AI Face Look

AI Face Look — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Hooked (app)

  Hooked is a mobile application where users can write or read chat fiction, short pieces of fiction told in the format of text messages between fictional characters. The app was released in September 2015 and was developed by Telepathic Inc. == Features == Hooked is a freemium smartphone app that allows users to write or read short stories made up of text messages between characters. CEO Prerna Gupta described the app as "books for the Snapchat generation" or "Twitter for fiction." As of March 2019, the app had more than 40 million active users. The stories are written by a mix of professional authors and crowd-sourced participants. The most popular genres are suspense and horror. The stories usually lack literary elements like character arcs, are simply written and are intended to be suspenseful or addicting. Each piece of fiction on the app is approximately 1,000 to 1,300 words long and can be read in about five minutes. Some longer stories are told in "chapters" and a 32,000-word thriller called Dark Matter was released in 2018. The app provides a certain number of text messages for free, then delays the next text message by 15 minutes unless the user pays for a subscription. Prior to 2020, the app offered a three-day free trial and then required users to pay. According to Gupta, the app was intended to get the younger generation to read more without getting distracted. Most users of the app are between 13 and 24 years-old. == History == The Hooked app was first released in September 2015. Initially, Hooked featured about 200 stories that were written by professional authors selected by the app developers. The following year, Telepathic Inc. released Hooked 2.0, which allowed users of the app to create and share their own short stories. By mid-2016, the app had 700 stories written by professional authors and 9,000 stories written by users. Hooked had 1.8 million downloads by 2016 and 20 million download as of 2017, which generated $6.5 million in revenue. The response to Hooked prompted others to create similar text-message based short story apps, like Yarn and Tap. Sensor Tower reported that the Hooked app received 2.22 million downloads during the period from October 2016 to March 2017. Starting in 2020, longer stories divided into chapters debuted on the app. In March, the company launched Hooked TV, an app to showcase video pilots based on a number of scripts themed around the app's content. Out of 50 pilots, those that were most popular among users of the app and social media were expanded into original series as Hooked TV evolved into a streaming platform in the second half of 2021. == Background == The idea for Hooked was conceived when Gupta was working on writing a book of her own. Prerna Gupta and her husband Parag Chordia tested short stories with 15,000 people and found that readers were five times more likely to read a story to its end if the story was presented in a text message format. They created Telepathic Inc., which developed Hooked. According to Celebrity Secret when they first started out, the stories were basically as if two people were texting each other and some sort of drama unfolds. Some of their most popular initial stories were actually horror stories, where a mom gets a text from her daughter and something creepy is happening to her. Over time, they started to turn those into podcasts, which then led to making their own movies and TV shows. As of 2017, the Telepathic has raised $6 million in funding to develop and support the Hooked app. From the main website itself the Hooked investors include Sound Ventures, The Chernin Group, WME/Endeavor, MACRO, Greg Silverman, Steph Curry, Kevin Durant, LeBron James, Mariah Carey, Jamie Foxx, Joe Montana, Aasif Mandvi, Max Martin, Anjula Acharia, Savan Kotecha, Cyan Banister, Eric Ries, A Capital, SV Angel, Cowboy Ventures, Founders Fund and Greylock, among many others.

