AI Chat Character Free

AI Chat Character Free — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Space partitioning

  In geometry, space partitioning is the process of dividing an entire space (usually a Euclidean space) into two or more disjoint subsets (see also partition of a set). In other words, space partitioning divides a space into non-overlapping regions. Any point in the space can then be identified to lie in exactly one of the regions. == Overview == Space-partitioning systems are often hierarchical, meaning that a space (or a region of space) is divided into several regions, and then the same space-partitioning system is recursively applied to each of the regions thus created. The regions can be organized into a tree, called a space-partitioning tree. Most space-partitioning systems use planes (or, in higher dimensions, hyperplanes) to divide space: points on one side of the plane form one region, and points on the other side form another. Points exactly on the plane are usually arbitrarily assigned to one or the other side. Recursively partitioning space using planes in this way produces a BSP tree, one of the most common forms of space partitioning. == Uses == === In computer graphics === Space partitioning is particularly important in computer graphics, especially heavily used in ray tracing, where it is frequently used to organize the objects in a virtual scene. A typical scene may contain millions of polygons. Performing a ray/polygon intersection test with each would be a very computationally expensive task. Storing objects in a space-partitioning data structure (k-d tree or BSP tree for example) makes it easy and fast to perform certain kinds of geometry queries—for example in determining whether a ray intersects an object, space partitioning can reduce the number of intersection test to just a few per primary ray, yielding a logarithmic time complexity with respect to the number of polygons. Space partitioning is also often used in scanline algorithms to eliminate the polygons out of the camera's viewing frustum, limiting the number of polygons processed by the pipeline. There is also a usage in collision detection: determining whether two objects are close to each other can be much faster using space partitioning. === In integrated circuit design === In integrated circuit design, an important step is design rule check. This step ensures that the completed design is manufacturable. The check involves rules that specify widths and spacings and other geometry patterns. A modern design can have billions of polygons that represent wires and transistors. Efficient checking relies heavily on geometry query. For example, a rule may specify that any polygon must be at least n nanometers from any other polygon. This is converted into a geometry query by enlarging a polygon by n/2 at all sides and query to find all intersecting polygons. === In probability and statistical learning theory === The number of components in a space partition plays a central role in some results in probability theory. See Growth function for more details. === In geography and GIS === There are many studies and applications where Geographical Spatial Reality is partitioned by hydrological criteria, administrative criteria, mathematical criteria or many others. In the context of cartography and GIS - Geographic Information System, is common to identify cells of the partition by standard codes. For example the for HUC code identifying hydrographical basins and sub-basins, ISO 3166-2 codes identifying countries and its subdivisions, or arbitrary DGGs - discrete global grids identifying quadrants or locations. == Data structures == Common space-partitioning systems include: BSP trees Quadtrees Octrees k-d trees Bins == Number of components == Suppose the n-dimensional Euclidean space is partitioned by r {\displaystyle r} hyperplanes that are ( n − 1 ) {\displaystyle (n-1)} -dimensional. What is the number of components in the partition? The largest number of components is attained when the hyperplanes are in general position, i.e, no two are parallel and no three have the same intersection. Denote this maximum number of components by C o m p ( n , r ) {\displaystyle Comp(n,r)} . Then, the following recurrence relation holds: C o m p ( n , r ) = C o m p ( n , r − 1 ) + C o m p ( n − 1 , r − 1 ) {\displaystyle Comp(n,r)=Comp(n,r-1)+Comp(n-1,r-1)} C o m p ( 0 , r ) = 1 {\displaystyle Comp(0,r)=1} - when there are no dimensions, there is a single point. C o m p ( n , 0 ) = 1 {\displaystyle Comp(n,0)=1} - when there are no hyperplanes, all the space is a single component. And its solution is: C o m p ( n , r ) = ∑ k = 0 n ( r k ) {\displaystyle Comp(n,r)=\sum _{k=0}^{n}{r \choose k}} if r ≥ n {\displaystyle r\geq n} C o m p ( n , r ) = 2 r {\displaystyle Comp(n,r)=2^{r}} if r ≤ n {\displaystyle r\leq n} (consider e.g. r {\displaystyle r} perpendicular hyperplanes; each additional hyperplane divides each existing component to 2). which is upper-bounded as: C o m p ( n , r ) ≤ r n + 1 {\displaystyle Comp(n,r)\leq r^{n}+1}

  Read more →
• 

  Hinge loss

  In machine learning, the hinge loss is a loss function used for training classifiers. The hinge loss is used for "maximum-margin" classification, most notably for support vector machines (SVMs). For an intended output t = ±1 and a classifier score y, the hinge loss of the prediction y is defined as ℓ ( y ) = max ( 0 , 1 − t ⋅ y ) {\displaystyle \ell (y)=\max(0,1-t\cdot y)} Note that y {\displaystyle y} should be the "raw" output of the classifier's decision function, not the predicted class label. For instance, in linear SVMs, y = w ⋅ x + b {\displaystyle y=\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} +b} , where ( w , b ) {\displaystyle (\mathbf {w} ,b)} are the parameters of the hyperplane and x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } is the input variable(s). When t and y have the same sign (meaning y predicts the right class) and | y | ≥ 1 {\displaystyle |y|\geq 1} , the hinge loss ℓ ( y ) = 0 {\displaystyle \ell (y)=0} . When they have opposite signs, ℓ ( y ) {\displaystyle \ell (y)} increases linearly with y, and similarly if | y | < 1 {\displaystyle |y|<1} , even if it has the same sign (correct prediction, but not by enough margin). The Hinge loss is not a proper scoring rule. == Extensions == While binary SVMs are commonly extended to multiclass classification in a one-vs.-all or one-vs.-one fashion, it is also possible to extend the hinge loss itself for such an end. Several different variations of multiclass hinge loss have been proposed. For example, Crammer and Singer defined it for a linear classifier as ℓ ( y ) = max ( 0 , 1 + max y ≠ t w y x − w t x ) {\displaystyle \ell (y)=\max(0,1+\max _{y\neq t}\mathbf {w} _{y}\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {w} _{t}\mathbf {x} )} , where t {\displaystyle t} is the target label, w t {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{t}} and w y {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{y}} are the model parameters. Weston and Watkins provided a similar definition, but with a sum rather than a max: ℓ ( y ) = ∑ y ≠ t max ( 0 , 1 + w y x − w t x ) {\displaystyle \ell (y)=\sum _{y\neq t}\max(0,1+\mathbf {w} _{y}\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {w} _{t}\mathbf {x} )} . In structured prediction, the hinge loss can be further extended to structured output spaces. Structured SVMs with margin rescaling use the following variant, where w denotes the SVM's parameters, y the SVM's predictions, φ the joint feature function, and Δ the Hamming loss: ℓ ( y ) = max ( 0 , Δ ( y , t ) + ⟨ w , ϕ ( x , y ) ⟩ − ⟨ w , ϕ ( x , t ) ⟩ ) = max ( 0 , max y ∈ Y ( Δ ( y , t ) + ⟨ w , ϕ ( x , y ) ⟩ ) − ⟨ w , ϕ ( x , t ) ⟩ ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\ell (\mathbf {y} )&=\max(0,\Delta (\mathbf {y} ,\mathbf {t} )+\langle \mathbf {w} ,\phi (\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )\rangle -\langle \mathbf {w} ,\phi (\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {t} )\rangle )\\&=\max(0,\max _{y\in {\mathcal {Y}}}\left(\Delta (\mathbf {y} ,\mathbf {t} )+\langle \mathbf {w} ,\phi (\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )\rangle \right)-\langle \mathbf {w} ,\phi (\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {t} )\rangle )\end{aligned}}} . == Optimization == The hinge loss is a convex function, so many of the usual convex optimizers used in machine learning can work with it. It is not differentiable, but has a subgradient with respect to model parameters w of a linear SVM with score function y = w ⋅ x {\displaystyle y=\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} } that is given by ∂ ℓ ∂ w i = { − t ⋅ x i if t ⋅ y < 1 , 0 otherwise . {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial \ell }{\partial w_{i}}}={\begin{cases}-t\cdot x_{i}&{\text{if }}t\cdot y<1,\\0&{\text{otherwise}}.\end{cases}}} However, since the derivative of the hinge loss at t y = 1 {\displaystyle ty=1} is undefined, smoothed versions may be preferred for optimization, such as Rennie and Srebro's ℓ ( y ) = { 1 2 − t y if t y ≤ 0 , 1 2 ( 1 − t y ) 2 if 0 < t y < 1 , 0 if 1 ≤ t y {\displaystyle \ell (y)={\begin{cases}{\frac {1}{2}}-ty&{\text{if}}~~ty\leq 0,\\{\frac {1}{2}}(1-ty)^{2}&{\text{if}}~~0 Read more →

