintaining multiple subpopulations are some of the popular approaches that have been proposed by the community. The first two methods are especially well studied, however, they do not perform explicit separation into solutions belonging to different basins of attraction. The application of multimodal optimization within ES was not explicit for many years, and has been explored only recently. A niching framework utilizing derandomized ES was introduced by Shir, proposing the CMA-ES as a niching optimizer for the first time. The underpinning of that framework was the selection of a peak individual per subpopulation in each generation, followed by its sampling to produce the consecutive dispersion of search-points. The biological analogy of this machinery is an alpha-male winning all the imposed competitions and dominating thereafter its ecological niche, which then obtains all the sexual resources therein to generate its offspring. Recently, an evolutionary multiobjective optimization (EMO) approach was proposed, in which a suitable second objective is added to the originally single objective multimodal optimization problem, so that the multiple solutions form a weak pareto-optimal front. Hence, the multimodal optimization problem can be solved for its multiple solutions using an EMO algorithm. Improving upon their work, the same authors have made their algorithm self-adaptive, thus eliminating the need for pre-specifying the parameters. An approach that does not use any radius for separating the population into subpopulations (or species) but employs the space topology instead is proposed in.

  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 →
• 

  Gaussian process emulator

  In statistics, Gaussian process emulator is one name for a general type of statistical model that has been used in contexts where the problem is to make maximum use of the outputs of a complicated (often non-random) computer-based simulation model. Each run of the simulation model is computationally expensive and each run is based on many different controlling inputs. The variation of the outputs of the simulation model is expected to vary reasonably smoothly with the inputs, but in an unknown way. The overall analysis involves two models: the simulation model, or "simulator", and the statistical model, or "emulator", which notionally emulates the unknown outputs from the simulator. The Gaussian process emulator model treats the problem from the viewpoint of Bayesian statistics. In this approach, even though the output of the simulation model is fixed for any given set of inputs, the actual outputs are unknown unless the computer model is run and hence can be made the subject of a Bayesian analysis. The main element of the Gaussian process emulator model is that it models the outputs as a Gaussian process on a space that is defined by the model inputs. The model includes a description of the correlation or covariance of the outputs, which enables the model to encompass the idea that differences in the output will be small if there are only small differences in the inputs.

  Read more →
• 

  Lossless join decomposition

  In database design, a lossless join decomposition is a decomposition of a relation r {\displaystyle r} into relations r 1 , r 2 {\displaystyle r_{1},r_{2}} such that a natural join of the two smaller relations yields back the original relation. This is central in removing redundancy safely from databases while preserving the original data. Lossless join can also be called non-additive. == Definition == A relation r {\displaystyle r} on schema R {\displaystyle R} decomposes losslessly onto schemas R 1 {\displaystyle R_{1}} and R 2 {\displaystyle R_{2}} if π R 1 ( r ) ⋈ π R 2 ( r ) = r {\displaystyle \pi _{R_{1}}(r)\bowtie \pi _{R_{2}}(r)=r} , that is r {\displaystyle r} is the natural join of its projections onto the smaller schemas. A pair ( R 1 , R 2 ) {\displaystyle (R_{1},R_{2})} is a lossless-join decomposition of R {\displaystyle R} or said to have a lossless join with respect to a set of functional dependencies F {\displaystyle F} if any relation r ( R ) {\displaystyle r(R)} that satisfies F {\displaystyle F} decomposes losslessly onto R 1 {\displaystyle R_{1}} and R 2 {\displaystyle R_{2}} . Decompositions into more than two schemas can be defined in the same way. == Criteria == A decomposition R = R 1 ∪ R 2 {\displaystyle R=R_{1}\cup R_{2}} has a lossless join with respect to F {\displaystyle F} if and only if the closure of R 1 ∩ R 2 {\displaystyle R_{1}\cap R_{2}} includes R 1 ∖ R 2 {\displaystyle R_{1}\setminus R_{2}} or R 2 ∖ R 1 {\displaystyle R_{2}\setminus R_{1}} . In other words, one of the following must hold: ( R 1 ∩ R 2 ) → ( R 1 ∖ R 2 ) ∈ F + {\displaystyle (R_{1}\cap R_{2})\to (R_{1}\setminus R_{2})\in F^{+}} ( R 1 ∩ R 2 ) → ( R 2 ∖ R 1 ) ∈ F + {\displaystyle (R_{1}\cap R_{2})\to (R_{2}\setminus R_{1})\in F^{+}} === Criteria for multiple sub-schemas === Multiple sub-schemas R 1 , R 2 , . . . , R n {\displaystyle R_{1},R_{2},...,R_{n}} have a lossless join if there is some way in which we can repeatedly perform lossless joins until all the schemas have been joined into a single schema. Once we have a new sub-schema made from a lossless join, we are not allowed to use any of its isolated sub-schema to join with any of the other schemas. For example, if we can do a lossless join on a pair of schemas R i , R j {\displaystyle R_{i},R_{j}} to form a new schema R i , j {\displaystyle R_{i,j}} , we use this new schema (rather than R i {\displaystyle R_{i}} or R j {\displaystyle R_{j}} ) to form a lossless join with another schema R k {\displaystyle R_{k}} (which may already be joined (e.g., R k , l {\displaystyle R_{k,l}} )). == Example == Let R = { A , B , C , D } {\displaystyle R=\{A,B,C,D\}} be the relation schema, with attributes A, B, C and D. Let F = { A → B C } {\displaystyle F=\{A\rightarrow BC\}} be the set of functional dependencies. Decomposition into R 1 = { A , B , C } {\displaystyle R_{1}=\{A,B,C\}} and R 2 = { A , D } {\displaystyle R_{2}=\{A,D\}} is lossless under F because R 1 ∩ R 2 = A {\displaystyle R_{1}\cap R_{2}=A} and we have a functional dependency A → B C {\displaystyle A\rightarrow BC} . In other words, we have proven that ( R 1 ∩ R 2 → R 1 ∖ R 2 ) ∈ F + {\displaystyle (R_{1}\cap R_{2}\rightarrow R_{1}\setminus R_{2})\in F^{+}} .