  Read more →
• 

  Gaussian adaptation

  Gaussian adaptation (GA), also called normal or natural adaptation (NA) is an evolutionary algorithm designed for the maximization of manufacturing yield due to statistical deviation of component values of signal processing systems. In short, GA is a stochastic adaptive process where a number of samples of an n-dimensional vector x[xT = (x1, x2, ..., xn)] are taken from a multivariate Gaussian distribution, N(m, M), having mean m and moment matrix M. The samples are tested for fail or pass. The first- and second-order moments of the Gaussian restricted to the pass samples are m and M. The outcome of x as a pass sample is determined by a function s(x), 0 < s(x) < q ≤ 1, such that s(x) is the probability that x will be selected as a pass sample. The average probability of finding pass samples (yield) is P ( m ) = ∫ s ( x ) N ( x − m ) d x {\displaystyle P(m)=\int s(x)N(x-m)\,dx} Then the theorem of GA states: For any s(x) and for any value of P < q, there always exist a Gaussian p. d. f. [ probability density function ] that is adapted for maximum dispersion. The necessary conditions for a local optimum are m = m and M proportional to M. The dual problem is also solved: P is maximized while keeping the dispersion constant (Kjellström, 1991). Proofs of the theorem may be found in the papers by Kjellström, 1970, and Kjellström & Taxén, 1981. Since dispersion is defined as the exponential of entropy/disorder/average information it immediately follows that the theorem is valid also for those concepts. Altogether, this means that Gaussian adaptation may carry out a simultaneous maximisation of yield and average information (without any need for the yield or the average information to be defined as criterion functions). The theorem is valid for all regions of acceptability and all Gaussian distributions. It may be used by cyclic repetition of random variation and selection (like the natural evolution). In every cycle a sufficiently large number of Gaussian distributed points are sampled and tested for membership in the region of acceptability. The centre of gravity of the Gaussian, m, is then moved to the centre of gravity of the approved (selected) points, m. Thus, the process converges to a state of equilibrium fulfilling the theorem. A solution is always approximate because the centre of gravity is always determined for a limited number of points. It was used for the first time in 1969 as a pure optimization algorithm making the regions of acceptability smaller and smaller (in analogy to simulated annealing, Kirkpatrick 1983). Since 1970 it has been used for both ordinary optimization and yield maximization. == Natural evolution and Gaussian adaptation == It has also been compared to the natural evolution of populations of living organisms. In this case s(x) is the probability that the individual having an array x of phenotypes will survive by giving offspring to the next generation; a definition of individual fitness given by Hartl 1981. The yield, P, is replaced by the mean fitness determined as a mean over the set of individuals in a large population. Phenotypes are often Gaussian distributed in a large population and a necessary condition for the natural evolution to be able to fulfill the theorem of Gaussian adaptation, with respect to all Gaussian quantitative characters, is that it may push the centre of gravity of the Gaussian to the centre of gravity of the selected individuals. This may be accomplished by the Hardy–Weinberg law. This is possible because the theorem of Gaussian adaptation is valid for any region of acceptability independent of the structure (Kjellström, 1996). In this case the rules of genetic variation such as crossover, inversion, transposition etcetera may be seen as random number generators for the phenotypes. So, in this sense Gaussian adaptation may be seen as a genetic algorithm. == How to climb a mountain == Mean fitness may be calculated provided that the distribution of parameters and the structure of the landscape is known. The real landscape is not known, but figure below shows a fictitious profile (blue) of a landscape along a line (x) in a room spanned by such parameters. The red curve is the mean based on the red bell curve at the bottom of figure. It is obtained by letting the bell curve slide along the x-axis, calculating the mean at every location. As can be seen, small peaks and pits are smoothed out. Thus, if evolution is started at A with a relatively small variance (the red bell curve), then climbing will take place on the red curve. The process may get stuck for millions of years at B or C, as long as the hollows to the right of these points remain, and the mutation rate is too small. If the mutation rate is sufficiently high, the disorder or variance may increase and the parameter(s) may become distributed like the green bell curve. Then the climbing will take place on the green curve, which is even more smoothed out. Because the hollows to the right of B and C have now disappeared, the process may continue up to the peaks at D. But of course the landscape puts a limit on the disorder or variability. Besides — dependent on the landscape — the process may become very jerky, and if the ratio between the time spent by the process at a local peak and the time of transition to the next peak is very high, it may as well look like a punctuated equilibrium as suggested by Gould (see Ridley). == Computer simulation of Gaussian adaptation == Thus far the theory only considers mean values of continuous distributions corresponding to an infinite number of individuals. In reality however, the number of individuals is always limited, which gives rise to an uncertainty in the estimation of m and M (the moment matrix of the Gaussian). And this may also affect the efficiency of the process. Unfortunately very little is known about this, at least theoretically. The implementation of normal adaptation on a computer is a fairly simple task. The adaptation of m may be done by one sample (individual) at a time, for example m(i + 1) = (1 – a) m(i) + ax where x is a pass sample, and a < 1 a suitable constant so that the inverse of a represents the number of individuals in the population. M may in principle be updated after every step y leading to a feasible point x = m + y according to: M(i + 1) = (1 – 2b) M(i) + 2byyT, where yT is the transpose of y and b << 1 is another suitable constant. In order to guarantee a suitable increase of average information, y should be normally distributed with moment matrix μ2M, where the scalar μ > 1 is used to increase average information (information entropy, disorder, diversity) at a suitable rate. But M will never be used in the calculations. Instead we use the matrix W defined by WWT = M. Thus, we have y = Wg, where g is normally distributed with the moment matrix μU, and U is the unit matrix. W and WT may be updated by the formulas W = (1 – b)W + bygT and WT = (1 – b)WT + bgyT because multiplication gives M = (1 – 2b)M + 2byyT, where terms including b2 have been neglected. Thus, M will be indirectly adapted with good approximation. In practice it will suffice to update W only W(i + 1) = (1 – b)W(i) + bygT. This is the formula used in a simple 2-dimensional model of a brain satisfying the Hebbian rule of associative learning; see the next section (Kjellström, 1996 and 1999). The figure below illustrates the effect of increased average information in a Gaussian p.d.f. used to climb a mountain Crest (the two lines represent the contour line). Both the red and green cluster have equal mean fitness, about 65%, but the green cluster has a much higher average information making the green process much more efficient. The effect of this adaptation is not very salient in a 2-dimensional case, but in a high-dimensional case, the efficiency of the search process may be increased by many orders of magnitude. == The evolution in the brain == In the brain the evolution of DNA-messages is supposed to be replaced by an evolution of signal patterns and the phenotypic landscape is replaced by a mental landscape, the complexity of which will hardly be second to the former. The metaphor with the mental landscape is based on the assumption that certain signal patterns give rise to a better well-being or performance. For instance, the control of a group of muscles leads to a better pronunciation of a word or performance of a piece of music. In this simple model it is assumed that the brain consists of interconnected components that may add, multiply and delay signal values. A nerve cell kernel may add signal values, a synapse may multiply with a constant and An axon may delay values. This is a basis of the theory of digital filters and neural networks consisting of components that may add, multiply and delay signalvalues and also of many brain models, Levine 1991. In the figure below the brain stem is supposed to deliver Gaussian distributed signal patterns. This may be possible since certai

  Read more →
• 

  Blockmodeling linked networks

  Blockmodeling linked networks is an approach in blockmodeling in analysing the linked networks. Such approach is based on the generalized multilevel blockmodeling approach. The main objective of this approach is to achieve clustering of the nodes from all involved sets, while at the same time using all available information. At the same time, all one-mode and two-node networks, that are connected, are blockmodeled, which results in obtaining only one clustering, using nodes from each sets. Each cluster ideally contains only nodes from one set, which also allows the modeling of the links among clusters from different sets (through two-mode networks). This approach was introduced by Aleš Žiberna in 2014. Blockmodeling linked networks can be done using: separate analysis: blockmodeling each level separately; conversion approach: converting all one-mode networks to the same level and joining with two-mode networks; a true multilevel approach: one-mode and two-mode networks are blockmodeled at the same time, resulting in one clustering for nodes from each level.

  Read more →
• 

  Vladimir Batagelj

  Vladimir Batagelj (born June 14, 1948 in Idrija, Yugoslavia) is a Slovenian mathematician and an emeritus professor of mathematics at the University of Ljubljana. He is known for his work in discrete mathematics and combinatorial optimization, particularly analysis of social networks and other large networks (blockmodeling). == Education and career == Vladimir Batagelj completed his Ph.D. at the University of Ljubljana in 1986 under the direction of Tomaž Pisanski. He stayed at the University of Ljubljana as a professor until his retirement, where he was a professor of sociology and statistics, while also being a chair of the Department of Sociology of the Faculty of Social Sciences. As visiting professor, he was taught at the University of Pittsburgh (1990-91) and at the University of Konstanz (2002). He was also a member of editorial boards of two journals: Informatica and Journal of Social Structure. His work has been cited over 11000 times. His book Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek on blockmodeling, coauthored with Wouter de Nooy and Andrej Mrvar, is Batagelj's most cited work and has over 3300 citations. The book was translated into Chinese and Japanese. The revised and expanded third edition has been published by Cambridge University Press. In 1975, 11 years before completing his PhD, Batagelj published a solo paper in Communications of the ACM. Batagelj authored more than 20 textbooks in Slovenian, covering topics like TeX, combinatorics and discrete mathematics. He has also written extensively in the Slovenian popular science journal Presek. Batagelj has advised 9 Ph.D. students. == Pajek == Batagelj is particularly known for his work on Pajek, a freely available software for analysis and visualization of large networks. He began work on Pajek in 1996 with Andrej Mrvar, who was then his PhD student. == Awards and honors == First prizes for contributions (with Andrej Mrvar) to Graph Drawing Contests in years: 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2005 / Graph Drawing Hall of Fame. In 2007 the book Generalized blockmodeling was awarded the Harrison White Outstanding Book Award by the Mathematical Sociology Section of American Sociological Association In 2007 he was awarded (together with Anuška Ferligoj) the Simmel Award by INSNA. In 2013, Vladimir Batagelj and Andrej Mrvar received the INSNA's William D. Richards Software award for their work on Pajek. == Selected bibliography == Vladimir Batagelj, Social Network Analysis, Large-Scale [1]. in R.A. Meyers, ed., Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, Springer 2009: 8245–8265. Vladimir Batagelj, Complex Networks, Visualization of [2]. in R.A. Meyers, ed., Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, Springer 2009: 1253–1268. Wouter de Nooy, Andrej Mrvar, Vladimir Batagelj, Mark Granovetter (Series Editor), Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek (Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences), Cambridge University Press 2005 (ISBN 0-521-60262-9). ESNA in Japanese, TDU, 2010. Patrick Doreian, Vladimir Batagelj, Anuška Ferligoj, Mark Granovetter (Series Editor), Generalized Blockmodeling (Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences), Cambridge University Press 2004 (ISBN 0-521-84085-6)