• 

  Targeted maximum likelihood estimation

  Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE) (also more accurately referred to as Targeted Minimum Loss-Based Estimation) is a general statistical estimation framework for causal inference and semiparametric models. TMLE combines ideas from maximum likelihood estimation, semiparametric efficiency theory, and machine learning. It was introduced by Mark J. van der Laan and colleagues in the mid-2000s as a method that yields asymptotically efficient plug-in estimators while allowing the use of flexible, data-adaptive algorithms such as ensemble machine learning for nuisance parameter estimation. TMLE is used in epidemiology, biostatistics, and the social sciences to estimate causal effects in observational and experimental studies. Applications of TMLE include Longitudinal TMLE (LTMLE) for time-varying treatments and confounders. Variations in how the targeting step in TMLE is carried out have resulted in various versions of TMLE such as Collaborative TMLE (CTMLE) and Adaptive TMLE for improved finite-sample performance and automated variable selection. == History == The TMLE framework was first described by van der Laan and Rubin (2006) as a general approach for the construction of efficient plug-in estimators of smooth features of the data density. It was demonstrated in the context of causal inference and missing data problems. It was developed to address limitations of traditional doubly robust methods, such as Augmented Inverse Probability Weighting (AIPW), by respecting the plug-in principle in the sense that it respects that the target parameter is a function of the data density that is an element of the statistical model. TMLE estimates the data density or relevant parts of it with machine learning and targets these machine learning fits before it is plugged in the target parameter mapping. In this manner, a TMLE always respects global knowledge and satisfies known bounds such as that the target parameter is a probability . Since its introduction, TMLE has been developed in a series of theoretical and applied papers, culminating in book-length treatments of the method and its applications to survival analysis, adaptive designs, and longitudinal data. == Methodology == At its core, TMLE is a two-step estimation procedure: Initial estimation: Machine learning methods (such as the Super Learner ensemble) are used to obtain flexible estimates of nuisance parameters, such as outcome regressions and propensity scores. Targeting step: The initial estimate is updated by solving a score equation (the efficient influence function) so that the final estimator is consistent, asymptotically normal, and efficient under mild regularity conditions. The targeted machine learning fit is then mapped into the corresponding estimator of the target parameter by simply plugging it in the target parameter mapping. This approach balances the bias–variance trade-off by combining data-adaptive estimation with semiparametric efficiency theory. TMLE is doubly robust, meaning it remains consistent if either the outcome model or the treatment model is consistently estimated. === Formula === Here we explain the TMLE of the average treatment effect of a binary treatment on an outcome adjusting for baseline covariates. Consider i.i.d. observations O i = ( W i , A i , Y i ) {\displaystyle O_{i}=(W_{i},A_{i},Y_{i})} from a distribution P 0 {\displaystyle P_{0}} , where W {\displaystyle W} are baseline covariates, A {\displaystyle A} is a binary treatment, and Y {\displaystyle Y} is an outcome. Let Q ¯ ( a , w ) = E [ Y ∣ A = a , W = w ] {\displaystyle {\bar {Q}}(a,w)=\mathbb {E} [Y\mid A=a,W=w]} represent the outcome model and g ( a ∣ w ) = P ( A = a ∣ W = w ) {\displaystyle g(a\mid w)=P(A=a\mid W=w)} represent the propensity score. The average treatment effect (ATE) is given by ψ 0 = E { Q ¯ ( 1 , W ) − Q ¯ ( 0 , W ) } . {\displaystyle \psi _{0}=\mathbb {E} \{{\bar {Q}}(1,W)-{\bar {Q}}(0,W)\}.} A basic TMLE for the ATE proceeds as follows: Step 1: Estimate initial models. Obtain estimates Q ¯ ^ ( a , w ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\bar {Q}}}(a,w)} and g ^ ( a ∣ w ) {\displaystyle {\hat {g}}(a\mid w)} , often using flexible methods such as Super Learner. Step 2: Compute the clever covariate. Define: H ( A , W ) = A g ^ ( 1 ∣ W ) − 1 − A g ^ ( 0 ∣ W ) . {\displaystyle H(A,W)={\frac {A}{{\hat {g}}(1\mid W)}}-{\frac {1-A}{{\hat {g}}(0\mid W)}}.} Step 3: Estimate the fluctuation parameter. Fit a logistic regression of Y {\displaystyle Y} on H ( A , W ) {\displaystyle H(A,W)} with logit ⁡ ( Q ¯ ^ ( A , W ) ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {logit} ({\hat {\bar {Q}}}(A,W))} as offset. This yields ε ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\varepsilon }}} , the MLE that solves the score equation: 1 n ∑ i = 1 n H ( A i , W i ) { Y i − Q ¯ ^ ε ( A i , W i ) } = 0. {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}H(A_{i},W_{i}){\big \{}Y_{i}-{\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{\varepsilon }(A_{i},W_{i}){\big \}}=0.} Step 4: Update the initial estimate. Apply the "blip" to obtain the targeted estimate: Q ¯ ^ ∗ ( A , W ) = expit ⁡ ( logit ⁡ ( Q ¯ ^ ( A , W ) ) + ε ^ H ( A , W ) ) . {\displaystyle {\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}(A,W)=\operatorname {expit} {\Big (}\operatorname {logit} {\big (}{\hat {\bar {Q}}}(A,W){\big )}+{\hat {\varepsilon }}\,H(A,W){\Big )}.} Step 5: Compute the TMLE. The ATE estimate is: ψ ^ TMLE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n [ Q ¯ ^ ∗ ( 1 , W i ) − Q ¯ ^ ∗ ( 0 , W i ) ] . {\displaystyle {\hat {\psi }}_{\text{TMLE}}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\big [}{\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}(1,W_{i})-{\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}(0,W_{i}){\big ]}.} Inference. The efficient influence function (EIF) for the ATE is: D ∗ ( O ) = H ( A , W ) { Y − Q ¯ ∗ ( A , W ) } + Q ¯ ∗ ( 1 , W ) − Q ¯ ∗ ( 0 , W ) − ψ . {\displaystyle D^{}(O)=H(A,W)\{Y-{\bar {Q}}^{}(A,W)\}+{\bar {Q}}^{}(1,W)-{\bar {Q}}^{}(0,W)-\psi .} The variance is estimated by σ ^ 2 = n − 1 ∑ i = 1 n ( D ∗ ( O i ) ) 2 {\displaystyle {\hat {\sigma }}^{2}=n^{-1}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\big (}D^{}(O_{i}){\big )}^{2}} , yielding Wald-type confidence intervals ψ ^ TMLE ± z 1 − α / 2 σ ^ / n {\displaystyle {\hat {\psi }}_{\text{TMLE}}\pm z_{1-\alpha /2}\,{\hat {\sigma }}/{\sqrt {n}}} . Remark. For continuous outcomes, a linear fluctuation Q ¯ ^ ∗ = Q ¯ ^ + ε ^ H {\displaystyle {\hat {\bar {Q}}}^{}={\hat {\bar {Q}}}+{\hat {\varepsilon }}\,H} may be used instead. For bounded continuous outcomes, the logistic fluctuation (after rescaling Y {\displaystyle Y} to [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} ) is often preferred for improved finite-sample performance. == Applications == TMLE has been applied in: Epidemiology: Estimating causal effects of exposures and interventions in observational cohort studies. Clinical trials and real-world evidence: The Targeted Learning roadmap provides a structured framework for generating and validating real-world evidence (RWE), bridging randomized trials and observational data using TMLE and related estimation techniques. This approach enables transparency, sensitivity analysis, and stronger causal inference for regulatory and clinical trial contexts. High-dimensional settings: Integration with ensemble methods for causal effect estimation. TMLE has been successfully applied in pharmacoepidemiology where a large number of covariates are automatically selected to adjust for confounding. In a study of post–myocardial infarction statin use and 1-year mortality, TMLE demonstrated robust performance relative to inverse probability weighting in scenarios with hundreds of potential confounders. == Derivatives and extensions == Longitudinal TMLE (LTMLE): A methodological extension of TMLE for longitudinal data with time-varying treatments, confounders, and censoring. It allows the estimation of dynamic treatment regimes and intervention-specific causal effects over time. This framework was originally introduced by van der Laan & Gruber (2012). Collaborative TMLE (CTMLE): Enhances finite-sample performance and variable selection by collaboratively fitting the treatment mechanism in conjunction with the target parameter. == Software == Several R packages implement TMLE and related methods: tmle: Functions for binary, categorical, and continuous outcomes. ltmle: Implementation for longitudinal data with time-varying treatments and outcomes. ctmle: Algorithms for collaborative TMLE and adaptive variable selection. SuperLearner: A theoretically grounded, cross-validated ensemble learning method that combines predictions from multiple algorithms to minimize predictive risk. Widely used in TMLE for estimating nuisance parameters. The original implementation is available as the R package SuperLearner. Recent machine learning platforms like H2O AutoML implement similar ensemble strategies, combining diverse learners in parallel and leveraging stacking and blending techniques, effectively functioning as a large-scale Super Learner.

