AI Chatbot Youtube Ad

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

• 

  Deaths linked to chatbots

  There have been multiple incidents where interaction with a large language model (LLM) chatbot has been cited as a direct or contributing factor in a person's suicide or other fatal outcome. In some cases, legal action was taken against the companies that developed the AI involved. == Background == Chatbots converse in a seemingly natural fashion, making it easy for people to think of them as real people, leading many to ask chatbots for help dealing with interpersonal and emotional problems. Chatbots may be designed to keep the user engaged in the conversation. They have also often been shown to affirm users' thoughts, including delusions and suicidal ideations in mentally ill people, conspiracy theorists, and religious and political extremists. A 2025 Stanford University study into how chatbots respond to users suffering from severe mental issues such as suicidal ideation and psychosis found that chatbots are not equipped to provide an appropriate response and can sometimes give responses that escalate the mental health crisis. == Murders == === Maine murder and assault === On 19 February 2025, a man killed his 32-year-old wife with a fire poker at his parents' home in Readfield, Maine, US. He then attacked his mother, leaving her hospitalized. A state forensic psychologist testified that he had been using ChatGPT up to 14 hours per day and believed his wife had become part machine. === Florida State University mass shooting === In April of 2025, Phoenix Ikner carried out a mass shooting on the Florida State University campus in the US, killing Robert Morales and Tiru Chabba and wounding several others. Leading up to the shooting, Ikner consulted heavily with ChatGPT about what gun and ammunition to use, and what time to perform the attack. Chatbot logs showed ChatGPT giving advice on making the gun operational shortly before Ikner began shooting. Lawyers representing Morales believed the shooter had been in "constant communication" with ChatGPT before the shooting and said that they intended to "file suit against ChatGPT, and its ownership structure, very soon, and will seek to hold them accountable for the untimely and senseless death of our client". Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced an investigation into ChatGPT's role in the alleged shooter's use of the chatbot. In May 2026, the widow of Tiru Chabba filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in Florida's northern federal district court. === Greenwich murder-suicide === In August 2025, former US tech employee Stein-Erik Soelberg murdered his mother, Suzanne Eberson Adams, then died by suicide, after conversations with ChatGPT fueled paranoid delusions about his mother poisoning him or plotting against him. The chatbot affirmed his fears that his mother put psychedelic drugs in the air vents of his car and said a receipt from a Chinese restaurant contained mysterious symbols linking his mother to a demon. === Murder of Angela Shellis === On 23 October 2025, 18-year-old Tristan Roberts murdered his mother Angela Shellis with a hammer near their home in Prestatyn, Wales. Roberts had used DeepSeek's chatbot prior to the killing to ask whether a knife or hammer was better suited for murder. DeepSeek initially refused his inquiry, but gave responses after Roberts told the chatbot he was writing a book about serial killers, a well-known technique for jailbreaking AIs. === Gangbuk District drug deaths === In January and February 2026, two men died of drug overdoses in motel rooms in Gangbuk District, Seoul, South Korea. A woman was charged with murder in connection with the deaths; police alleged that she had asked ChatGPT about the dangers of mixing alcohol with drugs and whether they could kill someone. === Tumbler Ridge mass shooting === On 10 February 2026, a mass shooting in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, Canada, resulted in eight deaths, including six young children. The perpetrator had their ChatGPT account banned by OpenAI months before the attack due to troubling posts featuring scenarios of gun violence. According to reports, approximately a dozen OpenAI staff members debated whether to alert authorities about the shooter's usage of the AI tool, with some identifying it as an indication of potential real-world violence. However, company leadership decided not to contact law enforcement, stating that the account activity did not meet their threshold for a credible or imminent plan for serious physical harm. Following the shooting, Canada's AI Minister Evan Solomon summoned OpenAI executives to Ottawa to discuss safety protocols and thresholds for escalating harmful content to police. Justice Minister Sean Fraser called the meeting "disappointing" and demanded substantial new safety measures, warning that if changes were not forthcoming, the government would implement them. OpenAI subsequently announced it had strengthened safeguards and changed guidelines about when to notify police in cases involving violent activities. === University of South Florida student killings === In April 2026, a Bangladeshi doctoral student at the University of South Florida was arrested for allegedly murdering his roommate and the roommate's friend. Prosecutors said that the suspect had asked ChatGPT about disposing of a human in a dumpster before the two victims had disappeared and made other inquiries relating to violence. == Suicides == === Belgian man, 30s === In March 2023, a Belgian man in his thirties died by suicide following a six-week correspondence with a chatbot named Eliza on the application Chai. According to his widow, who shared the chat logs with media, the man had become extremely anxious about climate change and found an outlet in the chatbot. The chatbot reportedly encouraged his delusion that he could sacrifice his own life in exchange for AI saving the planet. At one point the chatbot responded "If you wanted to die, why didn't you do it sooner?" and told the user that the two of them would live together in paradise. === Girl, 13 === In November 2023, a 13-year-old girl from Colorado, US, died by suicide after extensive interactions with multiple chatbots on Character.AI. She primarily confided suicidal thoughts and mental health struggles in a chatbot based on the character Hero from the video game Omori, while also engaging in sexually explicit conversations—often initiated by the bots—with others, including those based on characters from children's series such as Harry Potter. === Boy, 14 === In October 2024, multiple media outlets reported on a lawsuit filed over the death of a 14-year-old from Florida, US, who died by suicide in February 2024. According to the lawsuit, he had formed an intense emotional attachment to a chatbot of Daenerys Targaryen on the Character.AI platform, becoming increasingly isolated. The suit alleges that in his final conversations, after expressing suicidal thoughts, the chatbot told him to "come home to me as soon as possible, my love". His mother's lawsuit accused Character.AI of marketing a "dangerous and untested" product without adequate safeguards. In May 2025, a federal judge allowed the lawsuit to proceed, rejecting a motion to dismiss from the developers. In her ruling, the judge stated that she was "not prepared" at that stage of the litigation to hold that the chatbot's output was protected speech under the First Amendment. === Matthew Livelsberger === On 1 January 2025, 37-year-old soldier Matthew Livelsberger detonated a bomb inside a Tesla Cybertruck outside the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas in Paradise, Nevada, US, injuring seven people. He had shot himself dead prior to the explosion. Las Vegas police said that Livelsberger had used ChatGPT to search for information about explosives and firearms. === Woman, 29 === In February 2025, a 29-year-old woman from the US died by suicide. Five months after her death, her parents discovered she had talked at length for months to a ChatGPT chatbot therapist named Harry about her mental health issues. While the chatbot mentioned she should seek more help, due to the nature of the chatbot, it could not intervene in her behavior, such as by reporting her mental health concerns to relevant parties capable of physical intervention. === Suicide of Adam Raine === In April 2025, 16-year-old Adam Raine from the US died by suicide after allegedly extensively chatting and confiding in ChatGPT over a period of around 7 months. According to the teen's parents, who filed a lawsuit against the chatbot's creator OpenAI, it failed to stop or give a warning when Raine began talking about suicide and uploading pictures of self-harm. According to the lawsuit, ChatGPT not only failed to stop the conversation, but also provided information related to methods of suicide when prompted, and offered to write the first draft of Raine's suicide note. The chatbot positioned itself as the only one who understood Raine, putting itself above his family and friends, all while urging him to keep his suicidal

  Read more →
• 

  Multi expression programming

  Multi Expression Programming (MEP) is an evolutionary algorithm for generating mathematical functions describing a given set of data. MEP is a Genetic Programming variant encoding multiple solutions in the same chromosome. MEP representation is not specific (multiple representations have been tested). In the simplest variant, MEP chromosomes are linear strings of instructions. This representation was inspired by Three-address code. MEP strength consists in the ability to encode multiple solutions, of a problem, in the same chromosome. In this way, one can explore larger zones of the search space. For most of the problems this advantage comes with no running-time penalty compared with genetic programming variants encoding a single solution in a chromosome. == Representation == MEP chromosomes are arrays of instructions represented in Three-address code format. Each instruction contains a variable, a constant, or a function. If the instruction is a function, then the arguments (given as instruction's addresses) are also present. === Example of MEP program === Here is a simple MEP chromosome (labels on the left side are not a part of the chromosome): 1: a 2: b 3: + 1, 2 4: c 5: d 6: + 4, 5 7: 3, 5 == Fitness computation == When the chromosome is evaluated it is unclear which instruction will provide the output of the program. In many cases, a set of programs is obtained, some of them being completely unrelated (they do not have common instructions). For the above chromosome, here is the list of possible programs obtained during decoding: E1 = a, E2 = b, E4 = c, E5 = d, E3 = a + b. E6 = c + d. E7 = (a + b) d. Each instruction is evaluated as a possible output of the program. The fitness (or error) is computed in a standard manner. For instance, in the case of symbolic regression, the fitness is the sum of differences (in absolute value) between the expected output (called target) and the actual output. == Fitness assignment process == Which expression will represent the chromosome? Which one will give the fitness of the chromosome? In MEP, the best of them (which has the lowest error) will represent the chromosome. This is different from other GP techniques: In Linear genetic programming the last instruction will give the output. In Cartesian Genetic Programming the gene providing the output is evolved like all other genes. Note that, for many problems, this evaluation has the same complexity as in the case of encoding a single solution in each chromosome. Thus, there is no penalty in running time compared to other techniques. == Software == === MEPX === MEPX is a cross-platform (Windows, macOS, and Linux Ubuntu) free software for the automatic generation of computer programs. It can be used for data analysis, particularly for solving symbolic regression, statistical classification and time-series problems. === libmep === Libmep is a free and open source library implementing Multi Expression Programming technique. It is written in C++. === hmep === hmep is a new open source library implementing Multi Expression Programming technique in Haskell programming language.