  Read more →
• 

  Hello World: How to be Human in the Age of the Machine

  Hello World: How to Be Human in the Age of the Machine (also titled Hello World: Being Human in the Age of Algorithms) is a book on the growing influence of algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) on human life, authored by mathematician and science communicator Hannah Fry. The book examines how algorithms are increasingly shaping decisions in critical areas such as healthcare, transportation, justice, finance, and the arts. == Overview == Fry uses real-world examples, such as driverless cars and predictive policing, to illustrate her points. She emphasizes that algorithms are not inherently objective; they reflect biases embedded in their design and data inputs. While acknowledging their potential to improve efficiency and accuracy, Fry cautions against over-reliance on machines without human judgment. Fry explores moral questions surrounding algorithmic decision-making, such as whether machines can replace human empathy in critical situations. She advocates for greater scrutiny of algorithms to ensure fairness and avoid harmful biases. The book proposes a "cyborg future", where humans work alongside algorithms to enhance decision-making while retaining ultimate control. == Reception == Hello World has been praised for its clarity, engaging storytelling, and balanced perspective. Critics have highlighted Fry's ability to make complex topics accessible to general audiences while raising important questions about technology's impact on society. The book was shortlisted for awards such as the 2018 Baillie Gifford Prize and the Royal Society Science Book Prize.

  Read more →
• 

  Time-aware long short-term memory

  Time-aware LSTM (T-LSTM) is a long short-term memory (LSTM) unit capable of handling irregular time intervals in longitudinal patient records. T-LSTM was developed by researchers from Michigan State University, IBM Research, and Cornell University and was first presented in the Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) conference. Experiments using real and synthetic data proved that T-LSTM auto-encoder outperformed widely used frameworks including LSTM and MF1-LSTM auto-encoders.

  Read more →
• 

  Minimum Population Search

  In evolutionary computation, Minimum Population Search (MPS) is a computational method that optimizes a problem by iteratively trying to improve a set of candidate solutions with regard to a given measure of quality. It solves a problem by evolving a small population of candidate solutions by means of relatively simple arithmetical operations. MPS is a metaheuristic as it makes few or no assumptions about the problem being optimized and can search very large spaces of candidate solutions. For problems where finding the precise global optimum is less important than finding an acceptable local optimum in a fixed amount of time, using a metaheuristic such as MPS may be preferable to alternatives such as brute-force search or gradient descent. MPS is used for multidimensional real-valued functions but does not use the gradient of the problem being optimized, which means MPS does not require for the optimization problem to be differentiable as is required by classic optimization methods such as gradient descent and quasi-newton methods. MPS can therefore also be used on optimization problems that are not even continuous, are noisy, change over time, etc. == Background == In a similar way to Differential evolution, MPS uses difference vectors between the members of the population in order to generate new solutions. It attempts to provide an efficient use of function evaluations by maintaining a small population size. If the population size is smaller than the dimensionality of the search space, then the solutions generated through difference vectors will be constrained to the n − 1 {\displaystyle n-1} dimensional hyperplane. A smaller population size will lead to a more restricted subspace. With a population size equal to the dimensionality of the problem ( n = d ) {\displaystyle (n=d)} , the “line/hyperplane points” in MPS will be generated within a d − 1 {\displaystyle d-1} dimensional hyperplane. Taking a step orthogonal to this hyperplane will allow the search process to cover all the dimensions of the search space. Population size is a fundamental parameter in the performance of population-based heuristics. Larger populations promote exploration, but they also allow fewer generations, and this can reduce the chance of convergence. Searching with a small population can increase the chances of convergence and the efficient use of function evaluations, but it can also induce the risk of premature convergence. If the risk of premature convergence can be avoided, then a population-based heuristic could benefit from the efficiency and faster convergence rate of a smaller population. To avoid premature convergence, it is important to have a diversified population. By including techniques for explicitly increasing diversity and exploration, it is possible to have smaller populations with less risk of premature convergence. === Thresheld Convergence === Thresheld Convergence (TC) is a diversification technique which attempts to separate the processes of exploration and exploitation. TC uses a “threshold” function to establish a minimum search step, and managing this step makes it possible to influence the transition from exploration to exploitation, convergence is thus “held” back until the last stages of the search process. The goal of a controlled transition is to avoid an early concentration of the population around a few search regions and avoid the loss of diversity which can cause premature convergence. Thresheld Convergence has been successfully applied to several population-based metaheuristics such as Particle Swarm Optimization, Differential evolution, Evolution strategies, Simulated annealing and Estimation of Distribution Algorithms. The ideal case for Thresheld Convergence is to have one sample solution from each attraction basin, and for each sample solution to have the same relative fitness with respect to its local optimum. Enforcing a minimum step aims to achieve this ideal case. In MPS Thresheld Convergence is specifically used to preserve diversity and avoid premature convergence by establishing a minimum search step. By disallowing new solutions which are too close to members of the current population, TC forces a strong exploration during the early stages of the search while preserving the diversity of the (small) population. == Algorithm == A basic variant of the MPS algorithm works by having a population of size equal to the dimension of the problem. New solutions are generated by exploring the hyperplane defined by the current solutions (by means of difference vectors) and performing an additional orthogonal step in order to avoid getting caught in this hyperplane. The step sizes are controlled by the Thresheld Convergence technique, which gradually reduces step sizes as the search process advances. An outline for the algorithm is given below: Generate the first initial population. Allowing these solutions to lie near the bounds of the search space generally gives good results: s k = ( r s 1 ∗ b o u n d 1 / 2 , r s 2 ∗ b o u n d 2 / 2 , . . . , r s n ∗ b o u n d n / 2 ) {\displaystyle s_{k}=(rs_{1}bound_{1}/2,rs_{2}bound_{2}/2,...,rs_{n}bound_{n}/2)} where s k {\displaystyle s_{k}} is the k {\displaystyle k} -th population member, r s i {\displaystyle rs_{i}} are random numbers which can be −1 or 1, and the b o u n d i {\displaystyle bound_{i}} are the lower and upper bounds on each dimension. While a stop condition is not reached: Update threshold convergence values ( m i n _ s t e p {\displaystyle min\_step} and m a x _ s t e p {\displaystyle max\_step} ) Calculate the centroid of the current population ( x c {\displaystyle x_{c}} ) For each member of the population ( x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} ), generate a new offspring as follows: Uniformly generate a scaling factor ( F i {\displaystyle F_{i}} ) between − m a x _ s t e p {\displaystyle -max\_step} and m a x _ s t e p {\displaystyle max\_step} Generate a vector ( x o {\displaystyle x_{o}} ) orthogonal to the difference vector between x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x c {\displaystyle x_{c}} Calculate a scaling factor for the orthogonal vector: m i n _ o r t h = s q r t ( m a x ( m i n _ s t e p 2 − F i 2 , 0 ) ) {\displaystyle min\_orth=sqrt(max(min\_step^{2}-F_{i}^{2},0))} m a x _ o r t h = s q r t ( m a x ( m a x _ s t e p 2 − F i 2 , 0 ) ) {\displaystyle max\_orth=sqrt(max(max\_step^{2}-F_{i}^{2},0))} o r t h _ s t e p = u n i f o r m ( m i n _ o r t h , m a x _ o r t h ) {\displaystyle orth\_step=uniform(min\_orth,max\_orth)} Generate the new solution by adding the difference and the orthogonal vectors to the original solution n e w _ s o l u t i o n = x i + F i ∗ ( x i − x c ) ∗ o r t h _ s t e p ∗ x o {\displaystyle new\_solution=x_{i}+F_{i}(x_{i}-x_{c})orth\_stepx_{o}} Pick the best members between the old population and the new one by discarding the least fit members. Return the single best solution or the best population found as the final result.