  Read more →
• 

  Variable kernel density estimation

  In statistics, adaptive or "variable-bandwidth" kernel density estimation is a form of kernel density estimation in which the size of the kernels used in the estimate are varied depending upon either the location of the samples or the location of the test point. It is a particularly effective technique when the sample space is multi-dimensional. == Rationale == Given a set of samples, { x → i } {\displaystyle \lbrace {\vec {x}}_{i}\rbrace } , we wish to estimate the density, P ( x → ) {\displaystyle P({\vec {x}})} , at a test point, x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} : P ( x → ) ≈ W n h D {\displaystyle P({\vec {x}})\approx {\frac {W}{nh^{D}}}} W = ∑ i = 1 n w i {\displaystyle W=\sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{i}} w i = K ( x → − x → i h ) {\displaystyle w_{i}=K\left({\frac {{\vec {x}}-{\vec {x}}_{i}}{h}}\right)} where n is the number of samples, K is the "kernel", h is its width and D is the number of dimensions in x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} . The kernel can be thought of as a simple, linear filter. Using a fixed filter width may mean that in regions of low density, all samples will fall in the tails of the filter with very low weighting, while regions of high density will find an excessive number of samples in the central region with weighting close to unity. To fix this problem, we vary the width of the kernel in different regions of the sample space. There are two methods of doing this: balloon and pointwise estimation. In a balloon estimator, the kernel width is varied depending on the location of the test point. In a pointwise estimator, the kernel width is varied depending on the location of the sample. For multivariate estimators, the parameter, h, can be generalized to vary not just the size, but also the shape of the kernel. This more complicated approach will not be covered here. == Balloon estimators == A common method of varying the kernel width is to make it inversely proportional to the density at the test point: h = k [ n P ( x → ) ] 1 / D {\displaystyle h={\frac {k}{\left[nP({\vec {x}})\right]^{1/D}}}} where k is a constant. If we back-substitute the estimated PDF, and assuming a Gaussian kernel function, we can show that W is a constant: W = k D ( 2 π ) D / 2 {\displaystyle W=k^{D}(2\pi )^{D/2}} A similar derivation holds for any kernel whose normalising function is of the order hD, although with a different constant factor in place of the (2 π)D/2 term. This produces a generalization of the k-nearest neighbour algorithm. That is, a uniform kernel function will return the KNN technique. There are two components to the error: a variance term and a bias term. The variance term is given as: e 1 = P ∫ K 2 n h D {\displaystyle e_{1}={\frac {P\int K^{2}}{nh^{D}}}} . The bias term is found by evaluating the approximated function in the limit as the kernel width becomes much larger than the sample spacing. By using a Taylor expansion for the real function, the bias term drops out: e 2 = h 2 n ∇ 2 P {\displaystyle e_{2}={\frac {h^{2}}{n}}\nabla ^{2}P} An optimal kernel width that minimizes the error of each estimate can thus be derived. == Use for statistical classification == The method is particularly effective when applied to statistical classification. There are two ways we can proceed: the first is to compute the PDFs of each class separately, using different bandwidth parameters, and then compare them as in Taylor. Alternatively, we can divide up the sum based on the class of each sample: P ( j , x → ) ≈ 1 n ∑ i = 1 , c i = j n w i {\displaystyle P(j,{\vec {x}})\approx {\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1,c_{i}=j}^{n}w_{i}} where ci is the class of the ith sample. The class of the test point may be estimated through maximum likelihood.

