AI Content Creator Course Review

AI Content Creator Course Review — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  AI-complete

  In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), tasks that are hypothesized to require artificial general intelligence to solve are informally known as AI-complete or AI-hard. Calling a problem AI-complete reflects the belief that it cannot be solved by a simple specific algorithm. Prior to 2013, problems supposed to be AI-complete included computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real-world problem. AI-complete tasks were notably considered useful for distinguishing humans from automated agents, as CAPTCHAs aim to do. == History == The term was coined by Fanya Montalvo by analogy with NP-complete and NP-hard in complexity theory, which formally describes the most famous class of difficult problems. Early uses of the term are in Erik Mueller's 1987 PhD dissertation and in Eric Raymond's 1991 Jargon File. Expert systems, that were popular in the 1980s, were able to solve very simple and/or restricted versions of AI-complete problems, but never in their full generality. When AI researchers attempted to "scale up" their systems to handle more complicated, real-world situations, the programs tended to become excessively brittle without commonsense knowledge or a rudimentary understanding of the situation: they would fail as unexpected circumstances outside of its original problem context would begin to appear. When human beings are dealing with new situations in the world, they are helped by their awareness of the general context: they know what the things around them are, why they are there, what they are likely to do and so on. They can recognize unusual situations and adjust accordingly. Expert systems lacked this adaptability and were brittle when facing new situations. DeepMind published a work in May 2022 in which they trained a single model to do several things at the same time. The model, named Gato, can "play Atari, caption images, chat, stack blocks with a real robot arm and much more, deciding based on its context whether to output text, joint torques, button presses, or other tokens." Similarly, some tasks once considered to be AI-complete, like machine translation, are among the capabilities of large language models. == AI-complete problems == AI-complete problems have been hypothesized to include: AI peer review (composite natural language understanding, automated reasoning, automated theorem proving, formalized logic expert system) Bongard problems Computer vision (and subproblems such as object recognition) Natural language understanding (and subproblems such as text mining, machine translation, and word-sense disambiguation) Autonomous driving Dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real world problem, whether navigation, planning, or even the kind of reasoning done by expert systems. == Formalization == Computational complexity theory deals with the relative computational difficulty of computable functions. By definition, it does not cover problems whose solution is unknown or has not been characterized formally. Since many AI problems have no formalization yet, conventional complexity theory does not enable a formal definition of AI-completeness. == Research == Roman Yampolskiy suggests that a problem C {\displaystyle C} is AI-Complete if it has two properties: It is in the set of AI problems (Human Oracle-solvable). Any AI problem can be converted into C {\displaystyle C} by some polynomial time algorithm. On the other hand, a problem H {\displaystyle H} is AI-Hard if and only if there is an AI-Complete problem C {\displaystyle C} that is polynomial time Turing-reducible to H {\displaystyle H} . This also gives as a consequence the existence of AI-Easy problems, that are solvable in polynomial time by a deterministic Turing machine with an oracle for some problem. Yampolskiy has also hypothesized that the Turing Test is a defining feature of AI-completeness. Groppe and Jain classify problems which require artificial general intelligence to reach human-level machine performance as AI-complete, while only restricted versions of AI-complete problems can be solved by the current AI systems. For Šekrst, getting a polynomial solution to AI-complete problems would not necessarily be equal to solving the issue of artificial general intelligence, while emphasizing the lack of computational complexity research being the limiting factor towards achieving artificial general intelligence. For Kwee-Bintoro and Velez, solving AI-complete problems would have strong repercussions on society.

  Read more →
• 

  Prototype methods

  Prototype methods are machine learning methods that use data prototypes. A data prototype is a data value that reflects other values in its class, e.g., the centroid in a K-means clustering problem. == Methods == The following are some prototype methods K-means clustering Learning vector quantization (LVQ) Gaussian mixtures == Related Methods == While K-nearest neighbor's does not use prototypes, it is similar to prototype methods like K-means clustering.