  Read more →
• 

  Proper generalized decomposition

  The proper generalized decomposition (PGD) is an iterative numerical method for solving boundary value problems (BVPs), that is, partial differential equations constrained by a set of boundary conditions, such as the Poisson's equation or the Laplace's equation. The PGD algorithm computes an approximation of the solution of the BVP by successive enrichment. This means that, in each iteration, a new component (or mode) is computed and added to the approximation. In principle, the more modes obtained, the closer the approximation is to its theoretical solution. Unlike POD principal components, PGD modes are not necessarily orthogonal to each other. By selecting only the most relevant PGD modes, a reduced order model of the solution is obtained. Because of this, PGD is considered a dimensionality reduction algorithm. == Description == The proper generalized decomposition is a method characterized by a variational formulation of the problem, a discretization of the domain in the style of the finite element method, the assumption that the solution can be approximated as a separate representation and a numerical greedy algorithm to find the solution. === Variational formulation === In the Proper Generalized Decomposition method, the variational formulation involves translating the problem into a format where the solution can be approximated by minimizing (or sometimes maximizing) a functional. A functional is a scalar quantity that depends on a function, which in this case, represents our problem. The most commonly implemented variational formulation in PGD is the Bubnov-Galerkin method. This method is chosen for its ability to provide an approximate solution to complex problems, such as those described by partial differential equations (PDEs). In the Bubnov-Galerkin approach, the idea is to project the problem onto a space spanned by a finite number of basis functions. These basis functions are chosen to approximate the solution space of the problem. In the Bubnov-Galerkin method, we seek an approximate solution that satisfies the integral form of the PDEs over the domain of the problem. This is different from directly solving the differential equations. By doing so, the method transforms the problem into finding the coefficients that best fit this integral equation in the chosen function space. While the Bubnov-Galerkin method is prevalent, other variational formulations are also used in PGD, depending on the specific requirements and characteristics of the problem, such as: Petrov-Galerkin Method: This method is similar to the Bubnov-Galerkin approach but differs in the choice of test functions. In the Petrov-Galerkin method, the test functions (used to project the residual of the differential equation) are different from the trial functions (used to approximate the solution). This can lead to improved stability and accuracy for certain types of problems. Collocation Method: In collocation methods, the differential equation is satisfied at a finite number of points in the domain, known as collocation points. This approach can be simpler and more direct than the integral-based methods like Galerkin's, but it may also be less stable for some problems. Least Squares Method: This approach involves minimizing the square of the residual of the differential equation over the domain. It is particularly useful when dealing with problems where traditional methods struggle with stability or convergence. Mixed Finite Element Method: In mixed methods, additional variables (such as fluxes or gradients) are introduced and approximated along with the primary variable of interest. This can lead to more accurate and stable solutions for certain problems, especially those involving incompressibility or conservation laws. Discontinuous Galerkin Method: This is a variant of the Galerkin method where the solution is allowed to be discontinuous across element boundaries. This method is particularly useful for problems with sharp gradients or discontinuities. === Domain discretization === The discretization of the domain is a well defined set of procedures that cover (a) the creation of finite element meshes, (b) the definition of basis function on reference elements (also called shape functions) and (c) the mapping of reference elements onto the elements of the mesh. === Separate representation === PGD assumes that the solution u of a (multidimensional) problem can be approximated as a separate representation of the form u ≈ u N ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x d ) = ∑ i = 1 N X 1 i ( x 1 ) ⋅ X 2 i ( x 2 ) ⋯ X d i ( x d ) , {\displaystyle \mathbf {u} \approx \mathbf {u} ^{N}(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{d})=\sum _{i=1}^{N}\mathbf {X_{1}} _{i}(x_{1})\cdot \mathbf {X_{2}} _{i}(x_{2})\cdots \mathbf {X_{d}} _{i}(x_{d}),} where the number of addends N and the functional products X1(x1), X2(x2), ..., Xd(xd), each depending on a variable (or variables), are unknown beforehand. === Greedy algorithm === The solution is sought by applying a greedy algorithm, usually the fixed point algorithm, to the weak formulation of the problem. For each iteration i of the algorithm, a mode of the solution is computed. Each mode consists of a set of numerical values of the functional products X1(x1), ..., Xd(xd), which enrich the approximation of the solution. Due to the greedy nature of the algorithm, the term 'enrich' is used rather than 'improve', since some modes may actually worsen the approach. The number of computed modes required to obtain an approximation of the solution below a certain error threshold depends on the stopping criterion of the iterative algorithm. == Features == PGD is suitable for solving high-dimensional problems, since it overcomes the limitations of classical approaches. In particular, PGD avoids the curse of dimensionality, as solving decoupled problems is computationally much less expensive than solving multidimensional problems. Therefore, PGD enables to re-adapt parametric problems into a multidimensional framework by setting the parameters of the problem as extra coordinates: u ≈ u N ( x 1 , … , x d ; k 1 , … , k p ) = ∑ i = 1 N X 1 i ( x 1 ) ⋯ X d i ( x d ) ⋅ K 1 i ( k 1 ) ⋯ K p i ( k p ) , {\displaystyle \mathbf {u} \approx \mathbf {u} ^{N}(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{d};k_{1},\ldots ,k_{p})=\sum _{i=1}^{N}\mathbf {X_{1}} _{i}(x_{1})\cdots \mathbf {X_{d}} _{i}(x_{d})\cdot \mathbf {K_{1}} _{i}(k_{1})\cdots \mathbf {K_{p}} _{i}(k_{p}),} where a series of functional products K1(k1), K2(k2), ..., Kp(kp), each depending on a parameter (or parameters), has been incorporated to the equation. In this case, the obtained approximation of the solution is called computational vademecum: a general meta-model containing all the particular solutions for every possible value of the involved parameters. == Sparse Subspace Learning == The Sparse Subspace Learning (SSL) method leverages the use of hierarchical collocation to approximate the numerical solution of parametric models. With respect to traditional projection-based reduced order modeling, the use of a collocation enables non-intrusive approach based on sparse adaptive sampling of the parametric space. This allows to recover the lowdimensional structure of the parametric solution subspace while also learning the functional dependency from the parameters in explicit form. A sparse low-rank approximate tensor representation of the parametric solution can be built through an incremental strategy that only needs to have access to the output of a deterministic solver. Non-intrusiveness makes this approach straightforwardly applicable to challenging problems characterized by nonlinearity or non affine weak forms.