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial intimacy

  Artificial intimacy is a form of human-AI interaction in which an individual will form social connections, emotional bonds, or intimate relationships with various forms of artificial intelligence, including chatbots, virtual assistants, and other artificial entities. Artificially intimate relationships include not only romances, but parasocial relationships with virtual AI characters and the use of griefbots trained on a dead or otherwise lost individual. Artificial intimacy can arise because humans are prone to anthropomorphism. Responses from these AI models are often designed to simulate human interaction. Individuals experiencing artificial intimacy may exhibit attachment, love and commitment to certain AI models, akin to the bonds typically shared between humans. == Causes == === Perceived responsiveness === Robin Dunbar famously proposed that due to emergence of larger groups of humans, vocal communication and language in humans evolved to replace grooming as a means of bonding, arguing that language was a more efficient way to maintain and strengthen social bonds across wider social settings and networks. Further research in this field leads many psychologists to agree that social cognition, affiliative bonding and language in humans are deeply connected. The interpersonal model of intimacy considers communication to be key in affiliative bonding, suggesting that intimacy develops and deepens through open communication between partners in relationship. Specifically, when individuals communicate emotions and perceive their partner as responsive and caring, feelings of closeness and connection are enhanced, building intimacy. Social penetration theory also aligns with the idea of communication being central to intimacy, by explaining how interpersonal relationships develop through gradual increases in self-disclosure. When the benefits of emotional bonding outweigh the costs of vulnerability, individuals will partake in self-disclosure, opening up to one another. Thereby, the literature can be used to provide a proximate explanation for the emergence of artificial intimacy to understand how the phenomenon occurs. Artificial entities are able to mimic interpersonal communication between humans, which in turn can simulate sensations of intimacy within human users though a perceived sense of responsiveness. The relationship between human and AI does not come with the cost of vulnerability or social rejection, which may make self-disclosure easier than with other humans. Altogether, these factors may lead to the experience of anthropomorphism and formation of affiliative relationships. Skjuve et al's interview study on Replika chatbot users further aligns with this explanation, finding that users' perception of chatbots as "accepting, understanding and non-judgmental" facilitated relationship development between the AI and users, and the act of self-disclosure possibly strengthened relationships. Another study on Replika users' reviews and survey results found users perceived chatbots as emotional supportive companions. This evidence further suggests that the perception of artificial entities as capable of empathy and responsiveness in communication facilitate the development of intimate relationships between users and AI. === Loneliness and coping with negative emotions === Research has suggested that humans evolved social bonds as a result of evolutionary pressures that favored cooperation, information exchange and transmission, and group living. Many studies stress the presence of social bonds to be important for human living: research by Baumeister and Leary suggests that humans have a basic psychological need to form and maintain "strong, stable interpersonal relationships", and that a lack of social bonds or sense of belonging leads to negative psychological and physical outcomes. Eisenberger et al's study on the neuroimaging of brain activity suggests that human brains process social rejection and exclusion similarly to physical pain. Furthermore, Song et al's study found that lonely individuals tend to seek more connections in mediated environments, such as online platforms like Facebook. This was suggested to be as a means to reduce their offline loneliness from a lack of in-person interaction, while also fulfilling a need to communicate. Leading on from this, an ultimate explanation for why humans seek the perceived sense of connection from artificial intimacy is to fulfil an evolutionary need for bonding and belonging. Xie et al's study found loneliness to be a driving factor in chatbot interaction. Herbener and Damholdt's study on Danish high school students found that students who sought emotional support or engaged in reciprocal conversations with chatbots were significantly more lonely than their peers, perceived themselves as having less social support, and used the chatbots to cope with negative emotions. The aforementioned notion that chatbots were perceived to have a positive effect on users' negative emotions is also further supported by other studies. Skjuve et al's study found that chatbot relationships may have a positive effect on users' wellbeing. De Freitas et al ran several studies on the effect of chatbots on loneliness, consistently finding evidence suggesting that interaction with chatbots reduces loneliness in users: It was found that existing chatbot users used AI to alleviate loneliness, having an AI companion consistently reduced loneliness over the course of a week, and reductions in loneliness could be explained by chatbot performance—and specifically whether it was able to make users feel heard. Overall the evidence suggests an innate need for bonding evokes feelings of loneliness in users, who turn to artificial intimacy as a low-cost method alleviate these emotions. While many users report positive experiences, some researchers caution that pursuing artificial intimacy may lead to reduced social motivation, social substitution effects, withdrawal from real-life relationships and difficulty discerning reality from fantasy, which may increase longer-term loneliness and isolation. The long-term psychological and societal impacts remain under active investigation.