  Read more →
• 

  Random projection

  In mathematics and statistics, random projection is a technique used to reduce the dimensionality of a set of points which lie in Euclidean space. According to theoretical results, random projection preserves distances well, but empirical results are sparse. They have been applied to many natural language tasks under the name random indexing. == Dimensionality reduction == Dimensionality reduction, as the name suggests, is reducing the number of random variables using various mathematical methods from statistics and machine learning. Dimensionality reduction is often used to reduce the problem of managing and manipulating large data sets. Dimensionality reduction techniques generally use linear transformations in determining the intrinsic dimensionality of the manifold as well as extracting its principal directions. For this purpose there are various related techniques, including: principal component analysis, linear discriminant analysis, canonical correlation analysis, discrete cosine transform, random projection, etc. Random projection is a simple and computationally efficient way to reduce the dimensionality of data by trading a controlled amount of error for faster processing times and smaller model sizes. The dimensions and distribution of random projection matrices are controlled so as to approximately preserve the pairwise distances between any two samples of the dataset. == Method == The core idea behind random projection is given in the Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma, which states that if points in a vector space are of sufficiently high dimension, then they may be projected into a suitable lower-dimensional space in a way which approximately preserves pairwise distances between the points with high probability. In random projection, the original d {\displaystyle d} -dimensional data is projected to a k {\displaystyle k} -dimensional subspace, by multiplying on the left by a random matrix R ∈ R k × d {\displaystyle R\in \mathbb {R} ^{k\times d}} . Using matrix notation: If X d × N {\displaystyle X_{d\times N}} is the original set of N d-dimensional observations, then X k × N R P = R k × d X d × N {\displaystyle X_{k\times N}^{RP}=R_{k\times d}X_{d\times N}} is the projection of the data onto a lower k-dimensional subspace. Random projection is computationally simple: form the random matrix "R" and project the d × N {\displaystyle d\times N} data matrix X onto K dimensions of order O ( d k N ) {\displaystyle O(dkN)} . If the data matrix X is sparse with about c nonzero entries per column, then the complexity of this operation is of order O ( c k N ) {\displaystyle O(ckN)} . === Orthogonal random projection === A unit vector can be orthogonally projected to a random subspace. Let u {\displaystyle u} be the original unit vector, and let v {\displaystyle v} be its projection. The norm-squared ‖ v ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \|v\|_{2}^{2}} has the same distribution as projecting a random point, uniformly sampled on the unit sphere, to its first k {\displaystyle k} coordinates. This is equivalent to sampling a random point in the multivariate gaussian distribution x ∼ N ( 0 , I d × d ) {\displaystyle x\sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,I_{d\times d})} , then normalizing it. Therefore, ‖ v ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \|v\|_{2}^{2}} has the same distribution as ∑ i = 1 k x i 2 ∑ i = 1 k x i 2 + ∑ i = k + 1 d x i 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{k}x_{i}^{2}}{\sum _{i=1}^{k}x_{i}^{2}+\sum _{i=k+1}^{d}x_{i}^{2}}}} , which by the chi-squared construction of the Beta distribution, has distribution Beta ⁡ ( k / 2 , ( d − k ) / 2 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Beta} (k/2,(d-k)/2)} , with mean k / d {\displaystyle k/d} . We have a concentration inequality P r [ | ‖ v ‖ 2 − k d | ≥ ϵ k d ] ≤ 3 exp ⁡ ( − k ϵ 2 / 64 ) {\displaystyle Pr\left[\left|\|v\|_{2}-{\frac {k}{d}}\right|\geq \epsilon {\sqrt {\frac {k}{d}}}\right]\leq 3\exp \left(-k\epsilon ^{2}/64\right)} for any ϵ ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle \epsilon \in (0,1)} . === Gaussian random projection === The random matrix R can be generated using a Gaussian distribution. The first row is a random unit vector uniformly chosen from S d − 1 {\displaystyle S^{d-1}} . The second row is a random unit vector from the space orthogonal to the first row, the third row is a random unit vector from the space orthogonal to the first two rows, and so on. In this way of choosing R, and the following properties are satisfied: Spherical symmetry: For any orthogonal matrix A ∈ O ( d ) {\displaystyle A\in O(d)} , RA and R have the same distribution. Orthogonality: The rows of R are orthogonal to each other. Normality: The rows of R are unit-length vectors. === More computationally efficient random projections === Achlioptas has shown that the random matrix can be sampled more efficiently. Either the full matrix can be sampled IID according to R i , j = 3 / k × { + 1 with probability 1 6 0 with probability 2 3 − 1 with probability 1 6 {\displaystyle R_{i,j}={\sqrt {3/k}}\times {\begin{cases}+1&{\text{with probability }}{\frac {1}{6}}\\0&{\text{with probability }}{\frac {2}{3}}\\-1&{\text{with probability }}{\frac {1}{6}}\end{cases}}} or the full matrix can be sampled IID according to R i , j = 1 / k × { + 1 with probability 1 2 − 1 with probability 1 2 {\displaystyle R_{i,j}={\sqrt {1/k}}\times {\begin{cases}+1&{\text{with probability }}{\frac {1}{2}}\\-1&{\text{with probability }}{\frac {1}{2}}\end{cases}}} Both are efficient for database applications because the computations can be performed using integer arithmetic. More related study is conducted in. It was later shown how to use integer arithmetic while making the distribution even sparser, having very few nonzeroes per column, in work on the Sparse JL Transform. This is advantageous since a sparse embedding matrix means being able to project the data to lower dimension even faster. === Random Projection with Quantization === Random projection can be further condensed by quantization (discretization), with 1-bit (sign random projection) or multi-bits. It is the building block of SimHash, RP tree, and other memory efficient estimation and learning methods. == Large quasiorthogonal bases == The Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma states that large sets of vectors in a high-dimensional space can be linearly mapped in a space of much lower (but still high) dimension n with approximate preservation of distances. One of the explanations of this effect is the exponentially high quasiorthogonal dimension of n-dimensional Euclidean space. There are exponentially large (in dimension n) sets of almost orthogonal vectors (with small value of inner products) in n–dimensional Euclidean space. This observation is useful in indexing of high-dimensional data. Quasiorthogonality of large random sets is important for methods of random approximation in machine learning. In high dimensions, exponentially large numbers of randomly and independently chosen vectors from equidistribution on a sphere (and from many other distributions) are almost orthogonal with probability close to one. This implies that in order to represent an element of such a high-dimensional space by linear combinations of randomly and independently chosen vectors, it may often be necessary to generate samples of exponentially large length if we use bounded coefficients in linear combinations. On the other hand, if coefficients with arbitrarily large values are allowed, the number of randomly generated elements that are sufficient for approximation is even less than dimension of the data space. == Implementations == RandPro - An R package for random projection sklearn.random_projection - A module for random projection from the scikit-learn Python library Weka implementation [1]

  Read more →
• 

  Evolutionary multimodal optimization

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

  Read more →
• 

  Butler in a Box

  Butler in a Box was an early voice-controlled home automation device developed in 1983 by magician Gus Searcy and programmer Franz Kavan. The device allowed users to control various home electronics, such as lights and phones, using voice commands. It predated modern smart speakers and virtual assistants by several decades. == History == The idea for the Butler in a Box originated in 1983 when Searcy was asked by friends why he couldn't simply command lights to turn on and off if he could pull rabbits out of hats, given his background as a professional magician. Searcy partnered with former IBM programmer Kavan to develop the device, with their first prototype being named "Sidney". The Butler in a Box combined remote control technology with voice recognition to enable control of home devices. However, it faced challenges due to the technological limitations of the era and its high price point of nearly $1,500 (equivalent to around $3,700 in 2021). == Features and functionality == Users could activate the Butler in a Box by speaking a wake word, typically a traditional butler name, and the device would address the user as "boss". It was capable of performing tasks such as: Turning lights on and off, controlling individual zones if lights were connected to remote control modules Making and receiving phone calls Setting timers Pairing with sensors to function as a security alarm system However, the device required extensive voice training for each user, a time-consuming process compared to modern voice recognition. Additionally, settings and trained commands would be lost if power was out for over 3 hours due to the volatile memory technology used at the time. == Reception and legacy == While innovative for its time, the Butler in a Box did not achieve widespread commercial success due to its high price and the technical limitations of the 1980s. Nevertheless, it served as an important early step in the development of home automation and showcased the potential for voice-controlled technology to enhance accessibility and convenience in the home. Decades later, products like Amazon Alexa, Google Home, and Apple's Siri would make voice-controlled smart home devices commonplace and affordable, building on the groundwork laid by early attempts like the Butler in a Box.