  Read more →
• 

  Probably approximately correct learning

  In computational learning theory, probably approximately correct (PAC) learning is a framework for mathematical analysis of machine learning. It was proposed in 1984 by Leslie Valiant. In this framework, the learner receives samples and must select a generalization function (called the hypothesis) from a certain class of possible functions. The goal is that, with high probability (the "probably" part), the selected function will have low generalization error (the "approximately correct" part). The learner must be able to learn the concept given any arbitrary approximation ratio, probability of success, or distribution of the samples. The model was later extended to treat noise (misclassified samples). An important innovation of the PAC framework is the introduction of computational complexity theory concepts to machine learning. In particular, the learner is expected to find efficient functions (time and space requirements bounded to a polynomial of the example size), and the learner itself must implement an efficient procedure (requiring an example count bounded to a polynomial of the concept size, modified by the approximation and likelihood bounds). == Definitions and terminology == In order to give the definition for something that is PAC-learnable, we first have to introduce some terminology. For the following definitions, two examples will be used. The first is the problem of character recognition given an array of n {\displaystyle n} bits encoding a binary-valued image. The other example is the problem of finding an interval that will correctly classify points within the interval as positive and the points outside of the range as negative. Let X {\displaystyle X} be a set called the instance space or the encoding of all the samples. In the character recognition problem, the instance space is X = { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle X=\{0,1\}^{n}} . In the interval problem the instance space, X {\displaystyle X} , is the set of all bounded intervals in R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } , where R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } denotes the set of all real numbers. A concept is a subset c ⊂ X {\displaystyle c\subset X} . One concept is the set of all patterns of bits in X = { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle X=\{0,1\}^{n}} that encode a picture of the letter "P". An example concept from the second example is the set of open intervals, { ( a , b ) ∣ 0 ≤ a ≤ π / 2 , π ≤ b ≤ 13 } {\displaystyle \{(a,b)\mid 0\leq a\leq \pi /2,\pi \leq b\leq {\sqrt {13}}\}} , each of which contains only the positive points. A concept class C {\displaystyle C} is a collection of concepts over X {\displaystyle X} . This could be the set of all subsets of the array of bits that are skeletonized 4-connected (width of the font is 1). Let EX ⁡ ( c , D ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {EX} (c,D)} be a procedure that draws an example, x {\displaystyle x} , using a probability distribution D {\displaystyle D} and gives the correct label c ( x ) {\displaystyle c(x)} , that is 1 if x ∈ c {\displaystyle x\in c} and 0 otherwise. Now, given 0 < ϵ , δ < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\epsilon ,\delta <1} , assume there is an algorithm A {\displaystyle A} and a polynomial p {\displaystyle p} in 1 / ϵ , 1 / δ {\displaystyle 1/\epsilon ,1/\delta } (and other relevant parameters of the class C {\displaystyle C} ) such that, given a sample of size p {\displaystyle p} drawn according to EX ⁡ ( c , D ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {EX} (c,D)} , then, with probability of at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } , A {\displaystyle A} outputs a hypothesis h ∈ C {\displaystyle h\in C} that has an average error less than or equal to ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } on X {\displaystyle X} with the same distribution D {\displaystyle D} . Further if the above statement for algorithm A {\displaystyle A} is true for every concept c ∈ C {\displaystyle c\in C} and for every distribution D {\displaystyle D} over X {\displaystyle X} , and for all 0 < ϵ , δ < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\epsilon ,\delta <1} then C {\displaystyle C} is (efficiently) PAC learnable (or distribution-free PAC learnable). We can also say that A {\displaystyle A} is a PAC learning algorithm for C {\displaystyle C} . == Equivalence == Under some regularity conditions these conditions are equivalent: The concept class C is PAC learnable. The VC dimension of C is finite. C is a uniformly Glivenko-Cantelli class. C is compressible in the sense of Littlestone and Warmuth