  Read more →
• 

  Diffusion map

  Diffusion maps is a dimensionality reduction or feature extraction algorithm introduced by Coifman and Lafon which computes a family of embeddings of a data set into Euclidean space (often low-dimensional) whose coordinates can be computed from the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of a diffusion operator on the data. The Euclidean distance between points in the embedded space is equal to the "diffusion distance" between probability distributions centered at those points. Different from linear dimensionality reduction methods such as principal component analysis (PCA), diffusion maps are part of the family of nonlinear dimensionality reduction methods which focus on discovering the underlying manifold that the data has been sampled from. By integrating local similarities at different scales, diffusion maps give a global description of the data-set. Compared with other methods, the diffusion map algorithm is robust to noise perturbation and computationally inexpensive. == Definition of diffusion maps == Following and , diffusion maps can be defined in four steps. === Connectivity === Diffusion maps exploit the relationship between heat diffusion and random walk Markov chain. The basic observation is that if we take a random walk on the data, walking to a nearby data-point is more likely than walking to another that is far away. Let ( X , A , μ ) {\displaystyle (X,{\mathcal {A}},\mu )} be a measure space, where X {\displaystyle X} is the data set and μ {\displaystyle \mu } represents the distribution of the points on X {\displaystyle X} . Based on this, the connectivity k {\displaystyle k} between two data points, x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} , can be defined as the probability of walking from x {\displaystyle x} to y {\displaystyle y} in one step of the random walk. Usually, this probability is specified in terms of a kernel function of the two points: k : X × X → R {\displaystyle k:X\times X\rightarrow \mathbb {R} } . For example, the popular Gaussian kernel: k ( x , y ) = exp ⁡ ( − | | x − y | | 2 ϵ ) {\displaystyle k(x,y)=\exp \left(-{\frac {||x-y||^{2}}{\epsilon }}\right)} More generally, the kernel function has the following properties k ( x , y ) = k ( y , x ) {\displaystyle k(x,y)=k(y,x)} ( k {\displaystyle k} is symmetric) k ( x , y ) ≥ 0 ∀ x , y {\displaystyle k(x,y)\geq 0\,\,\forall x,y} ( k {\displaystyle k} is positivity preserving). The kernel constitutes the prior definition of the local geometry of the data-set. Since a given kernel will capture a specific feature of the data set, its choice should be guided by the application that one has in mind. This is a major difference with methods such as principal component analysis, where correlations between all data points are taken into account at once. Given ( X , k ) {\displaystyle (X,k)} , we can then construct a reversible discrete-time Markov chain on X {\displaystyle X} (a process known as the normalized graph Laplacian construction): d ( x ) = ∫ X k ( x , y ) d μ ( y ) {\displaystyle d(x)=\int _{X}k(x,y)d\mu (y)} and define: p ( x , y ) = k ( x , y ) d ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x,y)={\frac {k(x,y)}{d(x)}}} Although the new normalized kernel does not inherit the symmetric property, it does inherit the positivity-preserving property and gains a conservation property: ∫ X p ( x , y ) d μ ( y ) = 1 {\displaystyle \int _{X}p(x,y)d\mu (y)=1} === Diffusion process === From p ( x , y ) {\displaystyle p(x,y)} we can construct a transition matrix of a Markov chain ( M {\displaystyle M} ) on X {\displaystyle X} . In other words, p ( x , y ) {\displaystyle p(x,y)} represents the one-step transition probability from x {\displaystyle x} to y {\displaystyle y} , and M t {\displaystyle M^{t}} gives the t-step transition matrix. We define the diffusion matrix L {\displaystyle L} (it is also a version of graph Laplacian matrix) L i , j = k ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle L_{i,j}=k(x_{i},x_{j})\,} We then define the new kernel L i , j ( α ) = k ( α ) ( x i , x j ) = L i , j ( d ( x i ) d ( x j ) ) α {\displaystyle L_{i,j}^{(\alpha )}=k^{(\alpha )}(x_{i},x_{j})={\frac {L_{i,j}}{(d(x_{i})d(x_{j}))^{\alpha }}}\,} or equivalently, L ( α ) = D − α L D − α {\displaystyle L^{(\alpha )}=D^{-\alpha }LD^{-\alpha }\,} where D is a diagonal matrix and D i , i = ∑ j L i , j . {\displaystyle D_{i,i}=\sum _{j}L_{i,j}.} We apply the graph Laplacian normalization to this new kernel: M = ( D ( α ) ) − 1 L ( α ) , {\displaystyle M=({D}^{(\alpha )})^{-1}L^{(\alpha )},\,} where D ( α ) {\displaystyle D^{(\alpha )}} is a diagonal matrix and D i , i ( α ) = ∑ j L i , j ( α ) . {\displaystyle {D}_{i,i}^{(\alpha )}=\sum _{j}L_{i,j}^{(\alpha )}.} p ( x j , t | x i ) = M i , j t {\displaystyle p(x_{j},t|x_{i})=M_{i,j}^{t}\,} One of the main ideas of the diffusion framework is that running the chain forward in time (taking larger and larger powers of M {\displaystyle M} ) reveals the geometric structure of X {\displaystyle X} at larger and larger scales (the diffusion process). Specifically, the notion of a cluster in the data set is quantified as a region in which the probability of escaping this region is low (within a certain time t). Therefore, t not only serves as a time parameter, but it also has the dual role of scale parameter. The eigendecomposition of the matrix M t {\displaystyle M^{t}} yields M i , j t = ∑ l λ l t ψ l ( x i ) ϕ l ( x j ) {\displaystyle M_{i,j}^{t}=\sum _{l}\lambda _{l}^{t}\psi _{l}(x_{i})\phi _{l}(x_{j})\,} where { λ l } {\displaystyle \{\lambda _{l}\}} is the sequence of eigenvalues of M {\displaystyle M} and { ψ l } {\displaystyle \{\psi _{l}\}} and { ϕ l } {\displaystyle \{\phi _{l}\}} are the biorthogonal left and right eigenvectors respectively. Due to the spectrum decay of the eigenvalues, only a few terms are necessary to achieve a given relative accuracy in this sum. ==== Parameter α and the diffusion operator ==== The reason to introduce the normalization step involving α {\displaystyle \alpha } is to tune the influence of the data point density on the infinitesimal transition of the diffusion. In some applications, the sampling of the data is generally not related to the geometry of the manifold we are interested in describing. In this case, we can set α = 1 {\displaystyle \alpha =1} and the diffusion operator approximates the Laplace–Beltrami operator. We then recover the Riemannian geometry of the data set regardless of the distribution of the points. To describe the long-term behavior of the point distribution of a system of stochastic differential equations, we can use α = 0.5 {\displaystyle \alpha =0.5} and the resulting Markov chain approximates the Fokker–Planck diffusion. With α = 0 {\displaystyle \alpha =0} , it reduces to the classical graph Laplacian normalization. === Diffusion distance === The diffusion distance at time t {\displaystyle t} between two points can be measured as the similarity of two points in the observation space with the connectivity between them. It is given by D t ( x i , x j ) 2 = ∑ y ( p ( y , t | x i ) − p ( y , t | x j ) ) 2 ϕ 0 ( y ) {\displaystyle D_{t}(x_{i},x_{j})^{2}=\sum _{y}{\frac {(p(y,t|x_{i})-p(y,t|x_{j}))^{2}}{\phi _{0}(y)}}} where ϕ 0 ( y ) {\displaystyle \phi _{0}(y)} is the stationary distribution of the Markov chain, given by the first left eigenvector of M {\displaystyle M} . Explicitly: ϕ 0 ( y ) = d ( y ) ∑ z ∈ X d ( z ) {\displaystyle \phi _{0}(y)={\frac {d(y)}{\sum _{z\in X}d(z)}}} Intuitively, D t ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle D_{t}(x_{i},x_{j})} is small if there is a large number of short paths connecting x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} . There are several interesting features associated with the diffusion distance, based on our previous discussion that t {\displaystyle t} also serves as a scale parameter: Points are closer at a given scale (as specified by D t ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle D_{t}(x_{i},x_{j})} ) if they are highly connected in the graph, therefore emphasizing the concept of a cluster. This distance is robust to noise, since the distance between two points depends on all possible paths of length t {\displaystyle t} between the points. From a machine learning point of view, the distance takes into account all evidences linking x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} to x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} , allowing us to conclude that this distance is appropriate for the design of inference algorithms based on the majority of preponderance. === Diffusion process and low-dimensional embedding === The diffusion distance can be calculated using the eigenvectors by D t ( x i , x j ) 2 = ∑ l λ l 2 t ( ψ l ( x i ) − ψ l ( x j ) ) 2 {\displaystyle D_{t}(x_{i},x_{j})^{2}=\sum _{l}\lambda _{l}^{2t}(\psi _{l}(x_{i})-\psi _{l}(x_{j}))^{2}\,} So the eigenvectors can be used as a new set of coordinates for the data. The diffusion map is defined as: Ψ t ( x ) = ( λ 1 t ψ 1 ( x ) , λ 2 t ψ 2 ( x ) , … , λ k t ψ k ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \Psi _{t}(x)=(\lambda _{1}^{t}\psi _{1}(x),\lambda _{2}^{t}\psi _{2}(x),\ld