  Read more →
• 

  BrownBoost

  BrownBoost is a boosting algorithm that may be robust to noisy datasets. BrownBoost is an adaptive version of the boost by majority algorithm. As is the case for all boosting algorithms, BrownBoost is used in conjunction with other machine learning methods. BrownBoost was introduced by Yoav Freund in 2001. == Motivation == AdaBoost performs well on a variety of datasets; however, it can be shown that AdaBoost does not perform well on noisy data sets. This is a result of AdaBoost's focus on examples that are repeatedly misclassified. In contrast, BrownBoost effectively "gives up" on examples that are repeatedly misclassified. The core assumption of BrownBoost is that noisy examples will be repeatedly mislabeled by the weak hypotheses and non-noisy examples will be correctly labeled frequently enough to not be "given up on." Thus only noisy examples will be "given up on," whereas non-noisy examples will contribute to the final classifier. In turn, if the final classifier is learned from the non-noisy examples, the generalization error of the final classifier may be much better than if learned from noisy and non-noisy examples. The user of the algorithm can set the amount of error to be tolerated in the training set. Thus, if the training set is noisy (say 10% of all examples are assumed to be mislabeled), the booster can be told to accept a 10% error rate. Since the noisy examples may be ignored, only the true examples will contribute to the learning process. == Algorithm description == BrownBoost uses a non-convex potential loss function, thus it does not fit into the AdaBoost framework. The non-convex optimization provides a method to avoid overfitting noisy data sets. However, in contrast to boosting algorithms that analytically minimize a convex loss function (e.g. AdaBoost and LogitBoost), BrownBoost solves a system of two equations and two unknowns using standard numerical methods. The only parameter of BrownBoost ( c {\displaystyle c} in the algorithm) is the "time" the algorithm runs. The theory of BrownBoost states that each hypothesis takes a variable amount of time ( t {\displaystyle t} in the algorithm) which is directly related to the weight given to the hypothesis α {\displaystyle \alpha } . The time parameter in BrownBoost is analogous to the number of iterations T {\displaystyle T} in AdaBoost. A larger value of c {\displaystyle c} means that BrownBoost will treat the data as if it were less noisy and therefore will give up on fewer examples. Conversely, a smaller value of c {\displaystyle c} means that BrownBoost will treat the data as more noisy and give up on more examples. During each iteration of the algorithm, a hypothesis is selected with some advantage over random guessing. The weight of this hypothesis α {\displaystyle \alpha } and the "amount of time passed" t {\displaystyle t} during the iteration are simultaneously solved in a system of two non-linear equations ( 1. uncorrelated hypothesis w.r.t example weights and 2. hold the potential constant) with two unknowns (weight of hypothesis α {\displaystyle \alpha } and time passed t {\displaystyle t} ). This can be solved by bisection (as implemented in the JBoost software package) or Newton's method (as described in the original paper by Freund). Once these equations are solved, the margins of each example ( r i ( x j ) {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})} in the algorithm) and the amount of time remaining s {\displaystyle s} are updated appropriately. This process is repeated until there is no time remaining. The initial potential is defined to be 1 m ∑ j = 1 m 1 − erf ( c ) = 1 − erf ( c ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{m}}\sum _{j=1}^{m}1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})=1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})} . Since a constraint of each iteration is that the potential be held constant, the final potential is 1 m ∑ j = 1 m 1 − erf ( r i ( x j ) / c ) = 1 − erf ( c ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{m}}\sum _{j=1}^{m}1-{\mbox{erf}}(r_{i}(x_{j})/{\sqrt {c}})=1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})} . Thus the final error is likely to be near 1 − erf ( c ) {\displaystyle 1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})} . However, the final potential function is not the 0–1 loss error function. For the final error to be exactly 1 − erf ( c ) {\displaystyle 1-{\mbox{erf}}({\sqrt {c}})} , the variance of the loss function must decrease linearly w.r.t. time to form the 0–1 loss function at the end of boosting iterations. This is not yet discussed in the literature and is not in the definition of the algorithm below. The final classifier is a linear combination of weak hypotheses and is evaluated in the same manner as most other boosting algorithms. == BrownBoost learning algorithm definition == Input: m {\displaystyle m} training examples ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x m , y m ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{m},y_{m})} where x j ∈ X , y j ∈ Y = { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle x_{j}\in X,\,y_{j}\in Y=\{-1,+1\}} The parameter c {\displaystyle c} Initialise: s = c {\displaystyle s=c} . (The value of s {\displaystyle s} is the amount of time remaining in the game) r i ( x j ) = 0 {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})=0} ∀ j {\displaystyle \forall j} . The value of r i ( x j ) {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})} is the margin at iteration i {\displaystyle i} for example x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} . While s > 0 {\displaystyle s>0} : Set the weights of each example: W i ( x j ) = e − ( r i ( x j ) + s ) 2 c {\displaystyle W_{i}(x_{j})=e^{-{\frac {(r_{i}(x_{j})+s)^{2}}{c}}}} , where r i ( x j ) {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})} is the margin of example x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} Find a classifier h i : X → { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle h_{i}:X\to \{-1,+1\}} such that ∑ j W i ( x j ) h i ( x j ) y j > 0 {\displaystyle \sum _{j}W_{i}(x_{j})h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}>0} Find values α , t {\displaystyle \alpha ,t} that satisfy the equation: ∑ j h i ( x j ) y j e − ( r i ( x j ) + α h i ( x j ) y j + s − t ) 2 c = 0 {\displaystyle \sum _{j}h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}e^{-{\frac {(r_{i}(x_{j})+\alpha h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}+s-t)^{2}}{c}}}=0} . (Note this is similar to the condition E W i + 1 [ h i ( x j ) y j ] = 0 {\displaystyle E_{W_{i+1}}[h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}]=0} set forth by Schapire and Singer. In this setting, we are numerically finding the W i + 1 = exp ⁡ ( ⋯ ⋯ ) {\displaystyle W_{i+1}=\exp \left({\frac {\cdots }{\cdots }}\right)} such that E W i + 1 [ h i ( x j ) y j ] = 0 {\displaystyle E_{W_{i+1}}[h_{i}(x_{j})y_{j}]=0} .) This update is subject to the constraint ∑ ( Φ ( r i ( x j ) + α h ( x j ) y j + s − t ) − Φ ( r i ( x j ) + s ) ) = 0 {\displaystyle \sum \left(\Phi \left(r_{i}(x_{j})+\alpha h(x_{j})y_{j}+s-t\right)-\Phi \left(r_{i}(x_{j})+s\right)\right)=0} , where Φ ( z ) = 1 − erf ( z / c ) {\displaystyle \Phi (z)=1-{\mbox{erf}}(z/{\sqrt {c}})} is the potential loss for a point with margin r i ( x j ) {\displaystyle r_{i}(x_{j})} Update the margins for each example: r i + 1 ( x j ) = r i ( x j ) + α h ( x j ) y j {\displaystyle r_{i+1}(x_{j})=r_{i}(x_{j})+\alpha h(x_{j})y_{j}} Update the time remaining: s = s − t {\displaystyle s=s-t} Output: H ( x ) = sign ( ∑ i α i h i ( x ) ) {\displaystyle H(x)={\textrm {sign}}\left(\sum _{i}\alpha _{i}h_{i}(x)\right)} == Empirical results == In preliminary experimental results with noisy datasets, BrownBoost outperformed AdaBoost's generalization error; however, LogitBoost performed as well as BrownBoost. An implementation of BrownBoost can be found in the open source software JBoost.