  Read more →
• 

  Principal component analysis

  Principal component analysis (PCA) is a linear dimensionality reduction technique with applications in exploratory data analysis, visualization and data preprocessing. The data are linearly transformed onto a new coordinate system such that the directions (principal components) capturing the largest variation in the data can be easily identified. The principal components of a collection of points in a real coordinate space are a sequence of p {\displaystyle p} unit vectors, where the i {\displaystyle i} -th vector is the direction of a line that best fits the data while being orthogonal to the first i − 1 {\displaystyle i-1} vectors. Here, a best-fitting line is defined as one that minimizes the average squared perpendicular distance from the points to the line. These directions (i.e., principal components) constitute an orthonormal basis in which different individual dimensions of the data are linearly uncorrelated. Many studies use the first two principal components in order to plot the data in two dimensions and to visually identify clusters of closely related data points. Principal component analysis has applications in many fields such as population genetics, microbiome studies, and atmospheric science. == Overview == When performing PCA, the first principal component of a set of p {\displaystyle p} variables is the derived variable formed as a linear combination of the original variables that explains the most variance. The second principal component explains the most variance in what is left once the effect of the first component is removed, and we may proceed through p {\displaystyle p} iterations until all the variance is explained. PCA is most commonly used when many of the variables are highly correlated with each other and it is desirable to reduce their number to an independent set. The first principal component can equivalently be defined as a direction that maximizes the variance of the projected data. The i {\displaystyle i} -th principal component can be taken as a direction orthogonal to the first i − 1 {\displaystyle i-1} principal components that maximizes the variance of the projected data. For either objective, it can be shown that the principal components are eigenvectors of the data's covariance matrix. Thus, the principal components are often computed by eigendecomposition of the data covariance matrix or singular value decomposition of the data matrix. PCA is the simplest of the true eigenvector-based multivariate analyses and is closely related to factor analysis. Factor analysis typically incorporates more domain-specific assumptions about the underlying structure and solves eigenvectors of a slightly different matrix. PCA is also related to canonical correlation analysis (CCA). CCA defines coordinate systems that optimally describe the cross-covariance between two datasets while PCA defines a new orthogonal coordinate system that optimally describes variance in a single dataset. Robust and L1-norm-based variants of standard PCA have also been proposed. == History == PCA was invented in 1901 by Karl Pearson, as an analogue of the principal axis theorem in mechanics; it was later independently developed and named by Harold Hotelling in the 1930s. Depending on the field of application, it is also named the discrete Karhunen–Loève transform (KLT) in signal processing, the Hotelling transform in multivariate quality control, proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) in mechanical engineering, singular value decomposition (SVD) of X (invented in the last quarter of the 19th century), eigenvalue decomposition (EVD) of XTX in linear algebra, factor analysis (for a discussion of the differences between PCA and factor analysis see Ch. 7 of Jolliffe's Principal Component Analysis), Eckart–Young theorem (Harman, 1960), or empirical orthogonal functions (EOF) in meteorological science (Lorenz, 1956), empirical eigenfunction decomposition (Sirovich, 1987), quasiharmonic modes (Brooks et al., 1988), spectral decomposition in noise and vibration, and empirical modal analysis in structural dynamics. == Intuition == PCA can be thought of as fitting a p-dimensional ellipsoid to the data, where each axis of the ellipsoid represents a principal component. If some axis of the ellipsoid is small, then the variance along that axis is also small. To find the axes of the ellipsoid, we must first center the values of each variable in the dataset on 0 by subtracting the mean of the variable's observed values from each of those values. These transformed values are used instead of the original observed values for each of the variables. Then, we