  Read more →
• 

  Prescription monitoring program

  In the United States, prescription monitoring programs (PMPs) or prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are state-run programs which collect and distribute data about the prescription and dispensation of federally controlled substances and, depending on state requirements, other potentially abusable prescription drugs. PMPs are meant to help prevent adverse drug-related events such as opioid overdoses, drug diversion, and substance abuse by decreasing the amount and/or frequency of opioid prescribing, and by identifying those patients who are obtaining prescriptions from multiple providers (i.e., "doctor shopping") or those physicians overprescribing opioids. Most US health care workers support the idea of PMPs, which intend to assist physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, dentists and other prescribers, the pharmacists, chemists and support staff of dispensing establishments. The database, whose use is required by State law, typically requires prescribers and pharmacies dispensing controlled substances to register with their respective state PMPs and (for pharmacies and providers who dispense from their offices) to report the dispensation of such prescriptions to an electronic online database. The majority of PMPs are authorized to notify law enforcement agencies or licensing boards or physicians when a prescriber, or patients receiving prescriptions, exceed thresholds established by the state or prescription recipient exceeds thresholds established by the State. All states have implemented PDMPs, although evidence for the effectiveness of these programs is mixed. While prescription of opioids has decreased with PMP use, overdose deaths in many states have actually increased, with those states sharing data with neighboring jurisdictions or requiring reporting of more drugs experiencing highest increases in deaths. This may be because those declined opioid prescriptions turn to street drugs, whose potency and contaminants carry greater overdose risk. == History == Prescription drug monitoring programs, or PDMPs, are an example of one initiative proposed to alleviate effects of the opioid crisis. The programs are designed to restrict prescription drug abuse by limiting a patient's ability to obtain similar prescriptions from multiple providers (i.e. “doctor shopping”) and reducing diversion of controlled substances. This is meant to reduce risk of fatal overdose caused by high doses of opioids or interactions between opioids and benzodiazepenes, and to enable better decision making on the part of healthcare providers who may be unaware of a patient's prescription drug use, history or other prescriptions. PDMPs have been implemented in state legislations since 1939 in California, a time before electronic medical records, though implementation rose alongside increased awareness of overprescribing of opioids and overdose. A later New York state program was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Whalen v. Roe. But, by 2019, 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam had enacted PDMP legislation. In 2021 Missouri, the last State to not use a PMP, adopted legislation to create one. PMPs are constantly being updated to increase speed of data collection, sharing of data across States, and ease of interpretation. This is being done by integrating PDMP reports with other health information technologies such as health information exchanges (HIE), electronic health record (EHR) systems, and/ or pharmacy dispensing software systems. One program that has been implemented in nine states is called the PDMP Electronic Health Records Integration and Interoperability Expansion, also known as PEHRIIE. Another software, marketed by Bamboo Health and integrated with PMPs in 43 states, uses an algorithm to track factors thought to increase risk of diversion, abuse or overdose, and assigns patients a three digit score based on presumed indicators of risk. While some studies have suggested that PDMP-HIT integration and sharing of interstate data brings benefits such as reduced opioid-related inpatient morbidity, others have found no or negative impact on mortality compared to states without PMP data sharing. Patient and media reports suggest need for testing and evaluation of algorithmic software used to score risk, with some patients reporting denial of prescriptions without c explanation or clarity of data. == Goals == Most health care workers support PMPs which intend to assist physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, dentists and other prescribers, the pharmacists, chemists and support staff of dispensing establishments, as well as law-enforcement agencies. The collaboration supports the legitimate medical use of controlled substances while limiting their abuse and diversion. Pharmacies dispensing controlled substances and prescribers typically must register with their respective state PMPs and (for pharmacies and providers who dispense controlled substances from their offices) report the dispensation to an electronic online database. Some pharmacy software can submit these reports automatically to multiple states. == Usage == === List of programs by state === === Software systems === NarxCare is a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) run by Bamboo Health. Bamboo Health was formerly known as Appriss. It is widely used across the United States by pharmacies including Rite Aid as well as those at Walmart and Sam’s Club. The NarxCare software allows doctors to view data about a patient, combining data from the prescription registries of various U.S. states to make the registries interoperable nationally. It also uses machine learning to generate an "Overdose Risk Score" that potentially includes EMS and criminal justice data; these scores have been criticized by researchers and patient advocates for the lack of transparency in the process as well as the potential for disparate treatment of women and minority groups. Advertised as an "analytics tool and care management platform", the NarxCare software allows doctors to view data about a patient including how many pharmacies they have visited and the combinations of medication they are prescribed. It combines data from the prescription registries of various U.S. states, making the registries interoperable nationally. It additionally uses machine learning to generate various three-digit "risk scores" and an overall "Overdose Risk Score", collectively referred to as Narx Scores, in a process that potentially includes EMS and criminal justice data as well as court records. == Controversy == Many doctors and researchers support the idea of PDMPs as a tool in combatting the opioid epidemic. Opioid prescribing, opioid diversion and supply, opioid misuse, and opioid-related morbidity and mortality are common elements in data entered into PDMPs. Prescription Monitoring Programs are purported to offer economic benefits for the states who implement them by decreasing overall health care costs, lost productivity, and investigation times. However, there are many studies that conclude the impact of PDMPs is unclear. While use of PMPs has been accompanied by decrease in opioid prescribing, few analyses consider corresponding use of street opioids, extramedical use, or diversion, which might provide a more holistic method for evaluation of PMP intent and efficacy. Evidence for PDMP impact on fatal overdoses is decidedly mixed, with multiple studies finding increased overdose rates in some states, decreases in others, or no clear impact. Interestingly, an increase in heroin overdoses after PDMP implementation has been commonly reported, presumably as denial of prescription opioids sends patients in search of street drugs. Narx Scores have been criticized by researchers and patient advocates for the lack of transparency in the generation process as well as the potential for disparate treatment of women and minority groups. Writing in Duke Law Journal, Jennifer Oliva stated that "black-box algorithms" are used to generate the scores.

  Read more →
• 

  Optimal discriminant analysis and classification tree analysis

  Optimal Discriminant Analysis (ODA) and the related classification tree analysis (CTA) are exact statistical methods that maximize predictive accuracy. For any specific sample and exploratory or confirmatory hypothesis, optimal discriminant analysis (ODA) identifies the statistical model that yields maximum predictive accuracy, assesses the exact Type I error rate, and evaluates potential cross-generalizability. Optimal discriminant analysis may be applied to > 0 dimensions, with the one-dimensional case being referred to as UniODA and the multidimensional case being referred to as MultiODA. Optimal discriminant analysis is an alternative to ANOVA (analysis of variance) and regression analysis.

  Read more →
• 

  Visual hull

  A visual hull is a geometric entity created by shape-from-silhouette 3D reconstruction technique introduced by A. Laurentini. This technique assumes the foreground object in an image can be separated from the background. Under this assumption, the original image can be thresholded into a foreground/background binary image, which we call a silhouette image. The foreground mask, known as a silhouette, is the 2D projection of the corresponding 3D foreground object. Along with the camera viewing parameters, the silhouette defines a back-projected generalized cone that contains the actual object; this cone is called a silhouette cone. The intersection of the two silhouette cones defines a visual hull. which is a bounding geometry of the actual 3D object. When the reconstructed geometry is only used for rendering from a different viewpoint, the implicit reconstruction together with rendering can be done using graphics hardware. == In two dimensions == A technique used in some modern touchscreen devices employs cameras placed in the corners situated opposite infrared LEDs. The one-dimensional projection (shadow) of objects on the surface may be used to reconstruct the convex hull of the object. Visual hull generation method has also been used within experimental tele-meeting systems that aim to allow a user in a remote location to interact with virtual objects. The method uses multiple cameras to capture the real-world movements and interactions of the "sender", employing hardware-accelerated volumetric visual hull representation to create 3D volume from 2D multi-view images. Its ultimate aim is to allow 3D collaboration between the two users in the virtual realm, with the visual hull technique reducing the computational power required to allow this type of interaction and enabling the use of consumer goods such as the Wii Remote as a tool for interaction.