  Read more →
• 

  Linear genetic programming

  "Linear genetic programming" is unrelated to "linear programming". Linear genetic programming (LGP) is a particular method of genetic programming wherein computer programs in a population are represented as a sequence of register-based instructions from an imperative programming language or machine language. The adjective "linear" stems from the fact that each LGP program is a sequence of instructions and the sequence of instructions is normally executed sequentially. Like in other programs, the data flow in LGP can be modeled as a graph that will visualize the potential multiple usage of register contents and the existence of structurally noneffective code (introns) which are two main differences of this genetic representation from the more common tree-based genetic programming (TGP) variant. Like other Genetic Programming methods, Linear genetic programming requires the input of data to run the program population on. Then, the output of the program (its behaviour) is judged against some target behaviour, using a fitness function. However, LGP is generally more efficient than tree genetic programming due to its two main differences mentioned above: Intermediate results (stored in registers) can be reused and a simple intron removal algorithm exists that can be executed to remove all non-effective code prior to programs being run on the intended data. These two differences often result in compact solutions and substantial computational savings compared to the highly constrained data flow in trees and the common method of executing all tree nodes in TGP. Furthermore, LGP naturally has multiple outputs by defining multiple output registers and easily cooperates with control flow operations. Linear genetic programming has been applied in many domains, including system modeling and system control with considerable success. Linear genetic programming should not be confused with linear tree programs in tree genetic programming, program composed of a variable number of unary functions and a single terminal. Note that linear tree GP differs from bit string genetic algorithms since a population may contain programs of different lengths and there may be more than two types of functions or more than two types of terminals. == Examples of LGP programs == Because LGP programs are basically represented by a linear sequence of instructions, they are simpler to read and to operate on than their tree-based counterparts. For example, a simple program written to solve a Boolean function problem with 3 inputs (in R1, R2, R3) and one output (in R0), could read like this: R1, R2, R3 have to be declared as input (read-only) registers, while R0 and R4 are declared as calculation (read-write) registers. This program is very simple, having just 5 instructions. But mutation and crossover operators could work to increase the length of the program, as well as the content of each of its instructions. Note that one instruction is non-effective or an intron (marked), since it does not impact the output register R0. Recognition of those instructions is the basis for the intron removal algorithm which is used analyze code prior to execution. Technically, this happens by copying an individual and then run the intron removal once. The copy with removed introns is then executed as many times as dictated by the number of training cases. Notably, the original individual is left intact, so as to continue participating in the evolutionary process. It is only the copy that is executed that is compressed by removing these "structural" introns. Another simple program, this one written in the LGP language Slash/A looks like a series of instructions separated by a slash: By representing such code in bytecode format, i.e. as an array of bytes each representing a different instruction, one can make mutation operations simply by changing an element of such an array.