compute the covariance matrix of the data and calculate the eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors of this covariance matrix. Then we must normalize each of the orthogonal eigenvectors to turn them into unit vectors. Once this is done, each of the mutually-orthogonal unit eigenvectors can be interpreted as an axis of the ellipsoid fitted to the data. This choice of basis will transform the covariance matrix into a diagonalized form, in which the diagonal elements represent the variance of each axis. The proportion of the variance that each eigenvector represents can be calculated by dividing the eigenvalue corresponding to that eigenvector by the sum of all eigenvalues. Biplots and scree plots (degree of explained variance) are used to interpret findings of the PCA. == Details == PCA is defined as an orthogonal linear transformation on a real inner product space that transforms the data to a new coordinate system such that the greatest variance by some scalar projection of the data comes to lie on the first coordinate (called the first principal component), the second greatest variance on the second coordinate, and so on. Consider an n × p {\displaystyle n\times p} data matrix, X, with column-wise zero empirical mean (the sample mean of each column has been shifted to zero), where each of the n rows represents a different repetition of the experiment, and each of the p columns gives a particular kind of feature (say, the results from a particular sensor). Mathematically, the transformation is defined by a set of size l {\displaystyle l} (where l {\displaystyle l} is usually selected to be strictly less than p {\displaystyle p} to reduce dimensionality) of p {\displaystyle p} -dimensional vectors of weights or coefficients w ( k ) = ( w 1 , … , w p ) ( k ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{(k)}=(w_{1},\dots ,w_{p})_{(k)}} that map each row vector x ( i ) = ( x 1 , … , x p ) ( i ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{(i)}=(x_{1},\dots ,x_{p})_{(i)}} of X to a new vector of principal component scores t ( i ) = ( t 1 , … , t l ) ( i ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {t} _{(i)}=(t_{1},\dots ,t_{l})_{(i)}} , given by t k ( i ) = x ( i ) ⋅ w ( k ) f o r i = 1 , … , n k = 1 , … , l {\displaystyle {t_{k}}_{(i)}=\mathbf {x} _{(i)}\cdot \mathbf {w} _{(k)}\qquad \mathrm {for} \qquad i=1,\dots ,n\qquad k=1,\dots ,l} in such a way that the individual variables t 1 , … , t l {\displaystyle t_{1},\dots ,t_{l}} of t considered over the data set successively inherit the maximum possible variance from X, with each coefficient vector w constrained to be a unit vector. The above may equivalently be written in matrix form as T = X W {\displaystyle \mathbf {T} =\mathbf {X} \mathbf {W} } where T i k = t k ( i ) {\displaystyle {\mathbf {T} }_{ik}={t_{k}}_{(i)}} , X i j = x j ( i ) {\displaystyle {\mathbf {X} }_{ij}={x_{j}}_{(i)}} , and W j k = w j ( k ) {\displaystyle {\mathbf {W} }_{jk}={w_{j}}_{(k)}} . === First component === In order to maximize variance, the first weight vector w(1) thus has to satisfy w ( 1 ) = arg ⁡ max ‖ w ‖ = 1 { ∑ i ( t 1 ) ( i ) 2 } = arg ⁡ max ‖ w ‖ = 1 { ∑ i ( x ( i ) ⋅ w ) 2 } {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{(1)}=\arg \max _{\Vert \mathbf {w} \Vert =1}\,\left\{\sum _{i}(t_{1})_{(i)}^{2}\right\}=\arg \max _{\Vert \mathbf {w} \Vert =1}\,\left\{\sum _{i}\left(\mathbf {x} _{(i)}\cdot \mathbf {w} \right)^{2}\right\}} Equivalently, writing this in matrix form gives w ( 1 ) = arg ⁡ max ‖ w ‖ = 1 { ‖ X w ‖ 2 } = arg ⁡ max ‖ w ‖ = 1 { w T X T X w } {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{(1)}=\arg \max _{\left\|\mathbf {w} \right\|=1}\left\{\left\|\mathbf {Xw} \right\|^{2}\right\}=\arg \max _{\left\|\mathbf {w} \right\|=1}\left\{\mathbf {w} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {X} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {Xw} \right\}} Since w(1) has been defined to be a unit vector, it equivalently also satisfies w ( 1 ) = arg ⁡ max { w T X T X w w T w } {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{(1)}=\arg \max \left\{{\frac {\mathbf {w} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {X} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {Xw} }{\mathbf {w} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {w} }}\right\}} The quantity to be maximised can be recognised as a Rayleigh quotient. A standard result for a positive semidefinite matrix such as XTX is that the quotient's maximum possible value is the largest eigenvalue of the matrix, which occurs when w is the corresponding eigenvector. With w(1) found, the first principal component of a data vector