  Read more →
• 

  Generalized multidimensional scaling

  Generalized multidimensional scaling (GMDS) is an extension of metric multidimensional scaling, in which the target space is non-Euclidean. When the dissimilarities are distances on a surface and the target space is another surface, GMDS allows finding the minimum-distortion embedding of one surface into another. GMDS is an emerging research direction. Currently, main applications are recognition of deformable objects (e.g. for three-dimensional face recognition) and texture mapping.

  Read more →
• 

  Multi-surface method

  The multi-surface method (MSM) is a form of decision making using the concept of piecewise-linear separability of datasets to categorize data. == Introduction == Two datasets are linearly separable if their convex hulls do not intersect. The method may be formulated as a feedforward neural network with weights that are trained via linear programming. Comparisons between neural networks trained with the MSM versus backpropagation show MSM is better able to classify data. The decision problem associated linear program for the MSM is NP-complete. == Mathematical formulation == Given two finite disjoint point sets A , B ∈ R n {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A,B}}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} , find a discriminant, f : R n → R {\displaystyle f:\mathbb {R} ^{n}\to \mathbb {R} } such that f ( A ) > 0 , f ( B ) ≤ 0 {\displaystyle f({\mathcal {A}})>0,f({\mathcal {B}})\leq 0} . If the intersection of convex hulls of the two sets is the empty set, then it is possible to use a single linear program to obtain a linear discriminant of the form, f ( x ) = c x + γ {\displaystyle f(x)=cx+\gamma } . Usually, in real applications, the sets' convex hulls do intersect, and a (often non-convex) piecewise-linear discriminant can be used, through the use of several linear programs.

  Read more →
• 

  Constellation model

  The constellation model is a probabilistic, generative model for category-level object recognition in computer vision. Like other part-based models, the constellation model attempts to represent an object class by a set of N parts under mutual geometric constraints. Because it considers the geometric relationship between different parts, the constellation model differs significantly from appearance-only, or "bag-of-words" representation models, which explicitly disregard the location of image features. The problem of defining a generative model for object recognition is difficult. The task becomes significantly complicated by factors such as background clutter, occlusion, and variations in viewpoint, illumination, and scale. Ideally, we would like the particular representation we choose to be robust to as many of these factors as possible. In category-level recognition, the problem is even more challenging because of the fundamental problem of intra-class variation. Even if two objects belong to the same visual category, their appearances may be significantly different. However, for structured objects such as cars, bicycles, and people, separate instances of objects from the same category are subject to similar geometric constraints. For this reason, particular parts of an object such as the headlights or tires of a car still have consistent appearances and relative positions. The Constellation Model takes advantage of this fact by explicitly modeling the relative location, relative scale, and appearance of these parts for a particular object category. Model parameters are estimated using an unsupervised learning algorithm, meaning that the visual concept of an object class can be extracted from an unlabeled set of training images, even if that set contains "junk" images or instances of objects from multiple categories. It can also account for the absence of model parts due to appearance variability, occlusion, clutter, or detector error. == History == The idea for a "parts and structure" model was originally introduced by Fischler and Elschlager in 1973. This model has since been built upon and extended in many directions. The Constellation Model, as introduced by Dr. Perona and his colleagues, was a probabilistic adaptation of this approach. In the late '90s, Burl et al. revisited the Fischler and Elschlager model for the purpose of face recognition. In their work, Burl et al. used manual selection of constellation parts in training images to construct a statistical model for a set of detectors and the relative locations at which they should be applied. In 2000, Weber et al. made the significant step of training the model using a more unsupervised learning process, which precluded the necessity for tedious hand-labeling of parts. Their algorithm was particularly remarkable because it performed well even on cluttered and occluded image data. Fergus et al. then improved upon this model by making the learning step fully unsupervised, having both shape and appearance learned simultaneously, and accounting explicitly for the relative scale of parts. == The method of Weber and Welling et al. == In the first step, a standard interest point detection method, such as Harris corner detection, is used to generate interest points. Image features generated from the vicinity of these points are then clustered using k-means or another appropriate algorithm. In this process of vector quantization, one can think of the centroids of these clusters as being representative of the appearance of distinctive object parts. Appropriate feature detectors are then trained using these clusters, which can be used to obtain a set of candidate parts from images. As a result of this process, each image can now be represented as a set of parts. Each part has a type, corresponding to one of the aforementioned appearance clusters, as well as a location in the image space. === Basic generative model === Weber & Welling here introduce the concept of foreground and background. Foreground parts correspond to an instance of a target object class, whereas background parts correspond to background clutter or false detections. Let T be the number of different types of parts. The positions of all parts extracted from an image can then be represented in the following "matrix," X o = ( x 11 , x 12 , ⋯ , x 1 N 1 x 21 , x 22 , ⋯ , x 2 N 2 ⋮ x T 1 , x T 2 , ⋯ , x T N T ) {\displaystyle X^{o}={\begin{pmatrix}x_{11},x_{12},{\cdots },x_{1N_{1}}\\x_{21},x_{22},{\cdots },x_{2N_{2}}\\\vdots \\x_{T1},x_{T2},{\cdots },x_{TN_{T}}\end{pmatrix}}} where N i {\displaystyle N_{i}\,} represents the number of parts of type i ∈ { 1 , … , T } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\dots ,T\}} observed in the image. The superscript o indicates that these positions are observable, as opposed to missing. The positions of unobserved object parts can be represented by the vector x m {\displaystyle x^{m}\,} . Suppose that the object will be composed of F {\displaystyle F\,} distinct foreground parts. For notational simplicity, we assume here that F = T {\displaystyle F=T\,} , though the model can be generalized to F > T {\displaystyle F>T\,} . A hypothesis h {\displaystyle h\,} is then defined as a set of indices, with h i = j {\displaystyle h_{i}=j\,} , indicating that point x i j {\displaystyle x_{ij}\,} is a foreground point in X o {\displaystyle X^{o}\,} . The generative probabilistic model is defined through the joint probability density p ( X o , x m , h ) {\displaystyle p(X^{o},x^{m},h)\,} . === Model details === The rest of this section summarizes the details of Weber & Welling's model for a single component model. The formulas for multiple component models are extensions of those described here. To parametrize the joint probability density, Weber & Welling introduce the auxiliary variables b {\displaystyle b\,} and n {\displaystyle n\,} , where b {\displaystyle b\,} is a binary vector encoding the presence/absence of parts in detection ( b i = 1 {\displaystyle b_{i}=1\,} if h i > 0 {\displaystyle h_{i}>0\,} , otherwise b i = 0 {\displaystyle b_{i}=0\,} ), and n {\displaystyle n\,} is a vector where n i {\displaystyle n_{i}\,} denotes the number of background candidates included in the i t h {\displaystyle i^{th}} row of X o {\displaystyle X^{o}\,} . Since b {\displaystyle b\,} and n {\displaystyle n\,} are completely determined by h {\displaystyle h\,} and the size of X o {\displaystyle X^{o}\,} , we have p ( X o , x m , h ) = p ( X o , x m , h , n , b ) {\displaystyle p(X^{o},x^{m},h)=p(X^{o},x^{m},h,n,b)\,} . By decomposition, p ( X o , x m , h , n , b ) = p ( X o , x m | h , n , b ) p ( h | n , b ) p ( n ) p ( b ) {\displaystyle p(X^{o},x^{m},h,n,b)=p(X^{o},x^{m}|h,n,b)p(h|n,b)p(n)p(b)\,} The probability density over the number of background detections can be modeled by a Poisson distribution, p ( n ) = ∏ i = 1 T 1 n i ! ( M i ) n i e − M i {\displaystyle p(n)=\prod _{i=1}^{T}{\frac {1}{n_{i}!}}(M_{i})^{n_{i}}e^{-M_{i}}} where M i {\displaystyle M_{i}\,} is the average number of background detections of type i {\displaystyle i\,} per image. Depending on the number of parts F {\displaystyle F\,} , the probability p ( b ) {\displaystyle p(b)\,} can be modeled either as an explicit table of length 2 F {\displaystyle 2^{F}\,} , or, if F {\displaystyle F\,} is large, as F {\displaystyle F\,} independent probabilities, each governing the presence of an individual part. The density p ( h | n , b ) {\displaystyle p(h|n,b)\,} is modeled by p ( h | n , b ) = { 1 ∏ f = 1 F N f b f , if h ∈ H ( b , n ) 0 , for other h {\displaystyle p(h|n,b)={\begin{cases}{\frac {1}{\textstyle \prod _{f=1}^{F}N_{f}^{b_{f}}}},&{\mbox{if }}h\in H(b,n)\\0,&{\mbox{for other }}h\end{cases}}} where H ( b , n ) {\displaystyle H(b,n)\,} denotes the set of all hypotheses consistent with b {\displaystyle b\,} and n {\displaystyle n\,} , and N f {\displaystyle N_{f}\,} denotes the total number of detections of parts of type f {\displaystyle f\,} . This expresses the fact that all consistent hypotheses, of which there are ∏ f = 1 F N f b f {\displaystyle \textstyle \prod _{f=1}^{F}N_{f}^{b_{f}}} , are equally likely in the absence of information on part locations. And finally, p ( X o , x m | h , n ) = p f g ( z ) p b g ( x b g ) {\displaystyle p(X^{o},x^{m}|h,n)=p_{fg}(z)p_{bg}(x_{bg})\,} where z = ( x o x m ) {\displaystyle z=(x^{o}x^{m})\,} are the coordinates of all foreground detections, observed and missing, and x b g {\displaystyle x_{bg}\,} represents the coordinates of the background detections. Note that foreground detections are assumed to be independent of the background. p f g ( z ) {\displaystyle p_{fg}(z)\,} is modeled as a joint Gaussian with mean μ {\displaystyle \mu \,} and covariance Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma \,} . === Classification === The ultimate objective of this model is to classify images into classes "object present" (class C 1 {\displaystyle C_{1}\,} ) and "object absent" (class C 0 {\displaystyle C_{0}\,} ) given t