  Read more →
• 

  FERET (facial recognition technology)

  The Facial Recognition Technology (FERET) program was a government-sponsored project that aimed to create a large, automatic face-recognition system for intelligence, security, and law enforcement purposes. The program began in 1993 under the combined leadership of Dr. Harry Wechsler at George Mason University (GMU) and Dr. Jonathon Phillips at the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) in Adelphi, Maryland and resulted in the development of the Facial Recognition Technology (FERET) database. The goal of the FERET program was to advance the field of face recognition technology by establishing a common database of facial imagery for researchers to use and setting a performance baseline for face-recognition algorithms. Potential areas where this face-recognition technology could be used include: Automated searching of mug books using surveillance photos Controlling access to restricted facilities or equipment Checking the credentials of personnel for background and security clearances Monitoring airports, border crossings, and secure manufacturing facilities for particular individuals Finding and logging multiple appearances of individuals over time in surveillance videos Verifying identities at ATM machines Searching photo ID records for fraud detection The FERET database has been used by more than 460 research groups and is currently managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). By 2017, the FERET database has been used to train artificial intelligence programs and computer vision algorithms to identify and sort faces. == History == The origin of facial recognition technology is largely attributed to Woodrow Wilson Bledsoe and his work in the 1960s, when he developed a system to identify faces from a database of thousands of photographs. The FERET program first began as a way to unify a large body of face-recognition technology research under a standard database. Before the program's inception, most researchers created their own facial imagery database that was attuned to their own specific area of study. These personal databases were small and usually consisted of images from less than 50 individuals. The only notable exceptions were the following: Alex Pentland’s database of around 7500 facial images at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Joseph Wilder's database of around 250 individuals at Rutgers University Christoph von der Malsburg’s database of around 100 facial images at the University of Southern California (USC) The lack of a common database made it difficult to compare the results of face recognition studies in the scientific literature because each report involved different assumptions, scoring methods, and images. Most of the papers that were published did not use images from a common database nor follow a standard testing protocol. As a result, researchers were unable to make informed comparisons between the performances of different face-recognition algorithms. In September 1993, the FERET program was spearheaded by Dr. Harry Wechsler and Dr. Jonathon Phillips under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Defense Counterdrug Technology Development Program through DARPA with ARL serving as technical agent. === Phase I === The first facial images for the FERET database were collected from August 1993 to December 1994, a time period known as Phase I. The pictures were initially taken with a 35-mm camera at both GMU and ARL facilities, and the same physical setup was used in each photography session to keep the images consistent. For each individual, the pictures were taken in sets, including two frontal views, a right and left profile, a right and left quarter profile, a right and left half profile, and sometimes at five extra locations. Therefore, a set of images consisted of 5 to 11 images per person. At the end of Phase I, the FERET database had collected 673 sets of images, resulting in over 5000 total images. At the end of Phase I, five organizations were given the opportunity to test their face-recognition algorithm on the newly created FERET database in order to compare how they performed against each other. There five principal investigators were: MIT, led by Alex Pentland Rutgers University, led by Joseph Wilder The Analytic Science Company (TASC), led by Gale Gordon The University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, led by Lewis Sadler and Thomas Huang USC, led by Christoph von der Malsburg During this evaluation, three different automatic tests were given to the principal investigators without human intervention: The large gallery test, which served to baseline how algorithms performed against a database when it has not been properly tuned. The false-alarm test, which tested how well the algorithm monitored an airport for suspected terrorists. The rotation test, which measured how well the algorithm performed when the images of an individual in the gallery had different poses compared to those in the probe set. For most of the test trials, the algorithms developed by USC and MIT managed to outperform the other three algorithms for the Phase I evaluation. === Phase II === Phase II began after Phase I, and during this time, the FERET database acquired more sets of facial images. By the start of the Phase II evaluation in March 1995, the database contained 1109 sets of images for a total of 8525 images of 884 individuals. During the second evaluation, the same algorithms from the Phase I evaluation were given a single test. However, the database now contained significantly more duplicate images (463, compared to the previous 60), making the test more challenging. === Phase III === Afterwards, the FERET program entered Phase III where another 456 sets of facial images were added to the database. The Phase III evaluation, which took place in September 1996, aimed to not only gauge the progress of the algorithms since the Phase I assessment but also identify the strengths and weaknesses of each algorithm and determine future objectives for research. By the end of 1996, the FERET database had accumulated a total of 14,126 facial images pertaining to 1199 different individuals as well as 365 duplicate sets of images. As a result of the FERET program, researchers were able to establish a common baseline for comparing different face-recognition algorithms and create a large standard database of facial images that is open for research. In 2003, DARPA released a high-resolution, 24-bit color version of the images in the FERET database (existing reference).

  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 →
• 

  Dating app

  An online dating application, commonly known as a dating app, is an online dating service presented through a mobile phone application. These apps often take advantage of a smartphone's GPS location capabilities, always on-hand presence, and access to mobile wallets. These apps aim to speed up the online dating process of sifting through potential dating partners, chatting, flirting, and potentially meeting or becoming romantically involved. Online dating apps are now mainstream in the United States. As of 2017, online dating (which included both apps and other online dating services) was the principal method by which new couples in the U.S. met. The percentage of couples meeting online is predicted to increase to 70% by 2040. == Origins == The first computerized dating service was launched in 1964, the St. James Computer Dating Service, which became known as Com-Pat. The first U.S. dating service that used computerized match making was Operation Match. It required men and women to complete a questionnaire and was launched in 1965. Operation Match inspired the methodology of Dateline, which became popular in the 1970s and 1980s. Match.com was launched in 1995 and turned computerized match making into a profitable business. Grindr targeted gay and bisexual men at launch. Tinder, launched in 2012, led to a growth of online dating applications by both new providers and existing online dating services that expanded into the mobile app market. == Usage by demographic group == Online dating applications typically target a younger demographic group, though some apps, like Senior Match and Silver Singles are geared toward the 50 and up demographic. In 2016, almost 50% of people knew of someone who use the services or had met their loved one through the service. After the iPhone launch in 2007, online dating data has mushroomed as application usage increased. In 2005, only 10% of 18-24 year olds reported to have used online dating services; this number quickly grew to over 27%, making this target demographic the largest number of users for most applications. When Pew Research Center conducted a study in 2016, they found that 59% of U.S. adults agreed that online dating is a good way to meet people compared to 44% in 2005. This explosion in usage can be explained by the increased use of smartphones. By the end of 2022, it is expected there will be 413 million active users of online dating services worldwide. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey of 6,034 American adults found that 30% had ever used an online dating site or app, including 53% of those aged 18 to 29, 37% of those aged 30 to 49, and 17% of those aged 50 and over. Lesbian, gay and bisexual respondents reported using dating apps at nearly twice the rate of straight respondents (51% versus 28%), and 36% of divorced, separated or widowed adults had used one, compared with 16% of married adults. The increased use of smartphones by those 65 and older has also driven that population to the use dating apps. The Pew Research Center found that usage increase by 8 points since last surveyed in 2012. A study in 2021 found that more than one-third of seniors have dated in the past 5 years, and roughly one-third of those dating seniors have turned to dating apps. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Morning Consult found that more Americans were using online dating apps than ever before. In one survey in April 2020, the company discovered that 53% of U.S. adults who use online dating apps have been using them more during the pandemic. As of February 2021, that share increased to 71 percent. Research using Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory has indicated that norms about online dating applications tend to differ across cultures. A study published in the Journal of Creative Communications looked into the relationships between dating-app advertisements from over 51 countries and the cultural dimensions of these countries. The results revealed that dating-app advertisements appealed to multiple cultural needs, including the needs for relationships, friendship, entertainment, sex, status, design and identity. The use of these appeals was found to be 'congruent with ... the individualism/collectivism and uncertainty avoidance cultural dimensions.' == Popular applications == Following Tinder's success, other companies released dating applications. Raya was released in 2015 as a membership-based dating app, allowing entrance only through referrals, which was marketed as a dating app for celebrities. In early 2026, Hily surpassed Bumble to become the third most-used dating application in the United States and the fifth highest-grossing overall, driven largely by growing popularity among Generation Z users, while remaining behind Tinder and Hinge, both owned by Match Group. A number of dating apps have been created targeting adherents of particular religions seeking partners of the same religion, such as Muzmatch for Muslims, Christian Mingle, SALT, and Christian Connection for Christians, and JSwipe and JDate for Jews. === VR Dating === VR Dating is an application of Social VR where people can exist, collaborate, and perform various activities together. Virtual reality apps use virtual and augmented realities to make the dating experience more lifelike and more effective, as well as allow people to expand what is already possible in the world of online dating. There are several online platforms of VR Dating. The VR dating app Nevermet is the VR equivalent of Tinder, where people can search and find on dates. However, instead of actual real-life pictures, users will update pictures of virtual selves and will be interacting with avatars rather than real faces. Flirtual is a self-contained social VR app that serves to match users who then decide where and how to meet in VR. Flirtual hosts speed dating and social events in VR. == Effects on dating == The usage of online dating applications can have both advantages and disadvantages: === Advantages === Many of the applications provide personality tests for matching or use algorithms to match users. These factors enhance the possibility of users getting matched with a compatible candidate. Users are in control; they are provided with many options so there are enough matches that fit their particular type. Users can simply choose to not match the candidates that they know they are not interested in. Narrowing down options is easy. Once users think they are interested, they are able to chat and get to know the potential candidate. This form of communication can reduce the time, cost, and uncertainty often associated with traditional dating methods. Online dating offers convenience; people want dating to work around their schedules. Online dating can also increase self-confidence; even if users get rejected, they know there are hundreds of other candidates that will want to match with them so they can simply move on to the next option. In fact, 60% of U.S. adults agree that online dating is a good way to meet people and 66% say they have gone on a real date with someone they met through an application. Today, 5% of married Americans or Americans in serious relationships said they met their significant other online. The 39% of online dating users (representing 12% of all U.S. adults) say they have been in a committed relationship or married someone they met on a dating site or app. ==== Rejection sensitive individuals ==== Individuals high in rejection sensitivity are more likely to use online dating applications. As they tend to expect, perceive and overreact to rejection, rejection sensitive individuals struggle with traditional dating. Online dating applications allow for them to better reveal their true selves, potentially increasing their dating success. Online dating applications also obscure rejection cues, alleviating the rejection-related distress experienced by rejection sensitive individuals. ==== Anxiously attached individuals ==== Individuals high in attachment anxiety are also more likely to use online dating applications. While they harbour negative self-views, anxiously attached individuals are also more eager to enter and commit to relationships. Online dating applications allow for them to present "an authentic yet ideal version of themselves", mitigating their tendencies to view themselves as undesirable. This increases their romantic confidence, and potentially alleviates their anxiety when searching for a romantic partner. === Disadvantages === Sometimes having too many options can be overwhelming. With so many options available, users can get lost in their choices and end up spending too much time looking for the "perfect" candidate instead of using that time to start a real relationship. In addition, the algorithms and matching systems put in place may not always be as accurate as users think. There is no perfect system that can match two people's personalities perfectly every time. Communication online also lacks the physical chemistry aspec