  Read more →
• 

  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 →
• 

  Semantic mapping (statistics)

  Semantic mapping (SM) is a statistical method for dimensionality reduction (the transformation of data from a high-dimensional space into a low-dimensional space). SM can be used in a set of multidimensional vectors of features to extract a few new features that preserves the main data characteristics. SM performs dimensionality reduction by clustering the original features in semantic clusters and combining features mapped in the same cluster to generate an extracted feature. Given a data set, this method constructs a projection matrix that can be used to map a data element from a high-dimensional space into a reduced dimensional space. SM can be applied in construction of text mining and information retrieval systems, as well as systems managing vectors of high dimensionality. SM is an alternative to random mapping, principal components analysis and latent semantic indexing methods.

  Read more →
• 

  Fitness function

  A fitness function is a particular type of objective or cost function that is used to summarize, as a single figure of merit, how close a given candidate solution is to achieving the set aims. It is an important component of evolutionary algorithms (EA), such as genetic programming, evolution strategies or genetic algorithms. An EA is a metaheuristic that reproduces the basic principles of biological evolution as a computer algorithm in order to solve challenging optimization or planning tasks, at least approximately. For this purpose, many candidate solutions are generated, which are evaluated using a fitness function in order to guide the evolutionary development towards the desired goal. Similar quality functions are also used in other metaheuristics, such as ant colony optimization or particle swarm optimization. In the field of EAs, each candidate solution, also called an individual, is commonly represented as a string of numbers (referred to as a chromosome). After each round of testing or simulation the idea is to delete the n worst individuals, and to breed n new ones from the best solutions. Each individual must therefore to be assigned a quality number indicating how close it has come to the overall specification, and this is generated by applying the fitness function to the test or simulation results obtained from that candidate solution. Two main classes of fitness functions exist: one where the fitness function does not change, as in optimizing a fixed function or testing with a fixed set of test cases; and one where the fitness function is mutable, as in niche differentiation or co-evolving the set of test cases. Another way of looking at fitness functions is in terms of a fitness landscape, which shows the fitness for each possible chromosome. In the following, it is assumed that the fitness is determined based on an evaluation that remains unchanged during an optimization run. A fitness function does not necessarily have to be able to calculate an absolute value, as it is sometimes sufficient to compare candidates in order to select the better one. A relative indication of fitness (candidate a is better than b) is sufficient in some cases, such as tournament selection or Pareto optimization. == Requirements of evaluation and fitness function == The quality of the evaluation and calculation of a fitness function is fundamental to the success of an EA optimisation. It implements Darwin's principle of "survival of the fittest". Without fitness-based selection mechanisms for mate selection and offspring acceptance, EA search would be blind and hardly distinguishable from the Monte Carlo method. When setting up a fitness function, one must always be aware that it is about more than just describing the desired target state. Rather, the evolutionary search on the way to the optimum should also be supported as much as possible (see also section on auxiliary objectives), if and insofar as this is not already done by the fitness function alone. If the fitness function is designed badly, the algorithm will either converge on an inappropriate solution, or will have difficulty converging at all. Definition of the fitness function is not straightforward in many cases and often is performed iteratively if the fittest solutions produced by an EA is not what is desired. Interactive genetic algorithms address this difficulty by outsourcing evaluation to external agents which are normally humans. == Computational efficiency == The fitness function should not only closely align with the designer's goal, but also be computationally efficient. Execution speed is crucial, as a typical evolutionary algorithm must be iterated many times in order to produce a usable result for a non-trivial problem. Fitness approximation may be appropriate, especially in the following cases: Fitness computation time of a single solution is extremely high Precise model for fitness computation is missing The fitness function is uncertain or noisy. Alternatively or also in addition to the fitness approximation, the fitness calculations can also be distributed to a parallel computer in order to reduce the execution times. Depending on the population model of the EA used, both the EA itself and the fitness calculations of all offspring of one generation can be executed in parallel. == Multi-objective optimization == Practical applications usually aim at optimizing multiple and at least partially conflicting objectives. Two fundamentally different approaches are often used for this purpose, Pareto optimization and optimization based on fitness calculated using the weighted sum. === Weighted sum and penalty functions === When optimizing with the weighted sum, the single values of the O {\displaystyle O} objectives are first normalized so that they can be compared. This can be done with the help of costs or by specifying target values and determining the current value as the degree of fulfillment. Costs or degrees of fulfillment can then be compared with each other and, if required, can also be mapped to a uniform fitness scale. Without loss of generality, fitness is assumed to represent a value to be maximized. Each objective o i {\displaystyle o_{i}} is assigned a weight w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} in the form of a percentage value so that the overall raw fitness f r a w {\displaystyle f_{raw}} can be calculated as a weighted sum: f r a w = ∑ i = 1 O o i ⋅ w i w i t h ∑ i = 1 O w i = 1 {\displaystyle f_{raw}=\sum _{i=1}^{O}{o_{i}\cdot w_{i}}\quad {\mathsf {with}}\quad \sum _{i=1}^{O}{w_{i}}=1} A violation of R {\displaystyle R} restrictions r j {\displaystyle r_{j}} can be included in the fitness determined in this way in the form of penalty functions. For this purpose, a function p f j ( r j ) {\displaystyle pf_{j}(r_{j})} can be defined for each restriction which returns a value between 0 {\displaystyle 0} and 1 {\displaystyle 1} depending on the degree of violation, with the result being 1 {\displaystyle 1} if there is no violation. The previously determined raw fitness is multiplied by the penalty function(s) and the result is then the final fitness f f i n a l {\displaystyle f_{final}} : f f i n a l = f r a w ⋅ ∏ j = 1 R p f j ( r j ) = ∑ i = 1 O ( o i ⋅ w i ) ⋅ ∏ j = 1 R p f j ( r j ) {\displaystyle f_{final}=f_{raw}\cdot \prod _{j=1}^{R}{pf_{j}(r_{j})}=\sum _{i=1}^{O}{(o_{i}\cdot w_{i})}\cdot \prod _{j=1}^{R}{pf_{j}(r_{j})}} This approach is simple and has the advantage of being able to combine any number of objectives and restrictions. The disadvantage is that different objectives can compensate each other and that the weights have to be defined before the optimization. This means that the compromise lines must be defined before optimization, which is why optimization with the weighted sum is also referred to as the a priori method. In addition, certain solutions may not be obtained, see the section on the