  Read more →
• 

  Perceptron

  In machine learning, the perceptron is an algorithm for supervised learning of binary classifiers. A binary classifier is a function that can decide whether or not an input, represented by a vector of numbers, belongs to some specific class. It is a type of linear classifier, i.e. a classification algorithm that makes its predictions based on a linear predictor function combining a set of weights with the feature vector. == History == The artificial neuron and artificial neural network were invented in 1943 by Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts in their seminal paper "A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity". In 1957, Frank Rosenblatt was at the Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory. He simulated the perceptron on an IBM 704. Later, he obtained funding by the Information Systems Branch of the United States Office of Naval Research and the Rome Air Development Center, to build a custom-made computer, the Mark I Perceptron. It was first publicly demonstrated on 23 June 1960. The machine was "part of a previously secret four-year NPIC [the US' National Photographic Interpretation Center] effort from 1963 through 1966 to develop this algorithm into a useful tool for photo-interpreters". Rosenblatt described the details of the perceptron in a 1958 paper. His organization of a perceptron is constructed of three kinds of cells ("units"): S, A, R, which stand for "sensory", "association" and "response". He presented at the first international symposium on AI, Mechanisation of Thought Processes, which took place in 1958 November. Rosenblatt's project was funded under Contract Nonr-401(40) "Cognitive Systems Research Program", which lasted from 1959 to 1970, and Contract Nonr-2381(00) "Project PARA" ("PARA" means "Perceiving and Recognition Automata"), which lasted from 1957 to 1963. In 1959, the Institute for Defense Analysis awarded his group a $10,000 contract. By September 1961, the ONR awarded further $153,000 worth of contracts, with $108,000 committed for 1962. The ONR research manager, Marvin Denicoff, stated that ONR, instead of ARPA, funded the Perceptron project, because the project was unlikely to produce technological results in the near or medium term. Funding from ARPA go up to the order of millions dollars, while from ONR are on the order of 10,000 dollars. Meanwhile, the head of IPTO at ARPA, J.C.R. Licklider, was interested in 'self-organizing', 'adaptive' and other biologically-inspired methods in the 1950s; but by the mid-1960s he was openly critical of these, including the perceptron. Instead he strongly favored the logical AI approach of Simon and Newell. === Mark I Perceptron machine === The perceptron was intended to be a machine, rather than a program, and while its first implementation was in software for the IBM 704, it was subsequently implemented in custom-built hardware as the Mark I Perceptron with the project name "Project PARA", designed for image recognition. The machine is currently in Smithsonian National Museum of American History. The Mark I Perceptron had three layers. One version was implemented as follows: An array of 400 photocells arranged in a 20x20 grid, named "sensory units" (S-units), or "input retina". Each S-unit can connect to up to 40 A-units. A hidden layer of 512 perceptrons, named "association units" (A-units). An output layer of eight perceptrons, named "response units" (R-units). Rosenblatt called this three-layered perceptron network the alpha-perceptron, to distinguish it from other perceptron models he experimented with. The S-units are connected to the A-units randomly (according to a table of random numbers) via a plugboard (see photo), to "eliminate any particular intentional bias in the perceptron". The connection weights are fixed, not learned. Rosenblatt was adamant about the random connections, as he believed the retina was randomly connected to the visual cortex, and he wanted his perceptron machine to resemble human visual perception. The A-units are connected to the R-units, with adjustable weights encoded in potentiometers, and weight updates during learning were performed by electric motors.The hardware details are in an operators' manual. In a 1958 press conference organized by the US Navy, Rosenblatt made statements about the perceptron that caused a heated controversy among the fledgling AI community; based on Rosenblatt's statements, The New York Times reported the perceptron to be "the embryo of an electronic computer that [the Navy] expects will be able to walk, talk, see, write, reproduce itself and be conscious of its existence." The Photo Division of Central Intelligence Agency, from 1960 to 1964, studied the use of Mark I Perceptron machine for recognizing militarily interesting silhouetted targets (such as planes and ships) in aerial photos. === Principles of Neurodynamics (1962) === Rosenblatt described his experiments with many variants of the Perceptron machine in a book Principles of Neurodynamics (1962). The book is a published version of the 1961 report. Among the variants are: "cross-coupling" (connections between units within the same layer) with possibly closed loops, "back-coupling" (connections from units in a later layer to units in a previous layer), four-layer perceptrons where the last two layers have adjustable weights (and thus a proper multilayer perceptron), incorporating time-delays to perceptron units, to allow for processing sequential data, analyzing audio (instead of images). The machine was shipped from Cornell to Smithsonian in 1967, under a government transfer administered by the Office of Naval Research. === Perceptrons (1969) === Although the perceptron initially seemed promising, it was quickly proved that perceptrons could not be trained to recognise many classes of patterns. This caused the field of neural network research to stagnate for many years, before it was recognised that a feedforward neural network with two or more layers (also called a multilayer perceptron) had greater processing power than perceptrons with one layer (also called a single-layer perceptron). Single-layer perceptrons are only capable of learning linearly separable patterns. For a classification task with some step activation function, a single node will have a single line dividing the data points forming the patterns. More nodes can create more dividing lines, but those lines must somehow be combined to form more complex classifications. A second layer of perceptrons, or even linear nodes, are sufficient to solve many otherwise non-separable problems. In 1969, a famous book entitled Perceptrons by Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert showed that it was impossible for these classes of network to learn an XOR function. It is often incorrectly believed that they also conjectured that a similar result would hold for a multi-layer perceptron network. However, this is not true, as both Minsky and Papert already knew that multi-layer perceptrons were capable of producing an XOR function. (See the page on Perceptrons (book) for more information.) Nevertheless, the often-miscited Minsky and Papert text caused a significant decline in interest and funding of neural network research. It took ten more years until neural network research experienced a resurgence in the 1980s. This text was reprinted in 1987 as "Perceptrons - Expanded Edition" where some errors in the original text are shown and corrected. === Subsequent work === Rosenblatt continued working on perceptrons despite diminishing funding. The last attempt was Tobermory, built between 1961 and 1967, built for speech recognition. It occupied an entire room. It had 4 layers with 12,000 weights implemented by toroidal magnetic cores. By the time of its completion, simulation on digital computers had become faster than purpose-built perceptron machines. He died in a boating accident in 1971. A simulation program for neural networks was written for IBM 7090/7094, and was used to study various pattern recognition applications, such as character recognition, particle tracks in bubble-chamber photographs; phoneme, isolated word, and continuous speech recognition; speaker verification; and center-of-attention mechanisms for image processing. The kernel perceptron algorithm was already introduced in 1964 by Aizerman et al. Margin bounds guarantees were given for the Perceptron algorithm in the general non-separable case first by Freund and Schapire (1998), and more recently by Mohri and Rostamizadeh (2013) who extend previous results and give new and more favorable L1 bounds. The perceptron is a simplified model of a biological neuron. While the complexity of biological neuron models is often required to fully understand neural behavior, research suggests a perceptron-like linear model can produce some behavior seen in real neurons. The solution spaces of decision boundaries for all binary functions and learning behaviors are studied in. == Definition == In the modern sense, the perceptron is an algori

  Read more →
• 

  Digital omnivore

  A digital omnivore is a person who uses multiple modalities (devices) to access the Internet and other media content in their daily life. As people increasingly own mobile devices, cross-platform multimedia consumption has continued to shape the digital landscape, both in terms of the type of media content they consume and how they consume it. As of 2021, at least half of all global digital traffic is generated by mobile devices. == Connected devices and digital consumption == A 2015 study of digital media consumption showed that smartphones were primarily used for communication, and tablets were primarily used for entertainment – additionally, both were frequently used in conjuncture with other devices, like televisions. An earlier 2011 analysis of the way consumers in the U.S. viewed news content on their devices throughout the day demonstrated how people use different mobile devices for different functions. On a typical weekend morning, digital omnivores accessed their news using their tablet, favored their computer during the working day, and returned to tablet use in the evening, peaking between the hours of 9pm and midnight. Mobile phones were used for web-browsing throughout the day when users were away from their personal computer. Increased Wi-Fi availability and mobile broadband adoption have changed the way people are going online. In August 2011, more than a third (37.2%) of U.S. digital traffic coming from mobile phones occurred via a Wi-Fi connection while tablets, which traditionally required a Wi-Fi connection to access the Internet, are increasingly driving traffic using mobile broadband access. As of 2021, LTE, 5G, and other forms of mobile broadband access are available on the majority of mobile devices. Tablets contributed nearly 2% of all web browsing traffic in the United States in 2011. During this period, iPads also began to account for a higher share of Internet traffic than iPhones (46.8% vs. 42.6% of all iOS device traffic. == Implications for marketing, advertisers and publishers == As of 2021, the average amount of time spent daily consuming digital media was eight hours, an increase from 2020 and a further increase from 2019, partially as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok, as well as other online platforms like YouTube, incorporate advertisements into the in-app or online experience, with some offering the ability to shop for and sell items through the app or website.