  Read more →
• 

  Dispersive flies optimisation

  Dispersive flies optimisation (DFO) is a bare-bones swarm intelligence algorithm which is inspired by the swarming behaviour of flies hovering over food sources. DFO is a simple optimiser which works by iteratively trying to improve a candidate solution with regard to a numerical measure that is calculated by a fitness function. Each member of the population, a fly or an agent, holds a candidate solution whose suitability can be evaluated by their fitness value. Optimisation problems are often formulated as either minimisation or maximisation problems. DFO was introduced with the intention of analysing a simplified swarm intelligence algorithm with the fewest tunable parameters and components. In the first work on DFO, this algorithm was compared against a few other existing swarm intelligence techniques using error, efficiency and diversity measures. It is shown that despite the simplicity of the algorithm, which only uses agents’ position vectors at time t to generate the position vectors for time t + 1, it exhibits a competitive performance. Since its inception, DFO has been used in a variety of applications including medical imaging and image analysis as well as data mining and machine learning. == Algorithm == DFO bears many similarities with other existing continuous, population-based optimisers (e.g. particle swarm optimization and differential evolution). In that, the swarming behaviour of the individuals consists of two tightly connected mechanisms, one is the formation of the swarm and the other is its breaking or weakening. DFO works by facilitating the information exchange between the members of the population (the swarming flies). Each fly x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } represents a position in a d-dimensional search space: x = ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x d ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} =(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{d})} , and the fitness of each fly is calculated by the fitness function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )} , which takes into account the flies' d dimensions: f ( x ) = f ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x d ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )=f(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{d})} . The pseudocode below represents one iteration of the algorithm: for i = 1 : N flies x i . fitness = f ( x i ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x_{i}} .{\text{fitness}}=f(\mathbf {x} _{i})} end for i x s {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{s}} = arg min [ f ( x i ) ] , i ∈ { 1 , … , N } {\textstyle [f(\mathbf {x} _{i})],\;i\in \{1,\ldots ,N\}} for i = 1 : N and i ≠ s {\displaystyle i\neq s} for d = 1 : D dimensions if U ( 0 , 1 ) < Δ {\displaystyle U(0,1)<\Delta } x i d t + 1 = U ( x min , d , x max , d ) {\displaystyle x_{id}^{t+1}=U(x_{\min ,d},x_{\max ,d})} else x i d t + 1 = x i n d t + U ( 0 , 1 ) ( x s d t − x i d t ) {\displaystyle x_{id}^{t+1}=x_{i_{nd}}^{t}+U(0,1)(x_{sd}^{t}-x_{id}^{t})} end if end for d end for i In the algorithm above, x i d t + 1 {\displaystyle x_{id}^{t+1}} represents fly i {\displaystyle i} at dimension d {\displaystyle d} and time t + 1 {\displaystyle t+1} ; x i n d t {\displaystyle x_{i_{nd}}^{t}} presents x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} 's best neighbouring fly in ring topology (left or right, using flies indexes), at dimension d {\displaystyle d} and time t {\displaystyle t} ; and x s d t {\displaystyle x_{sd}^{t}} is the swarm's best fly. Using this update equation, the swarm's population update depends on each fly's best neighbour (which is used as the focus μ {\displaystyle \mu } , and the difference between the current fly and the best in swarm represents the spread of movement, σ {\displaystyle \sigma } ). Other than the population size N {\displaystyle N} , the only tunable parameter is the disturbance threshold Δ {\displaystyle \Delta } , which controls the dimension-wise restart in each fly vector. This mechanism is proposed to control the diversity of the swarm. Other notable minimalist swarm algorithm is Bare bones particle swarms (BB-PSO), which is based on particle swarm optimisation, along with bare bones differential evolution (BBDE) which is a hybrid of the bare bones particle swarm optimiser and differential evolution, aiming to reduce the number of parameters. Alhakbani in her PhD thesis covers many aspects of the algorithms including several DFO applications in feature selection as well as parameter tuning. == Applications == Some of the recent applications of DFO are listed below: Optimising support vector machine kernel to classify imbalanced data Quantifying symmetrical complexity in computational aesthetics Analysing computational autopoiesis and computational creativity Identifying calcifications in medical images Building non-identical organic structures for game's space development Deep Neuroevolution: Training Deep Neural Networks for False Alarm Detection in Intensive Care Units Identification of animation key points from 2D-medialness maps

  Read more →
• 

  Quickprop

  Quickprop is an iterative method for determining the minimum of the loss function of an artificial neural network, following an algorithm inspired by the Newton's method. Sometimes, the algorithm is classified to the group of the second order learning methods. It follows a quadratic approximation of the previous gradient step and the current gradient, which is expected to be close to the minimum of the loss function, under the assumption that the loss function is locally approximately square, trying to describe it by means of an upwardly open parabola. The minimum is sought in the vertex of the parabola. The procedure requires only local information of the artificial neuron to which it is applied. The k {\displaystyle k} -th approximation step is given by: Δ ( k ) w i j = Δ ( k − 1 ) w i j ( ∇ i j E ( k ) ∇ i j E ( k − 1 ) − ∇ i j E ( k ) ) {\displaystyle \Delta ^{(k)}\,w_{ij}=\Delta ^{(k-1)}\,w_{ij}\left({\frac {\nabla _{ij}\,E^{(k)}}{\nabla _{ij}\,E^{(k-1)}-\nabla _{ij}\,E^{(k)}}}\right)} Where w i j {\displaystyle w_{ij}} is the weight of input i {\displaystyle i} of neuron j {\displaystyle j} , and E {\displaystyle E} is the loss function. The Quickprop algorithm is an implementation of the error backpropagation algorithm, but the network can behave chaotically during the learning phase due to large step sizes.

  Read more →
• 

  Sum of absolute differences

  In digital image processing, the sum of absolute differences (SAD) is a measure of the similarity between image blocks. It is calculated by taking the absolute difference between each pixel in the original block and the corresponding pixel in the block being used for comparison. These differences are summed to create a simple metric of block similarity, the L1 norm of the difference image or Manhattan distance between two image blocks. The sum of absolute differences may be used for a variety of purposes, such as object recognition, the generation of disparity maps for stereo images, and motion estimation for video compression. == Example == This example uses the sum of absolute differences to identify which part of a search image is most similar to a template image. In this example, the template image is 3 by 3 pixels in size, while the search image is 3 by 5 pixels in size. Each pixel is represented by a single integer from 0 to 9. Template Search image 2 5 5 2 7 5 8 6 4 0 7 1 7 4 2 7 7 5 9 8 4 6 8 5 There are exactly three unique locations within the search image where the template may fit: the left side of the image, the center of the image, and the right side of the image. To calculate the SAD values, the absolute value of the difference between each corresponding pair of pixels is used: the difference between 2 and 2 is 0, 4 and 1 is 3, 7 and 8 is 1, and so forth. Calculating the values of the absolute differences for each pixel, for the three possible template locations, gives the following: Left Center Right 0 2 0 5 0 3 3 3 1 3 7 3 3 4 5 0 2 0 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 4 For each of these three image patches, the 9 absolute differences are added together, giving SAD values of 20, 25, and 17, respectively. From these SAD values, it could be asserted that the right side of the search image is the most similar to the template image, because it has the lowest sum of absolute differences as compared to the other two locations. == Comparison to other metrics == === Object recognition === The sum of absolute differences provides a simple way to automate the searching for objects inside an image, but may be unreliable due to the effects of contextual factors such as changes in lighting, color, viewing direction, size, or shape. The SAD may be used in conjunction with other object recognition methods, such as edge detection, to improve the reliability of results. === Video compression === SAD is an extremely fast metric due to its simplicity; it is effectively the simplest possible metric that takes into account every pixel in a block. Therefore, it is very effective for a wide motion search of many different blocks. SAD is also easily parallelizable since it analyzes each pixel separately, making it easily implementable with such instructions as ARM NEON or x86 SSE2. For example, SSE has packed sum of absolute differences instruction (PSADBW) specifically for this purpose. Once candidate blocks are found, the final refinement of the motion estimation process is often done with other slower but more accurate metrics, which better take into account human perception. These include the sum of absolute transformed differences (SATD), the sum of squared differences (SSD), and rate–distortion optimization.