comparison of both types of optimization. === Pareto optimization === A solution is called Pareto-optimal if the improvement of one objective is only possible with a deterioration of at least one other objective. The set of all Pareto-optimal solutions, also called Pareto set, represents the set of all optimal compromises between the objectives. The figure below on the right shows an example of the Pareto set of two objectives f 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}} and f 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}} to be maximized. The elements of the set form the Pareto front (green line). From this set, a human decision maker must subsequently select the desired compromise solution. Constraints are included in Pareto optimization in that solutions without constraint violations are per se better than those with violations. If two solutions to be compared each have constraint violations, the respective extent of the violations decides. It was recognized early on that EAs with their simultaneously considered solution set are well suited to finding solutions in one run that cover the Pareto front sufficiently well. They are therefore well suited as a-posteriori methods for multi-objective optimization, in which the final decision is made by a human decision maker after optimization and determination of the Pareto front. Besides the SPEA2, the NSGA-II and NSGA-III have established themselves as standard methods. The advantage of Pareto optimization is that, in contrast to the weighted sum, it provides all alternatives that are equivalent in terms of the objectives as an overall solution. The disadvantage is that a visualization of the alternatives becomes problematic or even impossible from four objectives on. Furthermore, the effort increases exponentially with the number of objectives. If there are more than three or four objectives, some have to be combined using the weighted sum or other aggregation methods. === Comparison of both types of assessment === With the help of the weighted sum, the total Pareto front can be obtained by a suitable choice of weights, provided that it is convex

  Read more →
• 

  Algorithmic learning theory

  Algorithmic learning theory is a mathematical framework for analyzing machine learning problems and algorithms. Synonyms include formal learning theory and algorithmic inductive inference. Algorithmic learning theory is different from statistical learning theory in that it does not make use of statistical assumptions and analysis. Both algorithmic and statistical learning theory are concerned with machine learning and can thus be viewed as branches of computational learning theory. == Distinguishing characteristics == Unlike statistical learning theory and most statistical theory in general, algorithmic learning theory does not assume that data are random samples, that is, that data points are independent of each other. This makes the theory suitable for domains where observations are (relatively) noise-free but not random, such as language learning and automated scientific discovery. The fundamental concept of algorithmic learning theory is learning in the limit: as the number of data points increases, a learning algorithm should converge to a correct hypothesis on every possible data sequence consistent with the problem space. This is a non-probabilistic version of statistical consistency, which also requires convergence to a correct model in the limit, but allows a learner to fail on data sequences with probability measure 0 . Algorithmic learning theory investigates the learning power of Turing machines. Other frameworks consider a much more restricted class of learning algorithms than Turing machines, for example, learners that compute hypotheses more quickly, for instance in polynomial time. An example of such a framework is probably approximately correct learning . == Learning in the limit == The concept was introduced in E. Mark Gold's seminal paper "Language identification in the limit". The objective of language identification is for a machine running one program to be capable of developing another program by which any given sentence can be tested to determine whether it is "grammatical" or "ungrammatical". The language being learned need not be English or any other natural language - in fact the definition of "grammatical" can be absolutely anything known to the tester. In Gold's learning model, the tester gives the learner an example sentence at each step, and the learner responds with a hypothesis, which is a suggested program to determine grammatical correctness. It is required of the tester that every possible sentence (grammatical or not) appears in the list eventually, but no particular order is required. It is required of the learner that at each step the hypothesis must be correct for all the sentences so far. A particular learner is said to be able to "learn a language in the limit" if there is a certain number of steps beyond which its hypothesis no longer changes. At this point it has indeed learned the language, because every possible sentence appears somewhere in the sequence of inputs (past or future), and the hypothesis is correct for all inputs (past or future), so the hypothesis is correct for every sentence. The learner is not required to be able to tell when it has reached a correct hypothesis, all that is required is that it be true. Gold showed that any language which is defined by a Turing machine program can be learned in the limit by another Turing-complete machine using enumeration. This is done by the learner testing all possible Turing machine programs in turn until one is found which is correct so far - this forms the hypothesis for the current step. Eventually, the correct program will be reached, after which the hypothesis will never change again (but note that the learner does not know that it won't need to change). Gold also showed that if the learner is given only positive examples (that is, only grammatical sentences appear in the input, not ungrammatical sentences), then the language can only be guaranteed to be learned in the limit if there are only a finite number of possible sentences in the language (this is possible if, for example, sentences are known to be of limited length). Language identification in the limit is a highly abstract model. It does not allow for limits of runtime or computer memory which can occur in practice, and the enumeration method may fail if there are errors in the input. However the framework is very powerful, because if these strict conditions are maintained, it allows the learning of any program known to be computable. This is because a Turing machine program can be written to mimic any program in any conventional programming language. See Church-Turing thesis. == Other identification criteria == Learning theorists have investigated other learning criteria, such as the following. Efficiency: minimizing the number of data points required before convergence to a correct hypothesis. Mind Changes: minimizing the number of hypothesis changes that occur before convergence. Mind change bounds are closely related to mistake bounds that are studied in statistical learning theory. Kevin Kelly has suggested that minimizing mind changes is closely related to choosing maximally simple hypotheses in the sense of Occam’s Razor. == Annual conference == Since 1990, there is an International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory (ALT), called Workshop in its first years (1990–1997). Between 1992 and 2016, proceedings were published in the LNCS series. Starting from 2017, they are published by the Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. The 34th conference will be held in Singapore in Feb 2023. The topics of the conference cover all of theoretical machine learning, including statistical and computational learning theory, online learning, active learning, reinforcement learning, and deep learning.