  Read more →
• 

  Sample exclusion dimension

  In computational learning theory, sample exclusion dimensions arise in the study of exact concept learning with queries. In algorithmic learning theory, a concept over a domain X is a Boolean function over X. Here we only consider finite domains. A partial approximation S of a concept c is a Boolean function over Y ⊆ X {\displaystyle Y\subseteq X} such that c is an extension to S. Let C be a class of concepts and c be a concept (not necessarily in C). Then a specifying set for c w.r.t. C, denoted by S is a partial approximation S of c such that C contains at most one extension to S. If we have observed a specifying set for some concept w.r.t. C, then we have enough information to verify a concept in C with at most one more mind change. The exclusion dimension, denoted by XD(C), of a concept class is the maximum of the size of the minimum specifying set of c' with respect to C, where c' is a concept not in C.

  Read more →
• 

  Amazon Rekognition

  Amazon Rekognition is a cloud-based software as a service (SaaS) computer vision platform that was launched in 2016. It has been sold to, and used by, a number of United States government agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Orlando, Florida police, as well as private entities. == Capabilities == Rekognition provides a number of computer vision capabilities, which can be divided into two categories: Algorithms that are pre-trained on data collected by Amazon or its partners, and algorithms that a user can train on a custom dataset. As of July 2019, Rekognition provides the following computer vision capabilities. === Pre-trained algorithms === Celebrity recognition in images Facial attribute detection in images, including gender, age range, emotions (e.g. happy, calm, disgusted), whether the face has a beard or mustache, whether the face has eyeglasses or sunglasses, whether the eyes are open, whether the mouth is open, whether the person is smiling, and the location of several markers such as the pupils and jaw line. People Pathing enables tracking of people through a video. An advertised use-case of this capability is to track sports players for post-game analysis. Text detection and classification in images Unsafe visual content detection === Algorithms that a user can train on a custom dataset === SearchFaces enables users to import a database of images with pre-labeled faces, to train a machine learning model on this database, and to expose the model as a cloud service with an API. Then, the user can post new images to the API and receive information about the faces in the image. The API can be used to expose a number of capabilities, including identifying faces of known people, comparing faces, and finding similar faces in a database. Face-based user verification == History and use == === 2017 === In late 2017, the Washington County, Oregon Sheriff's Office began using Rekognition to identify suspects' faces. Rekognition was marketed as a general-purpose computer vision tool, and an engineer working for Washington County decided to use the tool for facial analysis of suspects. Rekognition was offered to the department for free, and Washington County became the first US law enforcement agency known to use Rekognition. In 2018, the agency logged over 1,000 facial searches. The county, according to the Washington Post, by 2019 was paying about $7 a month for all of its searches. The relationship was unknown to the public until May 2018. In 2018, Rekognition was also used to help identify celebrities during a royal wedding telecast. === 2018 === In April 2018, it was reported that FamilySearch was using Rekognition to enable their users to "see which of their ancestors they most resemble based on family photographs". In early 2018, the FBI also began using it as a pilot program for analyzing video surveillance. In May 2018, it was reported by the ACLU that Orlando, Florida was running a pilot using Rekognition for facial analysis in law enforcement, with that pilot ending in July 2019. After the report, on June 22, 2018, Gizmodo reported that Amazon workers had written a letter to CEO Jeff Bezos requesting he cease selling Rekognition to US law enforcement, particularly ICE and Homeland Security. A letter was also sent to Bezos by the ACLU. On June 26, 2018, it was reported that the Orlando police force had ceased using Rekognition after their trial contract expired, reserving the right to use it in the future. The Orlando Police Department said that they had "never gotten to the point to test images" due to old infrastructure and low bandwidth. In July 2018, the ACLU released a test showing that Rekognition had falsely matched 28 members of Congress with mugshot photos, particularly Congresspeople of color. 25 House members afterwards sent a letter to Bezos, expressing concern about Rekognition. Amazon responded saying the Rekognition test had generated 80 percent confidence, while it recommended law enforcement only use matches rated at 99 percent confidence. The Washington Post states that Oregon instead has officers pick a "best of five" result, instead of adhering to the recommendation. In September 2018, it was reported that Mapillary was using Rekognition to read the text on parking signs (e.g. no stopping, no parking, or specific parking hours) in cities. In October 2018, it was reported that Amazon had earlier that year pitched Rekognition to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Amazon defended government use of Rekognition. On December 1, 2018, it was reported that 8 Democratic lawmakers had said in a letter that Amazon had "failed to provide sufficient answers" about Rekognition, writing that they had "serious concerns that this type of product has significant accuracy issues, places disproportionate burdens on communities of color, and could stifle Americans' willingness to exercise their First Amendment rights in public." === 2019 === In January 2019, MIT researchers published a peer-reviewed study asserting that Rekognition had more difficulty in identifying dark-skinned females than competitors such as IBM and Microsoft. In the study, Rekognition misidentified darker-skinned women as men 31% of the time, but made no mistakes for light-skinned men. Amazon called the report "misinterpreted results" of the research with an improper "default confidence threshold." In January 2019, Amazon's shareholders "urged Amazon to stop selling Rekognition software to law enforcement agencies." Amazon in response defended its use of Rekognition, but supported new federal oversight and guidelines to "make sure facial recognition technology cannot be used to discriminate." In February 2019, it was reported that Amazon was collaborating with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on developing standardized tests to improve accuracy and remove bias with facial recognition. In March 2019, an open letter regarding Rekognition was sent by a group of prominent AI researchers to Amazon, criticizing its sale to law enforcement with around 50 signatures. In April 2019, Amazon was told by the Securities and Exchange Commission that they had to vote on two shareholder proposals seeking to limit Rekognition. Amazon argued that the proposals were an "insignificant public policy issue for the Company" not related to Amazon's ordinary business, but their appeal was denied. The vote was set for May. The first proposal was tabled by shareholders. On May 24, 2019, 2.4% of shareholders voted to stop selling Rekognition to government agencies, while a second proposal calling for a study into Rekognition and civil rights had 27.5% support. In August 2019, the ACLU again used Rekognition on members of government, with 26 of 120 lawmakers in California flagged as matches to mugshots. Amazon stated the ACLU was "misusing" the software in the tests, by not dismissing results that did not meet Amazon's recommended accuracy threshold of 99%. By August 2019, there had been protests against ICE's use of Rekognition to surveil immigrants. In March 2019, Amazon announced a Rekognition update that would improve emotional detection, and in August 2019, "fear" was added to emotions that Rekognition could detect. === 2020 === In June 2020, Amazon announced it was implementing a one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition, in response to the George Floyd protests. === 2024 === The Department of Justice disclosed that the FBI is initiating the use of Amazon Rekognition. The DOJ's AI inventory revealed the FBI's "Project Tyr" aims to customize Rekognition to identify nudity, weapons, explosives, and other information from lawfully acquired media. === 2025 === In late 2025, the New York Times reported that scientist, Dr. Jürgen Matthäus, retired from as the head of research at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., used Amazon Rekognition to identify the shooter in the Holocaust photograph known as The Last Jew in Vinnitsa "with more than 99 percent certainty" — as Jakobus Onnen (1906–1943), a teacher from Tichelwarf near Weener in East Frisia who had been a member of the SS since 1934 and was later killed in action near Zhitomir in 1943. The photographer and victim remain unidentified. == Controversy regarding facial analysis == === Racial and gender bias === In 2018, MIT researchers Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru published a study called Gender Shades. In this study, a set of images was collected, and faces in the images were labeled with face position, gender, and skin tone information. The images were run through SaaS facial recognition platforms from Face++, IBM, and Microsoft. In all three of these platforms, the classifiers performed best on male faces (with error rates on female faces being 8.1% to 20.6% higher than error rates on male faces), and they performed worst on dark female faces (with error rates ranging from 20.8% to 30.4%). The authors hypothesized that this discr