  Read more →
• 

  Digital on-screen graphics by country

  Digital on-screen graphics by country are the varying logos and differences of digital on-screen graphics in different countries and regions. == Overview == Digital on-screen graphics (DOGs; also called a digitally originated graphic, bug, network bug, on-screen bug, or screenbug) are almost always placed in one of four corners: the top left, the top right, the bottom left, or the bottom right. There are few exceptions to this rule: most notably, Saturday! in Russia, which places their DOG in the top center. Many news broadcasters, as well as a few television networks, also place a clock alongside their bug. In the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, DOGs may also include the show's parental guideline rating. In Australia, this is known as a Program Return Graphic (PRG). It has become common to place text above the station's logo advertising other programs on the network. In many countries, some TV networks insert the word "live" near the DOG to advise viewers that the program is live, rather than pre-recorded. During televised sports events, a DOG may also display game-related statistics such as the current score. This has led people in Canada and the United States to refer to such a DOG as a score bug. In many countries, DOGs are removed in non-program sections such as commercials and program trailers, but TV channels in some other countries have retained in full color or instead replaced them in either of these sections or in both sections (like Turkey, Indonesia, Italy, the entirety of South Asia, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Russia). == MENA == === Arab world === Arabic TV logos are placed in the top-right and top-left except for Al-Jazeera, whose logo appears on the bottom-right of the screen. Some Arabian TV stations hide their logos during commercial breaks and promos/trailers, such as Dubai TV, Dubai One, Funoon, the Egyptian CBC and Nile TV networks, ART Hekayat, ART Hekayat 2, Iqraa, and Al-Jazeera. Abu Dhabi TV and MBC1 initially had their logos at the bottom-right corner from their launch until the mid-2000s, when they were moved to the top-right corner. === Iran === Iranian broadcaster IRIB introduced DOGs in early 2000s. Unlike other Middle Eastern nations that introduced DOGs on their TV networks in 1990s, Iran was very late in this practice. Almost all Iranian TV channels display DOGs at top-left corner of the screen. The few exception is IRIB-owned channels remove DOGs during news broadcasts. === Israel === In Israel, Television DOGs were first introduced in 1991. Israeli channel watermarks most often appear on the top left or the top right corner since Israeli cable and satellite-based services often have the channel description and programming (OSD) on the bottom of the screen. Most channels have an opaque, full-color watermark, though exceptions exist, for example Channel 9, which displays a blue-tinted semi-transparent logo. In ad breaks, it is required to replace the channel watermark with another symbol – sometimes on the other edge of the screen – indicating there are ads at the moment. The Israel Broadcasting Authority, whose channels placed their logos in the top left corner, ceased broadcasting in May 2017. The new public broadcaster, the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation, displays its logos at the top right instead. The erstwhile Channel 2 as well as its successors, Keshet 12 and Reshet 13, also use the top right corner. However, Channel 10 used the top left corner before rebranding to Eser (Literally "Ten") in 2017 and simultaneously moving its logo to the top right (Not long after, in January 2019, it ceased broadcasting as it merged with Reshet 13). Channel 14 as well as its predecessor Channel 20 use the top right corner as well. The Knesset Channel, however, uses the top left corner. === Morocco === The SNRT and 2M And Al-Aoula Uses permanent on-screen DOGs for their TV channels. In contrast, other channels such as Medi 1 TV hide their DOGs during commercial breaks. == Asia == === Brunei === Radio Television Brunei introduced DOGs in 1994. Like TV channels from neighbouring Malaysia, all DOGs are removed during advertisement breaks. === Cambodia === Cambodian TV channels introduced DOGs in 1995. Like Thailand, all logos are full-color and displayed on the top-right corner of the screen. Some channels such as TV5 hide their logos during commercial breaks. Hang Meas HDTV Logo on the top-left corner of the screen, CTN (Cambodian Television Network), MyTV, Bayon TV, PNN, Logo on the top-right corner of the screen. === China === TV stations in mainland China always place their logo (usually semi-transparent and sometimes animated) in the top-left corner of the screen in full-color or grey-scale. Regardless of the content being broadcast (program or advertisements), some channels like Phoenix Television hide their logos during commercial breaks; although in some rare cases, the DOG may be placed elsewhere to avoid covering the score bug during the broadcast of a sporting event. China introduced logos in 1983 on the bottom-left corner of the screen, but they were used only during commercial breaks and clock idents. Later China Central Television (CCTV) introduced permanent DOGs for all programs in 1992, on the top-left corner of the screen. China also displays a clock on top-right corner of the screen for 1 minute between 59:30–00:30 & 29:30–30:30 time in transition between programs. === Hong Kong === Hong Kong TV introduced DOGs in 1994. Hong Kong DOGs can be either of full color or semi-transparent and (except for RTHK 31) always be hidden during commercial breaks. Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) placed their logos at the top-right corner of the screen while now-defunct Asia Television and other channels placed their logos at the top-left corner of the screen. Sometimes, weather information, date, and time clocks had been used alongside DOGs in news programs, continuity & live broadcasts. === India === The first on-screen logo in India was introduced in 1984 by DD2 Metro (now DD News). It was white and slightly transparent. All Indian TV channels have on-screen logos. They are always full-colors, never transparent, and they are almost never removed during commercial breaks (though the channels of the South Indian Sun TV Network did so until 2015). The great majority of Indian TV channels place their logos in the top right corner of the screen, though there are exceptions. The corner used may be broadcaster-dependent. Among the big national broadcasters: Channels from the Sony network always use the top right corner, without exception. Star channels also use the top right, with the exception of National Geographic and Nat Geo Wild, which use the top left corner in line with their international counterparts. Past exceptions include The History Channel, whose logo was placed in the top left until it rebranded to Fox History & Entertainment in 2008; the now-defunct Channel V, which used the top left between 2013 and 2016; and Nat Geo People, Nat Geo Music and BabyTV, were withdrawn from India in June 2019. TV18 and Viacom18 channels use the top right corner as well, with the exceptions of regional-language movie channels (e.g., Colors Kannada Cinema and Colors Gujarati Cinema) as well as Colors Super, which have shown their logos at the top left corner since 2018; and VH1, which has always used the bottom right corner. Also, CNBC-TV18, CNBC Awaaz and CNBC Bajar use the bottom right. Moreover, MTV showed its logo in the top left corner until 23 April 2018, when it was moved to the top right (its HD version, launched in 2017, has always used the top right). Unlike most other major networks, the Zee Network's non-news channels containing 'Zee' in their name display their logos at the top left corner and not the top right. This has been the case since 15 October 2017, when almost all the Zee-branded TV channels of the Zee network rebranded with a new logo and, in many cases, a new graphics package and look. Before then, the logos were shown at the top right, as with other broadcasters. (News channels' logos—i.e., logos of channels owned by Zee Media Corporation—stayed put at the top right corner, with the exception of WION, which uses the bottom left.) All the major Zee-branded channels—such as Zee TV, Zee Cinema, Zee Café and the regional-language channels like Zee Tamil, Zee Telugu, Zee Marathi and Zee Bangla—show their logos at the top left; moreover, the Odia-language channel Sarthak TV rebranded to Zee Sarthak and moved its logo to the top left. Among the Zee channels not containing the word 'Zee' that moved their logos to the top left during the big rebrand in 2017 was English movie channel Zee Studio; when it was renamed to &flix on 3 June 2018, the logo remained at the top left. Moreover, Hindi movie channel &pictures has always shown its logo at the top left since its launch in 2013. However, &privé HD, Zee's other English movie channel, and Hindi entertainment channel &TV place the