  Read more →
• 

  Quack.com

  Quack.com was an early voice portal company. The domain name later was used for Quack, an iPad search application from AOL. == History == It was founded in 1998 by Steven Woods, Jeromy Carriere and Alex Quilici as a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, based voice portal infrastructure company named Quackware. Quack was the first company to try to create a voice portal: a consumer-based destination "site" in which consumers could not only access information by voice alone, but also complete transactions. Quackware launched a beta phone service in 1999 that allowed consumers to purchase books from sites such as Amazon and CDs from sites such as CDNow by answering a short set of questions. Quack followed with a set of information services from movie listings (inspired by, but expanding upon, Moviefone) to news, weather and stock quotes. This concept introduced a series of lookalike startups including Tellme Networks which raised more money than any Internet startup in history on a similar concept. Quack received its first venture funding from HDL Capital in 1999 and moved operations to Mountain View in Silicon Valley, California in 1999. A deal with Lycos was announced in May 2000. In September 2000 Quack was acquired for $200 million by America Online (AOL) and moved onto the Netscape campus with what was left of the Netscape team. Quack was attacked in the Canadian press for being representative of the Canadian "brain drain" to the US during the Internet bubble, focusing its recruiting efforts on the University of Waterloo, hiring more than 50 engineers from Waterloo in less than 10 months. Quack competitor Tellme Networks raised enormous funds in what became a highly competitive market in 2000, with the emergence of more than a dozen additional competitors in a 12-month period. Following its acquisition by America Online in an effort led by Ted Leonsis to bring Quack into AOL Interactive, the Quack voice service became AOLbyPhone as one of AOL's "web properties" along with MapQuest, Moviefone and others. Quack secured several patents that underlie the technical challenges of delivering interactive voice services. Constructing a voice portal required integrations and innovations not only in speech recognition and speech generation, but also in databases, application specification, constraint-based reasoning and artificial intelligence and computational linguistics. "Quack"'s name derived from the company goal of providing not only voice-based services, but more broadly "Quick Ubiquitous Access to Consumer Knowledge". The patents assigned to Quack.com include: System and method for voice access to Internet-based information, System and method for advertising with an Internet Voice Portal and recognizing the axiom that in interactive voice systems one must "know the set of possible answers to a question before asking it". System and method for determining if one web site has the same information as another web site. Quack.com was spoofed in The Simpsons in March 2002 in the episode "Blame It on Lisa" in which a "ComQuaak" sign is replaced by another equally crazy telecom company name. == 2010 onwards == In July 2010, quack.com became the focus of a new AOL iPad application, that was a web search experience. The product delivers web results and blends in picture, video and Twitter results. It enables you to preview the web results before you go to the site, search within each result, and flip through the results pages, making full use of the iPad's touch screen features. The iPad app was free via iTunes, but support discontinued in 2012.