  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 →
• 

  PNGOUT

  PNGOUT is a freeware command line optimizer for PNG images written by Ken Silverman. The transformation is lossless, meaning that the resulting image is visually identical to the source image. According to its author, this program can often get higher compression than other optimizers by 5–10%. It is possible to compress some inflated PNGs to a size below 1% of the original file. PNGOUT was also available as a plug-in for the freeware image viewer IrfanView and can be enabled as an option when saving files. It allows editing of various PNGOUT settings via a dialog box. PNGOUT integration was removed in IrfanView version 4.58 in favour of OptiPNG. In 2006, a commercial version of PNGOUT with a graphical user interface, known as PNGOUTWin, was released by Ardfry Imaging, a small company Silverman co-founded in 2005. There is also a freeware GUI frontend to PNGOUT available, known as PNGGauntlet. == Main operation == The main function of PNGOUT is to reduce the size of image data contained in the IDAT chunk. This chunk is compressed using the deflate algorithm. Deflate algorithms can vary in speed and compression ratio, with higher compression ratios generally implying lower speed. Ken Silverman wrote a deflate compressor for PNGOUT that is slower than the ones used in most graphics software, but produces smaller files. PNGOUT also performs automatic bit depth, color, and palette reduction where appropriate.

  Read more →
• 

  Representer theorem

  For computer science, in statistical learning theory, a representer theorem is any of several related results stating that a minimizer f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} of a regularized empirical risk functional defined over a reproducing kernel Hilbert space can be represented as a finite linear combination of kernel products evaluated on the input points in the training set data. == Formal statement == The following Representer Theorem and its proof are due to Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola: Theorem: Consider a positive-definite real-valued kernel k : X × X → R {\displaystyle k:{\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } on a non-empty set X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} with a corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} . Let there be given a training sample ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ∈ X × R {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\dotsc ,(x_{n},y_{n})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} } , a strictly increasing real-valued function g : [ 0 , ∞ ) → R {\displaystyle g\colon [0,\infty )\to \mathbb {R} } , and an arbitrary error function E : ( X × R 2 ) n → R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle E\colon ({\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} ^{2})^{n}\to \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace \infty \rbrace } , which together define the following regularized empirical risk functional on H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} : f ↦ E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) . {\displaystyle f\mapsto E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right).} Then, any minimizer of the empirical risk f ∗ = argmin f ∈ H k { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) } , ( ∗ ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f\in H_{k}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)\right\rbrace ,\quad ()} admits a representation of the form: f ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) , {\displaystyle f^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i}),} where α i ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}\in \mathbb {R} } for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n {\displaystyle 1\leq i\leq n} . Proof: Define a mapping φ : X → H k φ ( x ) = k ( ⋅ , x ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\varphi \colon {\mathcal {X}}&\to H_{k}\\\varphi (x)&=k(\cdot ,x)\end{aligned}}} (so that φ ( x ) = k ( ⋅ , x ) {\displaystyle \varphi (x)=k(\cdot ,x)} is itself a map X → R {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } ). Since k {\displaystyle k} is a reproducing kernel, then φ ( x ) ( x ′ ) = k ( x ′ , x ) = ⟨ φ ( x ′ ) , φ ( x ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle \varphi (x)(x')=k(x',x)=\langle \varphi (x'),\varphi (x)\rangle ,} where ⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle } is the inner product on H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} . Given any x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} , one can use orthogonal projection to decompose any f ∈ H k {\displaystyle f\in H_{k}} into a sum of two functions, one lying in span ⁡ { φ ( x 1 ) , … , φ ( x n ) } {\displaystyle \operatorname {span} \left\lbrace \varphi (x_{1}),\ldots ,\varphi (x_{n})\right\rbrace } , and the other lying in the orthogonal complement: f = ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v , {\displaystyle f=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v,} where ⟨ v , φ ( x i ) ⟩ = 0 {\displaystyle \langle v,\varphi (x_{i})\rangle =0} for all i {\displaystyle i} . The above orthogonal decomposition and the reproducing property together show that applying f {\displaystyle f} to any training point x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} produces f ( x j ) = ⟨ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v , φ ( x j ) ⟩ = ∑ i = 1 n α i ⟨ φ ( x i ) , φ ( x j ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle f(x_{j})=\left\langle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v,\varphi (x_{j})\right\rangle =\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\langle \varphi (x_{i}),\varphi (x_{j})\rangle ,} which we observe is independent of v {\displaystyle v} . Consequently, the value of the error function E {\displaystyle E} in () is likewise independent of v {\displaystyle v} . For the second term (the regularization term), since v {\displaystyle v} is orthogonal to ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})} and g {\displaystyle g} is strictly monotonic, we have g ( ‖ f ‖ ) = g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v ‖ ) = g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) ‖ 2 + ‖ v ‖ 2 ) ≥ g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) ‖ ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)&=g\left(\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v\rVert \right)\\&=g\left({\sqrt {\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})\rVert ^{2}+\lVert v\rVert ^{2}}}\right)\\&\geq g\left(\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})\rVert \right).