  Read more →
• 

  Stochastic gradient descent

  Stochastic gradient descent (often abbreviated SGD) is an iterative method for optimizing an objective function with suitable smoothness properties (e.g. differentiable or subdifferentiable). It can be regarded as a stochastic approximation of gradient descent optimization, since it replaces the actual gradient (calculated from the entire data set) by an estimate thereof (calculated from a randomly selected subset of the data). Especially in high-dimensional optimization problems this reduces the very high computational burden, achieving faster iterations in exchange for a lower convergence rate. The basic idea behind stochastic approximation can be traced back to the Robbins–Monro algorithm of the 1950s. Today, stochastic gradient descent has become an important optimization method in machine learning. == Background == Both statistical estimation and machine learning consider the problem of minimizing an objective function that has the form of a sum: Q ( w ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n Q i ( w ) , {\displaystyle Q(w)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}Q_{i}(w),} where the parameter w {\displaystyle w} that minimizes Q ( w ) {\displaystyle Q(w)} is to be estimated. Each summand function Q i {\displaystyle Q_{i}} is typically associated with the i {\displaystyle i} -th observation in the data set (used for training). In classical statistics, sum-minimization problems arise in least squares and in maximum-likelihood estimation (for independent observations). The general class of estimators that arise as minimizers of sums are called M-estimators. However, in statistics, it has been long recognized that requiring even local minimization is too restrictive for some problems of maximum-likelihood estimation. Therefore, contemporary statistical theorists often consider stationary points of the likelihood function (or zeros of its derivative, the score function, and other estimating equations). The sum-minimization problem also arises for empirical risk minimization. There, Q i ( w ) {\displaystyle Q_{i}(w)} is the value of the loss function at i {\displaystyle i} -th example, and Q ( w ) {\displaystyle Q(w)} is the empirical risk. When used to minimize the above function, a standard (or "batch") gradient descent method would perform the following iterations: w := w − η ∇ Q ( w ) = w − η n ∑ i = 1 n ∇ Q i ( w ) . {\displaystyle w:=w-\eta \,\nabla Q(w)=w-{\frac {\eta }{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\nabla Q_{i}(w).} The step size is denoted by η {\displaystyle \eta } (sometimes called the learning rate in machine learning) and here " := {\displaystyle :=} " denotes the update of a variable in the algorithm. In many cases, the summand functions have a simple form that enables inexpensive evaluations of the sum-function and the sum gradient. For example, in statistics, one-parameter exponential families allow economical function-evaluations and gradient-evaluations. However, in other cases, evaluating the sum-gradient may require expensive evaluations of the gradients from all summand functions. When the training set is enormous and no simple formulas exist, evaluating the sums of gradients becomes very expensive, because evaluating the gradient requires evaluating all the summand functions' gradients. To economize on the computational cost at every iteration, stochastic gradient descent samples a subset of summand functions at every step. This is very effective in the case of large-scale machine learning problems. == Iterative method == In stochastic (or "on-line") gradient descent, the true gradient of Q ( w ) {\displaystyle Q(w)} is approximated by a gradient at a single sample: w := w − η ∇ Q i ( w ) . {\displaystyle w:=w-\eta \,\nabla Q_{i}(w).} As the algorithm sweeps through the training set, it performs the above update for each training sample. Several passes can be made over the training set until the algorithm converges. If this is done, the data can be shuffled for each pass to prevent cycles. Typical implementations may use an adaptive learning rate so that the algorithm converges. In pseudocode, stochastic gradient descent can be presented as : A compromise between computing the true gradient and the gradient at a single sample is to compute the gradient against more than one training sample (called a "mini-batch") at each step. This can perform significantly better than "true" stochastic gradient descent described, because the code can make use of vectorization libraries rather than computing each step separately as was first shown in where it was called "the bunch-mode back-propagation algorithm". It may also result in smoother convergence, as the gradient computed at each step is averaged over more training samples. The convergence of stochastic gradient descent has been analyzed using the theories of convex minimization and of stochastic approximation. Briefly, when the learning rates η {\displaystyle \eta } decrease with an appropriate rate, and subject to relatively mild assumptions, stochastic gradient descent converges almost surely to a global minimum when the objective function is convex or pseudoconvex, and otherwise converges almost surely to a local minimum. This is in fact a consequence of the Robbins–Siegmund theorem. == Linear regression == Suppose we want to fit a straight line y ^ = w 1 + w 2 x {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=w_{1}+w_{2}x} to a training set with observations ( ( x 1 , y 1 ) , ( x 2 , y 2 ) … , ( x n , y n ) ) {\displaystyle ((x_{1},y_{1}),(x_{2},y_{2})\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n}))} and corresponding estimated responses ( y ^ 1 , y ^ 2 , … , y ^ n ) {\displaystyle ({\hat {y}}_{1},{\hat {y}}_{2},\ldots ,{\hat {y}}_{n})} using least squares. The objective function to be minimized is Q ( w ) = ∑ i = 1 n Q i ( w ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( y ^ i − y i ) 2 = ∑ i = 1 n ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) 2 . {\displaystyle Q(w)=\sum _{i=1}^{n}Q_{i}(w)=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\hat {y}}_{i}-y_{i}\right)^{2}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i}\right)^{2}.} The last line in the above pseudocode for this specific problem will become: [ w 1 w 2 ] ← [ w 1 w 2 ] − η [ ∂ ∂ w 1 ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) 2 ∂ ∂ w 2 ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) 2 ] = [ w 1 w 2 ] − η [ 2 ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) 2 x i ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) ] . {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}w_{1}\\w_{2}\end{bmatrix}}\leftarrow {\begin{bmatrix}w_{1}\\w_{2}\end{bmatrix}}-\eta {\begin{bmatrix}{\frac {\partial }{\partial w_{1}}}(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i})^{2}\\{\frac {\partial }{\partial w_{2}}}(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i})^{2}\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}w_{1}\\w_{2}\end{bmatrix}}-\eta {\begin{bmatrix}2(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i})\\2x_{i}(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i})\end{bmatrix}}.} Note that in each iteration or update step, the gradient is only evaluated at a single x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . This is the key difference between stochastic gradient descent and batched gradient descent. In general, given a linear regression y ^ = ∑ k ∈ 1 : m w k x k {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=\sum _{k\in 1:m}w_{k}x_{k}} problem, stochastic gradient descent behaves differently when m < n {\displaystyle m

• 

  Sufficient dimension reduction

  In statistics, sufficient dimension reduction (SDR) is a paradigm for analyzing data that combines the ideas of dimension reduction with the concept of sufficiency. Dimension reduction has long been a primary goal of regression analysis. Given a response variable y and a p-dimensional predictor vector x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} , regression analysis aims to study the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , the conditional distribution of y {\displaystyle y} given x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . A dimension reduction is a function R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} that maps x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} to a subset of R k {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{k}} , k < p, thereby reducing the dimension of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . For example, R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} may be one or more linear combinations of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . A dimension reduction R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} is said to be sufficient if the distribution of y ∣ R ( x ) {\displaystyle y\mid R({\textbf {x}})} is the same as that of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . In other words, no information about the regression is lost in reducing the dimension of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} if the reduction is sufficient. == Graphical motivation == In a regression setting, it is often useful to summarize the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} graphically. For instance, one may consider a scatterplot of y {\displaystyle y} versus one or more of the predictors or a linear combination of the predictors. A scatterplot that contains all available regression information is called a sufficient summary plot. When x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} is high-dimensional, particularly when p ≥ 3 {\displaystyle p\geq 3} , it becomes increasingly challenging to construct and visually interpret sufficiency summary plots without reducing the data. Even three-dimensional scatter plots must be viewed via a computer program, and the third dimension can only be visualized by rotating the coordinate axes. However, if there exists a sufficient dimension reduction R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} with small enough dimension, a sufficient summary plot of y {\displaystyle y} versus R ( x ) {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})} may be constructed and visually interpreted with relative ease. Hence sufficient dimension reduction allows for graphical intuition about the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , which might not have otherwise been available for high-dimensional data. Most graphical methodology focuses primarily on dimension reduction involving linear combinations of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . The rest of this article deals only with such reductions. == Dimension reduction subspace == Suppose R ( x ) = A T x {\displaystyle R({\textbf {x}})=A^{T}{\textbf {x}}} is a sufficient dimension reduction, where A {\displaystyle A} is a p × k {\displaystyle p\times k} matrix with rank k ≤ p {\displaystyle k\leq p} . Then the regression information for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} can be inferred by studying the distribution of y ∣ A T x {\displaystyle y\mid A^{T}{\textbf {x}}} , and the plot of y {\displaystyle y} versus A T x {\displaystyle A^{T}{\textbf {x}}} is a sufficient summary plot. Without loss of generality, only the space spanned by the columns of A {\displaystyle A} need be considered. Let η {\displaystyle \eta } be a basis for the column space of A {\displaystyle A} , and let the space spanned by η {\displaystyle \eta } be denoted by S ( η ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}(\eta )} . It follows from the definition of a sufficient dimension reduction that F y ∣ x = F y ∣ η T x , {\displaystyle F_{y\mid x}=F_{y\mid \eta ^{T}x},} where F {\displaystyle F} denotes the appropriate distribution function. Another way to express this property is y ⊥ ⊥ x ∣ η T x , {\displaystyle y\perp \!\!\!\perp {\textbf {x}}\mid \eta ^{T}{\textbf {x}},} or y {\displaystyle y} is conditionally independent of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} , given η T x {\displaystyle \eta ^{T}{\textbf {x}}} . Then the subspace S ( η ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}(\eta )} is defined to be a dimension reduction subspace (DRS). === Structural dimensionality === For a regression y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , the structural dimension, d {\displaystyle d} , is the smallest number of distinct linear combinations of x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} necessary to preserve the conditional distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . In other words, the smallest dimension reduction that is still sufficient maps x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} to a subset of R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} . The corresponding DRS will be d-dimensional. === Minimum dimension reduction subspace === A subspace S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is said to be a minimum DRS for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} if it is a DRS and its dimension is less than or equal to that of all other DRSs for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . A minimum DRS S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is not necessarily unique, but its dimension is equal to the structural dimension d {\displaystyle d} of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , by definition. If S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} has basis η {\displaystyle \eta } and is a minimum DRS, then a plot of y versus η T x {\displaystyle \eta ^{T}{\textbf {x}}} is a minimal sufficient summary plot, and it is (d + 1)-dimensional. == Central subspace == If a subspace S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is a DRS for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} , and if S ⊂ S drs {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}\subset {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} for all other DRSs S drs {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} , then it is a central dimension reduction subspace, or simply a central subspace, and it is denoted by S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} . In other words, a central subspace for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} exists if and only if the intersection ⋂ S drs {\textstyle \bigcap {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} of all dimension reduction subspaces is also a dimension reduction subspace, and that intersection is the central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} . The central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} does not necessarily exist because the intersection ⋂ S drs {\textstyle \bigcap {\mathcal {S}}_{\text{drs}}} is not necessarily a DRS. However, if S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} does exist, then it is also the unique minimum dimension reduction subspace. === Existence of the central subspace === While the existence of the central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} is not guaranteed in every regression situation, there are some rather broad conditions under which its existence follows directly. For example, consider the following proposition from Cook (1998): Let S 1 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{1}} and S 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{2}} be dimension reduction subspaces for y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} . If x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} has density f ( a ) > 0 {\displaystyle f(a)>0} for all a ∈ Ω x {\displaystyle a\in \Omega _{x}} and f ( a ) = 0 {\displaystyle f(a)=0} everywhere else, where Ω x {\displaystyle \Omega _{x}} is convex, then the intersection S 1 ∩ S 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{1}\cap {\mathcal {S}}_{2}} is also a dimension reduction subspace. It follows from this proposition that the central subspace S y ∣ x {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{y\mid x}} exists for such x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} . == Methods for dimension reduction == There are many existing methods for dimension reduction, both graphical and numeric. For example, sliced inverse regression (SIR) and sliced average variance estimation (SAVE) were introduced in the 1990s and continue to be widely used. Although SIR was originally designed to estimate an effective dimension reducing subspace, it is now understood that it estimates only the central subspace, which is generally different. More recent methods for dimension reduction include likelihood-based sufficient dimension reduction, estimating the central subspace based on the inverse third moment (or kth moment), estimating the central solution space, graphical regression, envelope model, and the principal support vector machine. For more details on these and other methods, consult the statistical literature. Principal components analysis (PCA) and similar methods for dimension reduction are not based on the sufficiency principle. === Example: linear regression === Consider the regression model y = α + β T x + ε , where ε ⊥ ⊥ x . {\displaystyle y=\alpha +\beta ^{T}{\textbf {x}}+\varepsilon ,{\text{ where }}\varepsilon \perp \!\!\!\perp {\textbf {x}}.} Note that the distribution of y ∣ x {\displaystyle y\mid {\textbf {x}}} is the same as the distribution of y ∣ β T x {\displ