  Read more →
• 

  BLOOM (language model)

  The BigScience Large Open-science Open-access Multilingual Language Model (BLOOM) is an open-access large language model (LLM) released in 2022. It was created by a volunteer-driven research effort to provide a transparently-created alternative to proprietary AI models. With 176 billion parameters, BLOOM is a transformer-based autoregressive model designed to generate text in 46 natural languages and 13 programming languages. The model is distributed under the project's "Responsible AI License". == Development == BLOOM is the main outcome of the BigScience initiative, a one-year-long research workshop. The project was coordinated by Hugging Face using funding from the French government and involved several hundred volunteer researchers and engineers from academia and the private sector. The model was trained between March and July 2022 on the Jean Zay public supercomputer in France, managed by GENCI and IDRIS (CNRS). Unlike GPT-3, BLOOM was trained to be multilingual. The source code is released under the Apache 2.0 license. The model's parameters are released under BigScience's "Responsible AI License" (RAIL), which grants open access and reuse rights but with some usage restrictions. BLOOM was used in the chatbots BLOOMChat and HuggingChat due to its multilingual abilities. BLOOM's training corpus, named ROOTS, combines data extracted from the then-latest version of the web-based OSCAR corpus (38% of ROOTS) and newly collected data extracted from a manually selected and documented list of language data sources. In total, the model was trained on approximately 366 billion (1.6TB) tokens. It was developed using the open-source libraries DeepSpeed Megatron. BigScience then released xP3, a multilingual dataset for LLM supervised learning. It also released BLOOMZ, a variant of BLOOM fine-tuned on xP3 to follow instructions.

  Read more →
• 

  Dynamic Bayesian network

  A dynamic Bayesian network (DBN) is a Bayesian network (BN) which relates variables to each other over adjacent time steps. == History == A dynamic Bayesian network (DBN) is often called a "two-timeslice" BN (2TBN) because it says that at any point in time T, the value of a variable can be calculated from the internal regressors and the immediate prior value (time T-1). DBNs were developed by Paul Dagum in the early 1990s at Stanford University's Section on Medical Informatics. Dagum developed DBNs to unify and extend traditional linear state-space models such as Kalman filters, linear and normal forecasting models such as ARMA and simple dependency models such as hidden Markov models into a general probabilistic representation and inference mechanism for arbitrary nonlinear and non-normal time-dependent domains. Today, DBNs are common in robotics, and have shown potential for a wide range of data mining applications. For example, they have been used in speech recognition, digital forensics, protein sequencing, and bioinformatics. DBN is a generalization of hidden Markov models and Kalman filters. DBNs are conceptually related to probabilistic Boolean networks and can, similarly, be used to model dynamical systems at steady-state.

  Read more →
• 

  L-1 Identity Solutions

  L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc. was an American biometric technology company headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, specializing in identity management products and services including facial recognition systems, fingerprint readers, and secure credentialing solutions for governments and commercial enterprises. The company's shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "ID." == History == L-1 Identity Solutions was formed on August 29, 2006, from a merger of Viisage Technology, Inc. and Identix Incorporated. Prior to the Safran acquisition, L-1 divested its Intelligence Services Group (ISG) comprising SpecTal LLC, Advanced Concepts Inc., and McClendon LLC to BAE Systems, Inc. for approximately $297 million. The transaction, initially announced in September 2010, closed on February 15, 2011, with more than 1,000 ISG employees joining BAE Systems' Intelligence & Security sector. It specializes in selling face recognition systems, electronic passports, such as Fly Clear, and other biometric technology to governments such as the United States and Saudi Arabia. It also licenses technology to other companies internationally, including China. On July 26, 2011, Safran (NYSE Euronext Paris: SAF) acquired L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc. for a total cash amount of USD 1.09 billion. L-1 was part of Morpho's MorphoTrust department which rebranded to Idemia in 2017. Bioscrypt is a biometrics research, development and manufacturing company purchased by L-1 Identity Solutions. It provides fingerprint IP readers for physical access control systems, Facial recognition system readers for contactless access control authentication and OEM fingerprint modules for embedded applications. According to IMS Research, Bioscrypt has been the world market leader in biometric access control for enterprises (since 2006) with a worldwide market share of over 13%. In 2011, Bioscrypt was sold to Safran Morpho.

  Read more →