\end{aligned}}} Therefore, setting v = 0 {\displaystyle v=0} does not affect the first term of (), while it strictly decreases the second term. Consequently, any minimizer f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} in () must have v = 0 {\displaystyle v=0} , i.e., it must be of the form f ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) , {\displaystyle f^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i}),} which is the desired result. == Generalizations == The Theorem stated above is a particular example of a family of results that are collectively referred to as "representer theorems"; here we describe several such. The first statement of a representer theorem was due to Kimeldorf and Wahba for the special case in which E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( f ( x i ) − y i ) 2 , g ( ‖ f ‖ ) = λ ‖ f ‖ 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(f(x_{i})-y_{i})^{2},\\g(\lVert f\rVert )&=\lambda \lVert f\rVert ^{2}\end{aligned}}} for λ > 0 {\displaystyle \lambda >0} . Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola generalized this result by relaxing the assumption of the squared-loss cost and allowing the regularizer to be any strictly monotonically increasing function g ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle g(\cdot )} of the Hilbert space norm. It is possible to generalize further by augmenting the regularized empirical risk functional through the addition of unpenalized offset terms. For example, Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola also consider the minimization f ~ ∗ = argmin ⁡ { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ~ ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ~ ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) ∣ f ~ = f + h ∈ H k ⊕ span ⁡ { ψ p ∣ 1 ≤ p ≤ M } } , ( † ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}=\operatorname {argmin} \left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},{\tilde {f}}(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},{\tilde {f}}(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)\mid {\tilde {f}}=f+h\in H_{k}\oplus \operatorname {span} \lbrace \psi _{p}\mid 1\leq p\leq M\rbrace \right\rbrace ,\quad (\dagger )} i.e., we consider functions of the form f ~ = f + h {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}=f+h} , where f ∈ H k {\displaystyle f\in H_{k}} and h {\displaystyle h} is an unpenalized function lying in the span of a finite set of real-valued functions { ψ p : X → R ∣ 1 ≤ p ≤ M } {\displaystyle \lbrace \psi _{p}\colon {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} \mid 1\leq p\leq M\rbrace } . Under the assumption that the n × M {\displaystyle n\times M} matrix ( ψ p ( x i ) ) i p {\displaystyle \left(\psi _{p}(x_{i})\right)_{ip}} has rank M {\displaystyle M} , they show that the minimizer f ~ ∗ {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}} in ( † ) {\displaystyle (\dagger )} admits a representation of the form f ~ ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) + ∑ p = 1 M β p ψ p ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i})+\sum _{p=1}^{M}\beta _{p}\psi _{p}(\cdot )} where α i , β p ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i},\beta _{p}\in \mathbb {R} } and the β p {\displaystyle \beta _{p}} are all uniquely determined. The conditions under which a representer theorem exists were investigated by Argyriou, Micchelli, and Pontil, who proved the following: Theorem: Let X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} be a nonempty set, k {\displaystyle k} a positive-definite real-valued kernel on X × X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}} with corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} , and let R : H k → R {\displaystyle R\colon H_{k}\to \mathbb {R} } be a differentiable regularization function. Then given a training sample ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ∈ X × R {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} } and an arbitrary error function E : ( X × R 2 ) m → R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle E\colon ({\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} ^{2})^{m}\to \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace \infty \rbrace } , a minimizer f ∗ = argmin f ∈ H k { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + R ( f ) } ( ‡ ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f\in H_{k}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+R(f)\right\rbrace \quad (\ddagger )} of the regularized empirical risk admits a repr

  Read more →
• 

  NSynth

  NSynth (a portmanteau of "Neural Synthesis") is a WaveNet-based autoencoder for synthesizing audio, outlined in a paper in April 2017. == Overview == The model generates sounds through a neural network based synthesis, employing a WaveNet-style autoencoder to learn its own temporal embeddings from four different sounds. Google then released an open source hardware interface for the algorithm called NSynth Super, used by notable musicians such as Grimes and YACHT to generate experimental music using artificial intelligence. The research and development of the algorithm was part of a collaboration between Google Brain, Magenta and DeepMind. == Technology == === Dataset === The NSynth dataset is composed of 305,979 one-shot instrumental notes featuring a unique pitch, timbre, and envelope, sampled from 1,006 instruments from commercial sample libraries. For each instrument the dataset contains four-second 16 kHz audio snippets by ranging over every pitch of a standard MIDI piano, as well as five different velocities. The dataset is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. === Machine learning model === A spectral autoencoder model and a WaveNet autoencoder model are publicly available on GitHub. The baseline model uses a spectrogram with fft_size 1024 and hop_size 256, MSE loss on the magnitudes, and the Griffin-Lim algorithm for reconstruction. The WaveNet model trains on mu-law encoded waveform chunks of size 6144. It learns embeddings with 16 dimensions that are downsampled by 512 in time. == NSynth Super == In 2018 Google released a hardware interface for the NSynth algorithm, called NSynth Super, designed to provide an accessible physical interface to the algorithm for musicians to use in their artistic production. Design files, source code and internal components are released under an open source Apache License 2.0, enabling hobbyists and musicians to freely build and use the instrument. At the core of the NSynth Super there is a Raspberry Pi, extended with a custom printed circuit board to accommodate the interface elements. == Influence == Despite not being publicly available as a commercial product, NSynth Super has been used by notable artists, including Grimes and YACHT. Grimes reported using the instrument in her 2020 studio album Miss Anthropocene. YACHT announced an extensive use of NSynth Super in their album Chain Tripping. Claire L. Evans compared the potential influence of the instrument to the Roland TR-808. The NSynth Super design was honored with a D&AD Yellow Pencil award in 2018.

  Read more →