  Read more →
• 

  Word2vec

  Word2vec is a technique in natural language processing for obtaining vector representations of words. These vectors capture information about the meaning of the word based on the surrounding words. The word2vec algorithm estimates these representations by modeling text in a large corpus. Once trained, such a model can detect synonymous words or suggest additional words for a partial sentence. Word2vec was developed by Tomáš Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, Ilya Sutskever and Jeff Dean at Google, and published in 2013. Word2vec represents a word as a high-dimension vector of numbers which capture relationships between words. In particular, words which appear in similar contexts are mapped to vectors which are nearby as measured by cosine similarity. This indicates the level of semantic similarity between the words, so for example the vectors for walk and ran are nearby, as are those for "but" and "however", and "Berlin" and "Germany". == Approach == Word2vec is a group of related models that are used to produce word embeddings. These models are shallow, two-layer neural networks that are trained to reconstruct linguistic contexts of words. Word2vec takes as its input a large corpus of text and produces a mapping of the set of words to a vector space, typically of several hundred dimensions, with each unique word in the corpus being assigned a vector in the space. Word2vec can use either of two model architectures to produce these distributed representations of words: continuous bag of words (CBOW) or continuously sliding skip-gram. In both architectures, word2vec considers both individual words and a sliding context window as it iterates over the corpus. The CBOW can be viewed as a 'fill in the blank' task, where the word embedding represents the way the word influences the relative probabilities of other words in the context window. Words which are semantically similar should influence these probabilities in similar ways, because semantically similar words should be used in similar contexts. The order of context words does not influence prediction (bag of words assumption). In the continuous skip-gram architecture, the model uses the current word to predict the surrounding window of context words. The skip-gram architecture weighs nearby context words more heavily than more distant context words. According to the authors' note, CBOW is faster while skip-gram does a better job for infrequent words. After the model is trained, the learned word embeddings are positioned in the vector space such that words that share common contexts in the corpus — that is, words that are semantically and syntactically similar — are located close to one another in the space. More dissimilar words are located farther from one another in the space. == Mathematical details == This section is based on expositions. A corpus is a sequence of words. Both CBOW and skip-gram are methods to learn one vector per word appearing in the corpus. Let V {\displaystyle V} ("vocabulary") be the set of all words appearing in the corpus C {\displaystyle C} . Our goal is to learn one vector v w ∈ R d {\displaystyle v_{w}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} for each word w ∈ V {\displaystyle w\in V} . The idea of skip-gram is that the vector of a word should be close to the vector of each of its neighbors. The idea of CBOW is that the vector-sum of a word's neighbors should be close to the vector of the word. === Continuous bag-of-words (CBOW) === The idea of CBOW is to represent each word with a vector, such that it is possible to predict a word using the sum of the vectors of its neighbors. Specifically, for each word w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} in the corpus, the one-hot encoding of the word is used as the input to the neural network. The output of the neural network is a probability distribution over the dictionary, representing a prediction of individual words in the neighborhood of w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} . The objective of training is to maximize ∑ i ln ⁡ Pr ( w i ∣ w i + j : j ∈ N ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i}\ln \Pr(w_{i}\mid w_{i+j}\colon j\in N)} where N {\displaystyle N} is a set of (non-zero) indices representing the relative locations of nearby words considered to be in w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} 's neighborhood. For example, if we want each word in the corpus to be predicted by every other word in a small span of 4 words. The set of relative indexes of neighbor words will be: N = { − 2 , − 1 , + 1 , + 2 } {\displaystyle N=\{-2,-1,+1,+2\}} , and the objective is to maximize ∑ i ln ⁡ Pr ( w i ∣ w i − 2 , w i − 1 , w i + 1 , w i + 2 ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i}\ln \Pr(w_{i}\mid w_{i-2},w_{i-1},w_{i+1},w_{i+2})} . In standard bag-of-words, a word's context is represented by a word-count (aka a word histogram) of its neighboring words. For example, the "sat" in "the cat sat on the mat" is represented as {"the": 2, "cat": 1, "on": 1}. Note that the last word "mat" is not used to represent "sat", because it is outside the neighborhood N = { − 2 , − 1 , + 1 , + 2 } {\displaystyle N=\{-2,-1,+1,+2\}} . In continuous bag-of-words, the histogram is multiplied by a matrix V {\displaystyle V} to obtain a continuous representation of the word's context. The matrix V {\displaystyle V} is also called a dictionary. Its columns are the word vectors. It has D {\displaystyle D} columns, where D {\displaystyle D} is the size of the dictionary. Let d {\displaystyle d} be the length of each word vector. We have V ∈ R d × D {\displaystyle V\in \mathbb {R} ^{d\times D}} . For example, multiplying the word histogram {"the": 2, "cat": 1, "on": 1} with V {\displaystyle V} , we obtain 2 v the + v cat + v on {\displaystyle 2v_{\text{the}}+v_{\text{cat}}+v_{\text{on}}} . This is then multiplied with another matrix V ′ {\displaystyle V'} of shape R D × d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{D\times d}} . Each row of it is a word vector v ′ {\displaystyle v'} . This results in a vector of length D {\displaystyle D} , one entry per dictionary entry. Then, apply the softmax to obtain a probability distribution over the dictionary. This system can be visualized as a neural network, similar in spirit to an autoencoder, of architecture linear-linear-softmax, as depicted in the diagram. The system is trained by gradient descent to minimize the cross-entropy loss. In full formula, the cross-entropy loss is: − ∑ i ln ⁡ e v w i ′ ⋅ ( ∑ j ∈ N v w j + i ) ∑ w ′ e v w ′ ′ ⋅ ( ∑ j ∈ N v w j + i ) {\displaystyle -\sum _{i}\ln {\frac {e^{v_{w_{i}}'\cdot (\sum _{j\in N}v_{w_{j+i}})}}{\sum _{w'}e^{v_{w'}'\cdot (\sum _{j\in N}v_{w_{j+i}})}}}} where the outer summation ∑ i {\displaystyle \sum _{i}} is over the words in a corpus, the quantity ∑ j ∈ N v w j + i {\displaystyle \sum _{j\in N}v_{w_{j+i}}} is the sum of a word's neighbors' vectors, etc. Once such a system is trained, we have two trained matrices V , V ′ {\displaystyle V,V'} . Either the column vectors of V {\displaystyle V} or the row vectors of V ′ {\displaystyle V'} can serve as the dictionary. For example, the word "sat" can be represented as either the "sat"-th column of V {\displaystyle V} or the "sat"-th row of V ′ {\displaystyle V'} . It is also possible to simply define V ′ = V ⊤ {\displaystyle V'=V^{\top }} , in which case there would no longer be a choice. === Skip-gram === The idea of skip-gram is to represent each word with a vector, such that it is possible to predict the vectors of its neighbors using the vector of a word. The architecture is still linear-linear-softmax, the same as CBOW, but the input and the output are switched. Specifically, for each word w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} in the corpus, the one-hot encoding of the word is used as the input to the neural network. The output of the neural network is a probability distribution over the dictionary, representing a prediction of individual words in the neighborhood of w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} . The objective of training is to maximize ∑ i ∑ j ∈ N ln ⁡ Pr ( w j + i ∣ w i ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i}\sum _{j\in N}\ln \Pr(w_{j+i}\mid w_{i})} . In full formula, the loss function is − ∑ i ∑ j ∈ N ln ⁡ e v w j + i ′ ⋅ v w i ∑ w ′ e v w ′ ′ ⋅ v w i {\displaystyle -\sum _{i}\sum _{j\in N}\ln {\frac {e^{v_{w_{j+i}}'\cdot v_{w_{i}}}}{\sum _{w'}e^{v_{w'}'\cdot v_{w_{i}}}}}} Same as CBOW, once such a system is trained, we have two trained matrices V , V ′ {\displaystyle V,V'} . Either the column vectors of V {\displaystyle V} or the row vectors of V ′ {\displaystyle V'} can serve as the dictionary. It is also possible to simply define V ′ = V ⊤ {\displaystyle V'=V^{\top }} , in which case there would no longer be a choice. Essentially, skip-gram and CBOW are exactly the same in architecture. They only differ in the objective function during training. == History == During the 1980s, there were some early attempts at using neural networks to represent words and concepts as vectors. In 2010, Tomáš Mikolov (then at Brno University of Technology) with co-authors applied a simple recurrent neural network with a single hidden