  Read more →
• 

  Random indexing

  Random indexing is a dimensionality reduction method and computational framework for distributional semantics, based on the insight that very-high-dimensional vector space model implementations are impractical, that models need not grow in dimensionality when new items (e.g. new terminology) are encountered, and that a high-dimensional model can be projected into a space of lower dimensionality without compromising L2 distance metrics if the resulting dimensions are chosen appropriately. This is the original point of the random projection approach to dimension reduction first formulated as the Johnson–Lindenstrauss lemma, and locality-sensitive hashing has some of the same starting points. Random indexing, as used in representation of language, originates from the work of Pentti Kanerva on sparse distributed memory, and can be described as an incremental formulation of a random projection. It can be also verified that random indexing is a random projection technique for the construction of Euclidean spaces—i.e. L2 normed vector spaces. In Euclidean spaces, random projections are elucidated using the Johnson–Lindenstrauss lemma. The TopSig technique extends the random indexing model to produce bit vectors for comparison with the Hamming distance similarity function. It is used for improving the performance of information retrieval and document clustering. In a similar line of research, Random Manhattan Integer Indexing (RMII) is proposed for improving the performance of the methods that employ the Manhattan distance between text units. Many random indexing methods primarily generate similarity from co-occurrence of items in a corpus. Reflexive Random Indexing (RRI) generates similarity from co-occurrence and from shared occurrence with other items.

  Read more →
• 

  Wargame (hacking)

  In hacking, a wargame (or war game) is a cyber-security challenge and mind sport in which the competitors must exploit or defend a vulnerability in a system or application, and/or gain or prevent access to a computer system. A wargame usually involves a capture the flag logic, based on pentesting, semantic URL attacks, knowledge-based authentication, password cracking, reverse engineering of software (often JavaScript, C and assembly language), code injection, SQL injections, cross-site scripting, exploits, IP address spoofing, forensics, and other hacking techniques. == Wargames for preparedness == Wargames are also used as a method of cyberwarfare preparedness. The NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCDCOE) organizes an annual event, Locked Shields, which is an international live-fire cyber exercise. The exercise challenges cyber security experts through real-time attacks in fictional scenarios and is used to develop skills in national IT defense strategies. == Additional applications == Wargames can be used to teach the basics of web attacks and web security, giving participants a better understanding of how attackers exploit security vulnerabilities. Wargames are also used as a way to "stress test" an organization's response plan and serve as a drill to identify gaps in cyber disaster preparedness.