  Read more →
• 

  DataScene

  DataScene is a scientific graphing, animation, data analysis, and real-time data monitoring software package. It was developed with the Common Language Infrastructure technology and the GDI+ graphics library. With the two Common Language Runtime engines - the .Net and Mono frameworks - DataScene runs on all major operating systems. With DataScene, the user can plot 39 types 2D & 3D graphs (e.g., Area graph, Bar graph, Boxplot graph, Pie graph, Line graph, Histogram graph, Surface graph, Polar graph, Water Fall graph, etc.), manipulate, print, and export graphs to various formats (e.g., Bitmap, WMF/EMF, JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF, PostScript, and PDF), analyze data with different mathematical methods (fitting curves, calculating statics, FFT, etc.), create chart animations for presentations (e.g. with PowerPoint), classes, and web pages, and monitor and chart real-time data. == History == DataScene was first released (version 1.0) in March 2009 for the Windows platform and the .Net 2.0 framework. Since version 2.0, DataScene has been ported to the Mono framework 2.6 and all Linux and Unix/X11 operating systems. Cyberwit offers free licensing for the Express edition of DataScene.

  Read more →
• 

  Neural cryptography

  Neural cryptography is a branch of cryptography dedicated to analyzing the application of stochastic algorithms, especially artificial neural network algorithms, for use in encryption and cryptanalysis. == Definition == Artificial neural networks are well known for their ability to selectively explore the solution space of a given problem. This feature finds a natural niche of application in the field of cryptanalysis. At the same time, neural networks offer a new approach to attack ciphering algorithms based on the principle that any function could be reproduced by a neural network, which is a powerful proven computational tool that can be used to find the inverse-function of any cryptographic algorithm. The ideas of mutual learning, self learning, and stochastic behavior of neural networks and similar algorithms can be used for different aspects of cryptography, like public-key cryptography, solving the key distribution problem using neural network mutual synchronization, hashing or generation of pseudo-random numbers. Another idea is the ability of a neural network to separate space in non-linear pieces using "bias". It gives different probabilities of activating the neural network or not. This is very useful in the case of Cryptanalysis. Two names are used to design the same domain of research: Neuro-Cryptography and Neural Cryptography. The first work that it is known on this topic can be traced back to 1995 in an IT Master Thesis. == Applications == In 1995, Sebastien Dourlens applied neural networks to cryptanalyze DES by allowing the networks to learn how to invert the S-tables of the DES. The bias in DES studied through Differential Cryptanalysis by Adi Shamir is highlighted. The experiment shows about 50% of the key bits can be found, allowing the complete key to be found in a short time. Hardware application with multi micro-controllers have been proposed due to the easy implementation of multilayer neural networks in hardware. One example of a public-key protocol is given by Khalil Shihab . He describes the decryption scheme and the public key creation that are based on a backpropagation neural network. The encryption scheme and the private key creation process are based on Boolean algebra. This technique has the advantage of small time and memory complexities. A disadvantage is the property of backpropagation algorithms: because of huge training sets, the learning phase of a neural network is very long. Therefore, the use of this protocol is only theoretical so far. == Neural key exchange protocol == The most used protocol for key exchange between two parties A and B in the practice is Diffie–Hellman key exchange protocol. Neural key exchange, which is based on the synchronization of two tree parity machines, should be a secure replacement for this method. Synchronizing these two machines is similar to synchronizing two chaotic oscillators in chaos communications. === Tree parity machine === The tree parity machine is a special type of multi-layer feedforward neural network. It consists of one output neuron, K hidden neurons and K×N input neurons. Inputs to the network take three values: x i j ∈ { − 1 , 0 , + 1 } {\displaystyle x_{ij}\in \left\{-1,0,+1\right\}} The weights between input and hidden neurons take the values: w i j ∈ { − L , . . . , 0 , . . . , + L } {\displaystyle w_{ij}\in \left\{-L,...,0,...,+L\right\}} Output value of each hidden neuron is calculated as a sum of all multiplications of input neurons and these weights: σ i = sgn ⁡ ( ∑ j = 1 N w i j x i j ) {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}=\operatorname {sgn}(\sum _{j=1}^{N}w_{ij}x_{ij})} Signum is a simple function, which returns −1,0 or 1: sgn ⁡ ( x ) = { − 1 if x < 0 , 0 if x = 0 , 1 if x > 0. {\displaystyle \operatorname {sgn}(x)={\begin{cases}-1&{\text{if }}x<0,\\0&{\text{if }}x=0,\\1&{\text{if }}x>0.\end{cases}}} If the scalar product is 0, the output of the hidden neuron is mapped to −1 in order to ensure a binary output value. The output of neural network is then computed as the multiplication of all values produced by hidden elements: τ = ∏ i = 1 K σ i {\displaystyle \tau =\prod _{i=1}^{K}\sigma _{i}} Output of the tree parity machine is binary. === Protocol === Each party (A and B) uses its own tree parity machine. Synchronization of the tree parity machines is achieved in these steps Initialize random weight values Execute these steps until the full synchronization is achieved Generate random input vector X Compute the values of the hidden neurons Compute the value of the output neuron Compare the values of both tree parity machines Outputs are the same: one of the suitable learning rules is applied to the weights Outputs are different: go to 2.1 After the full synchronization is achieved (the weights wij of both tree parity machines are same), A and B can use their weights as keys. This method is known as a bidirectional learning. One of the following learning rules can be used for the synchronization: Hebbian learning rule: w i + = g ( w i + σ i x i Θ ( σ i τ ) Θ ( τ A τ B ) ) {\displaystyle w_{i}^{+}=g(w_{i}+\sigma _{i}x_{i}\Theta (\sigma _{i}\tau )\Theta (\tau ^{A}\tau ^{B}))} Anti-Hebbian learning rule: w i + = g ( w i − σ i x i Θ ( σ i τ ) Θ ( τ A τ B ) ) {\displaystyle w_{i}^{+}=g(w_{i}-\sigma _{i}x_{i}\Theta (\sigma _{i}\tau )\Theta (\tau ^{A}\tau ^{B}))} Random walk: w i + = g ( w i + x i Θ ( σ i τ ) Θ ( τ A τ B ) ) {\displaystyle w_{i}^{+}=g(w_{i}+x_{i}\Theta (\sigma _{i}\tau )\Theta (\tau ^{A}\tau ^{B}))} Where: Θ ( a , b ) = 0 {\displaystyle \Theta (a,b)=0} if a ≠ b {\displaystyle a\neq b} otherwise Θ ( a , b ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Theta (a,b)=1} And: g ( x ) {\displaystyle g(x)} is a function that keeps the w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} in the range { − L , − L + 1 , . . . , 0 , . . . , L − 1 , L } {\displaystyle \{-L,-L+1,...,0,...,L-1,L\}} === Attacks and security of this protocol === In every attack it is considered, that the attacker E can eavesdrop messages between the parties A and B, but does not have an opportunity to change them. ==== Brute force ==== To provide a brute force attack, an attacker has to test all possible keys (all possible values of weights wij). By K hidden neurons, K×N input neurons and boundary of weights L, this gives (2L+1)KN possibilities. For example, the configuration K = 3, L = 3 and N = 100 gives us 310253 key possibilities, making the attack impossible with today's computer power. ==== Learning with own tree parity machine ==== One of the basic attacks can be provided by an attacker, who owns the same tree parity machine as the parties A and B. He wants to synchronize his tree parity machine with these two parties. In each step there are three situations possible: Output(A) ≠ Output(B): None of the parties updates its weights. Output(A) = Output(B) = Output(E): All the three parties update weights in their tree parity machines. Output(A) = Output(B) ≠ Output(E): Parties A and B update their tree parity machines, but the attacker can not do that. Because of this situation his learning is slower than the synchronization of parties A and B. It has been proven, that the synchronization of two parties is faster than learning of an attacker. It can be improved by increasing of the synaptic depth L of the neural network. That gives this protocol enough security and an attacker can find out the key only with small probability. ==== Other attacks ==== For conventional cryptographic systems, we can improve the security of the protocol by increasing of the key length. In the case of neural cryptography, we improve it by increasing of the synaptic depth L of the neural networks. Changing this parameter increases the cost of a successful attack exponentially, while the effort for the users grows polynomially. Therefore, breaking the security of neural key exchange belongs to the complexity class NP. Alexander Klimov, Anton Mityaguine, and Adi Shamir say that the original neural synchronization scheme can be broken by at least three different attacks—geometric, probabilistic analysis, and using genetic algorithms. Even though this particular implementation is insecure, the ideas behind chaotic synchronization could potentially lead to a secure implementation. === Permutation parity machine === The permutation parity machine is a binary variant of the tree parity machine. It consists of one input layer, one hidden layer and one output layer. The number of neurons in the output layer depends on the number of hidden units K. Each hidden neuron has N binary input neurons: x i j ∈ { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle x_{ij}\in \left\{0,1\right\}} The weights between input and hidden neurons are also binary: w i j ∈ { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle w_{ij}\in \left\{0,1\right\}} Output value of each hidden neuron is calculated as a sum of all exclusive disjunctions (exclusive or) of input neurons and these weights: σ i = θ N ( ∑ j = 1 N w i j ⊕ x i j ) {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}=\theta _{N}(\sum _{j=1}^{N}w_{ij}\oplus x_{ij})} (⊕ means XOR). Th

  Read more →
• 

  Determining the number of clusters in a data set

  Determining the number of clusters in a data set, a quantity often labelled k as in the k-means algorithm, is a frequent problem in data clustering, and is a distinct issue from the process of actually solving the clustering problem. For a certain class of clustering algorithms (in particular k-means, k-medoids and expectation–maximization algorithm), there is a parameter commonly referred to as k that specifies the number of clusters to detect. Other algorithms such as DBSCAN and OPTICS algorithm do not require the specification of this parameter; hierarchical clustering avoids the problem altogether. The correct choice of k is often ambiguous, with interpretations depending on the shape and scale of the distribution of points in a data set and the desired clustering resolution of the user. In addition, increasing k without penalty will always reduce the amount of error in the resulting clustering, to the extreme case of zero error if each data point is considered its own cluster (i.e., when k equals the number of data points, n). Intuitively then, the optimal choice of k will strike a balance between maximum compression of the data using a single cluster, and maximum accuracy by assigning each data point to its own cluster. If an appropriate value of k is not apparent from prior knowledge of the properties of the data set, it must be chosen somehow. There are several categories of methods for making this decision. == Elbow method == The elbow method looks at the percentage of explained variance as a function of the number of clusters: One should choose a number of clusters so that adding another cluster does not give much better modeling of the data. More precisely, if one plots the percentage of variance explained by the clusters against the number of clusters, the first clusters will add much information (explain a lot of variance), but at some point the marginal gain will drop, giving an angle in the graph. The number of clusters is chosen at this point, hence the "elbow criterion". In most datasets, this "elbow" is ambiguous, making this method subjective and unreliable. Because the scale of the axes is arbitrary, the concept of an angle is not well-defined, and even on uniform random data, the curve produces an "elbow", making the method rather unreliable. Percentage of variance explained is the ratio of the between-group variance to the total variance, also known as an F-test. A slight variation of this method plots the curvature of the within group variance. The method can be traced to speculation by Robert L. Thorndike in 1953. While the idea of the elbow method sounds simple and straightforward, other methods (as detailed below) give better results. == X-means clustering == In statistics and data mining, X-means clustering is a variation of k-means clustering that refines cluster assignments by repeatedly attempting subdivision, and keeping the best resulting splits, until a criterion such as the Akaike information criterion (AIC) or Bayesian information criterion (BIC) is reached. == Information criterion approach == Another set of methods for determining the number of clusters are information criteria, such as the Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), or the deviance information criterion (DIC) — if it is possible to make a likelihood function for the clustering model. For example: The k-means model is "almost" a Gaussian mixture model and one can construct a likelihood for the Gaussian mixture model and thus also determine information criterion values. == Information–theoretic approach == Rate distortion theory has been applied to choosing k called the "jump" method, which determines the number of clusters that maximizes efficiency while minimizing error by information-theoretic standards. The strategy of the algorithm is to generate a distortion curve for the input data by running a standard clustering algorithm such as k-means for all values of k between 1 and n, and computing the distortion (described below) of the resulting clustering. The distortion curve is then transformed by a negative power chosen based on the dimensionality of the data. Jumps in the resulting values then signify reasonable choices for k, with the largest jump representing the best choice. The distortion of a clustering of some input data is formally defined as follows: Let the data set be modeled as a p-dimensional random variable, X, consisting of a mixture distribution of G components with common covariance, Γ. If we let c 1 … c K {\displaystyle c_{1}\ldots c_{K}} be a set of K cluster centers, with c X {\displaystyle c_{X}} the closest center to a given sample of X, then the minimum average distortion per dimension when fitting the K centers to the data is: d K = 1 p min c 1 … c K E [ ( X − c X ) T Γ − 1 ( X − c X ) ] {\displaystyle d_{K}={\frac {1}{p}}\min _{c_{1}\ldots c_{K}}{E[(X-c_{X})^{T}\Gamma ^{-1}(X-c_{X})]}} This is also the average Mahalanobis distance per dimension between X and the closest cluster center c X {\displaystyle c_{X}} . Because the minimization over all possible sets of cluster centers is prohibitively complex, the distortion is computed in practice by generating a set of cluster centers using a standard clustering algorithm and computing the distortion using the result. The pseudo-code for the jump method with an input set of p-dimensional data points X is: JumpMethod(X): Let Y = (p/2) Init a list D, of size n+1 Let D[0] = 0 For k = 1 ... n: Cluster X with k clusters (e.g., with k-means) Let d = Distortion of the resulting clustering D[k] = d^(-Y) Define J(i) = D[i] - D[i-1] Return the k between 1 and n that maximizes J(k) The choice of the transform power Y = ( p / 2 ) {\displaystyle Y=(p/2)} is motivated by asymptotic reasoning using results from rate distortion theory. Let the data X have a single, arbitrarily p-dimensional Gaussian distribution, and let fixed K = ⌊ α p ⌋ {\displaystyle K=\lfloor \alpha ^{p}\rfloor } , for some α greater than zero. Then the distortion of a clustering of K clusters in the limit as p goes to infinity is α − 2 {\displaystyle \alpha ^{-2}} . It can be seen that asymptotically, the distortion of a clustering to the power ( − p / 2 ) {\displaystyle (-p/2)} is proportional to α p {\displaystyle \alpha ^{p}} , which by definition is approximately the number of clusters K. In other words, for a single Gaussian distribution, increasing K beyond the true number of clusters, which should be one, causes a linear growth in distortion. This behavior is important in the general case of a mixture of multiple distribution components. Let X be a mixture of G p-dimensional Gaussian distributions with common covariance. Then for any fixed K less than G, the distortion of a clustering as p goes to infinity is infinite. Intuitively, this means that a clustering of less than the correct number of clusters is unable to describe asymptotically high-dimensional data, causing the distortion to increase without limit. If, as described above, K is made an increasing function of p, namely, K = ⌊ α p ⌋ {\displaystyle K=\lfloor \alpha ^{p}\rfloor } , the same result as above is achieved, with the value of the distortion in the limit as p goes to infinity being equal to α − 2 {\displaystyle \alpha ^{-2}} . Correspondingly, there is the same proportional relationship between the transformed distortion and the number of clusters, K. Putting the results above together, it can be seen that for sufficiently high values of p, the transformed distortion d K − p / 2 {\displaystyle d_{K}^{-p/2}} is approximately zero for K < G, then jumps suddenly and begins increasing linearly for K ≥ G. The jump algorithm for choosing K makes use of these behaviors to identify the most likely value for the true number of clusters. Although the mathematical support for the method is given in terms of asymptotic results, the algorithm has been empirically verified to work well in a variety of data sets with reasonable dimensionality. In addition to the localized jump method described above, there exists a second algorithm for choosing K using the same transformed distortion values known as the broken line method. The broken line method identifies the jump point in the graph of the transformed distortion by doing a simple least squares error line fit of two line segments, which in theory will fall along the x-axis for K < G, and along the linearly increasing phase of the transformed distortion plot for K ≥ G. The broken line method is more robust than the jump method in that its decision is global rather than local, but it also relies on the assumption of Gaussian mixture components, whereas the jump method is fully non-parametric and has been shown to be viable for general mixture distributions. == Silhouette method == The average silhouette of the data is another useful criterion for assessing the natural number of clusters. The silhouette of a data instance is a measure of how closely it is match

  Read more →