  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 →
• 

  Tucker decomposition

  In mathematics, Tucker decomposition decomposes a tensor into a set of matrices and one small core tensor. It is named after Ledyard R. Tucker although it goes back to Hitchcock in 1927. Initially described as a three-mode extension of factor analysis and principal component analysis it may actually be generalized to higher mode analysis, which is also called higher-order singular value decomposition (HOSVD) or the M-mode SVD. The algorithm to which the literature typically refers when discussing the Tucker decomposition or the HOSVD is the M-mode SVD algorithm introduced by Vasilescu and Terzopoulos, but misattributed to Tucker or De Lathauwer etal. It may be regarded as a more flexible PARAFAC (parallel factor analysis) model. In PARAFAC the core tensor is restricted to be "diagonal". In practice, Tucker decomposition is used as a modelling tool. For instance, it is used to model three-way (or higher way) data by means of relatively small numbers of components for each of the three or more modes, and the components are linked to each other by a three- (or higher-) way core array. The model parameters are estimated in such a way that, given fixed numbers of components, the modelled data optimally resemble the actual data in the least squares sense. The model gives a summary of the information in the data, in the same way as principal components analysis does for two-way data. For a 3rd-order tensor T ∈ F n 1 × n 2 × n 3 {\displaystyle T\in F^{n_{1}\times n_{2}\times n_{3}}} , where F {\displaystyle F} is either R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } or C {\displaystyle \mathbb {C} } , Tucker Decomposition can be denoted as follows, T = T × 1 U ( 1 ) × 2 U ( 2 ) × 3 U ( 3 ) {\displaystyle T={\mathcal {T}}\times _{1}U^{(1)}\times _{2}U^{(2)}\times _{3}U^{(3)}} where T ∈ F d 1 × d 2 × d 3 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {T}}\in F^{d_{1}\times d_{2}\times d_{3}}} is the core tensor, a 3rd-order tensor that contains the 1-mode, 2-mode and 3-mode singular values of T {\displaystyle T} , which are defined as the Frobenius norm of the 1-mode, 2-mode and 3-mode slices of tensor T {\displaystyle {\mathcal {T}}} respectively. U ( 1 ) , U ( 2 ) , U ( 3 ) {\displaystyle U^{(1)},U^{(2)},U^{(3)}} are unitary matrices in F d 1 × n 1 , F d 2 × n 2 , F d 3 × n 3 {\displaystyle F^{d_{1}\times n_{1}},F^{d_{2}\times n_{2}},F^{d_{3}\times n_{3}}} respectively. The k-mode product (k = 1, 2, 3) of T {\displaystyle {\mathcal {T}}} by U ( k ) {\displaystyle U^{(k)}} is denoted as T × U ( k ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {T}}\times U^{(k)}} with entries as ( T × 1 U ( 1 ) ) ( i 1 , j 2 , j 3 ) = ∑ j 1 = 1 d 1 T ( j 1 , j 2 , j 3 ) U ( 1 ) ( j 1 , i 1 ) ( T × 2 U ( 2 ) ) ( j 1 , i 2 , j 3 ) = ∑ j 2 = 1 d 2 T ( j 1 , j 2 , j 3 ) U ( 2 ) ( j 2 , i 2 ) ( T × 3 U ( 3 ) ) ( j 1 , j 2 , i 3 ) = ∑ j 3 = 1 d 3 T ( j 1 , j 2 , j 3 ) U ( 3 ) ( j 3 , i 3 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}({\mathcal {T}}\times _{1}U^{(1)})(i_{1},j_{2},j_{3})&=\sum _{j_{1}=1}^{d_{1}}{\mathcal {T}}(j_{1},j_{2},j_{3})U^{(1)}(j_{1},i_{1})\\({\mathcal {T}}\times _{2}U^{(2)})(j_{1},i_{2},j_{3})&=\sum _{j_{2}=1}^{d_{2}}{\mathcal {T}}(j_{1},j_{2},j_{3})U^{(2)}(j_{2},i_{2})\\({\mathcal {T}}\times _{3}U^{(3)})(j_{1},j_{2},i_{3})&=\sum _{j_{3}=1}^{d_{3}}{\mathcal {T}}(j_{1},j_{2},j_{3})U^{(3)}(j_{3},i_{3})\end{aligned}}} Altogether, the decomposition may also be written more directly as T ( i 1 , i 2 , i 3 ) = ∑ j 1 = 1 d 1 ∑ j 2 = 1 d 2 ∑ j 3 = 1 d 3 T ( j 1 , j 2 , j 3 ) U ( 1 ) ( j 1 , i 1 ) U ( 2 ) ( j 2 , i 2 ) U ( 3 ) ( j 3 , i 3 ) {\displaystyle T(i_{1},i_{2},i_{3})=\sum _{j_{1}=1}^{d_{1}}\sum _{j_{2}=1}^{d_{2}}\sum _{j_{3}=1}^{d_{3}}{\mathcal {T}}(j_{1},j_{2},j_{3})U^{(1)}(j_{1},i_{1})U^{(2)}(j_{2},i_{2})U^{(3)}(j_{3},i_{3})} Taking d i = n i {\displaystyle d_{i}=n_{i}} for all i {\displaystyle i} is always sufficient to represent T {\displaystyle T} exactly, but often T {\displaystyle T} can be compressed or efficiently approximately by choosing d i < n i {\displaystyle d_{i} Read more →