  Read more →
• 

  Scale-invariant feature operator

  In the fields of computer vision and image analysis, the scale-invariant feature operator (or SFOP) is an algorithm to detect local features in images. The algorithm was published by Förstner et al. in 2009. == Algorithm == The scale-invariant feature operator (SFOP) is based on two theoretical concepts: spiral model feature operator Desired properties of keypoint detectors: Invariance and repeatability for object recognition Accuracy to support camera calibration Interpretability: Especially corners and circles, should be part of the detected keypoints (see figure). As few control parameters as possible with clear semantics Complementarity to known detectors scale-invariant corner/circle detector. == Theory == === Maximize the weight === Maximize the weight w {\displaystyle w} = 1/variance of a point p {\displaystyle p} w ( p , α , τ , σ ) = ( N ( σ ) − 2 ) λ m i n ( M ( p , α , τ , σ ) ) Ω ( p , α , τ , σ ) {\displaystyle w(\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma )=\left(N(\sigma )-2\right){\frac {\lambda _{min}(M(\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma ))}{\Omega (\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma )}}} comprising: 1. the image model Ω ( p , α , τ , σ ) = ∑ n = 1 N ( σ ) [ ( q n − p ) T R α ∇ T g ( q n ) ] 2 G σ ( q n − p ) = N ( σ ) t r { R α ∇ τ ∇ τ T R α T ∗ p p T G σ ( p ) } {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Omega (\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma )&=\sum _{n=1}^{N(\sigma )}[(\mathbf {q} _{n}-\mathbf {p} )^{T}\mathbf {R} _{\alpha }\mathbf {\nabla } _{T}g(\mathbf {q} _{n})]^{2}G_{\sigma }(\mathbf {q} _{n}-\mathbf {p} )\\&=N(\sigma )\mathbf {tr} \left\{R_{\alpha }\mathbf {\nabla } _{\tau }\mathbf {\nabla } _{\tau }^{T}R_{\alpha }^{T}\mathbf {p} \mathbf {p} ^{T}G_{\sigma }(\mathbf {p} )\right\}\end{aligned}}} 2. the smaller eigenvalue of the structure tensor M ( p , α , τ , σ ) ⏟ structure tensor = G σ ( p ) ⏟ weighted summation ∗ ( R σ ∇ τ ∇ τ T R σ T ) ⏟ squared rotated gradients {\displaystyle \underbrace {M(\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma )} _{\text{structure tensor}}=\underbrace {G_{\sigma }(\mathbf {p} )} _{\text{weighted summation}}\underbrace {(R_{\sigma }\nabla _{\tau }\nabla _{\tau }^{T}R_{\sigma }^{T})} _{\text{squared rotated gradients}}} === Reduce the search space === Reduce the 5-dimensional search space by linking the differentiation scale τ {\displaystyle \tau } to the integration scale τ = σ / 3 {\displaystyle \tau =\sigma /3} solving for the optimal α ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\alpha }}} using the model Ω ( α ) = a − b cos ⁡ ( 2 α − 2 α 0 ) {\displaystyle \Omega (\alpha )=a-b\cos(2\alpha -2\alpha _{0})} and determining the parameters from three angles, e. g. Ω ( 0 ∘ ) , Ω ( 60 ∘ ) , Ω ( 120 ∘ ) → a , b , α 0 → α ^ {\displaystyle \Omega (0^{\circ }),\Omega (60^{\circ }),\Omega (120^{\circ })\quad \rightarrow \quad a,b,\alpha _{0}\quad \rightarrow \quad {\hat {\alpha }}} pre-selection possible: α = 0 ∘ → junctions , α = 90 ∘ → circular features {\displaystyle \alpha =0^{\circ }\,\rightarrow \,{\mbox{junctions}},\quad \alpha =90^{\circ }\,\rightarrow \,{\mbox{circular features}}} === Filter potential keypoints === non-maxima suppression over scale, space and angle thresholding the isotropy λ 2 ( M ) {\displaystyle \lambda _{2(M)}} :eigenvalues characterize the shape of the keypoint, smallest eigenvalue has to be larger than threshold T λ {\displaystyle T_{\lambda }} derived from noise variance V ( n ) {\displaystyle V(n)} and significance level S {\displaystyle S} : T λ ( V ( n ) , τ , σ , S ) = N ( σ ) 16 π τ 4 V ( n ) χ 2 , S 2 {\displaystyle T_{\lambda }(V(n),\tau ,\sigma ,S)={\frac {N(\sigma )}{16\pi \tau ^{4}}}V(n)\chi _{2,S}^{2}} == Algorithm == == Results == === Interpretability of SFOP keypoints ===

  Read more →
• 

  Mean squared error

  In statistics, the mean squared error (MSE) or mean squared deviation (MSD) of an estimator (of a procedure for estimating an unobserved quantity) measures the average of the squares of the errors—that is, the average squared difference between the estimated values and the true value. MSE is a risk function, corresponding to the expected value of the squared error loss. The fact that MSE is almost always strictly positive (and not zero) is because of randomness or because the estimator does not account for information that could produce a more accurate estimate. In machine learning, specifically empirical risk minimization, MSE may refer to the empirical risk (the average loss on an observed data set), as an estimate of the true MSE (the true risk: the average loss on the actual population distribution). The MSE is a measure of the quality of an estimator. As it is derived from the square of Euclidean distance, it is always a positive value that decreases as the error approaches zero. The MSE is the second moment (about the origin) of the error, and thus incorporates both the variance of the estimator (how widely spread the estimates are from one data sample to another) and its bias (how far off the average estimated value is from the true value). For an unbiased estimator, the MSE is the variance of the estimator. Like the variance, MSE has the same units of measurement as the square of the quantity being estimated. In an analogy to standard deviation, taking the square root of MSE yields the root-mean-square error or root-mean-square deviation (RMSE or RMSD), which has the same units as the quantity being estimated; for an unbiased estimator, the RMSE is the square root of the variance, known as the standard error. == Definition and basic properties == The MSE either assesses the quality of a predictor (i.e., a function mapping arbitrary inputs to a sample of values of some random variable), or of an estimator (i.e., a mathematical function mapping a sample of data to an estimate of a parameter of the population from which the data is sampled). In the context of prediction, understanding the prediction interval can also be useful as it provides a range within which a future observation will fall, with a certain probability. The definition of an MSE differs according to whether one is describing a predictor or an estimator. === Predictor === If a vector of n {\displaystyle n} predictions is generated from a sample of n {\displaystyle n} data points on all variables, and Y {\displaystyle Y} is the vector of observed values of the variable being predicted, with Y ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {Y}}} being the predicted values (e.g. as from a least-squares fit), then the within-sample MSE of the predictor is computed as MSE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( Y i − Y i ^ ) 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}\right)^{2}} In other words, the MSE is the mean ( 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ) {\textstyle \left({\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\right)} of the squares of the errors ( Y i − Y i ^ ) 2 {\textstyle \left(Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}\right)^{2}} . This is an easily computable quantity for a particular sample (and hence is sample-dependent). In matrix notation, MSE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( e i ) 2 = 1 n e T e {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(e_{i})^{2}={\frac {1}{n}}\mathbf {e} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {e} } where e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} is Y i − Y i ^ {\displaystyle Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}} and e {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} } is a n × 1 {\displaystyle n\times 1} column vector. The MSE can also be computed on q data points that were not used in estimating the model, either because they were held back for this purpose, or because these data have been newly obtained. Within this process, known as cross-validation, the MSE is often called the test MSE, and is computed as MSE = 1 q ∑ i = n + 1 n + q ( Y i − Y i ^ ) 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ={\frac {1}{q}}\sum _{i=n+1}^{n+q}\left(Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}\right)^{2}} === Estimator === The MSE of an estimator θ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}} with respect to an unknown parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } is defined as MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] . {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[({\hat {\theta }}-\theta )^{2}\right].} This definition depends on the unknown parameter, therefore the MSE is a priori property of an estimator. The MSE could be a function of unknown parameters, in which case any estimator of the MSE based on estimates of these parameters would be a function of the data (and thus a random variable). If the estimator θ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}} is derived as a sample statistic and is used to estimate some population parameter, then the expectation is with respect to the sampling distribution of the sample statistic. The MSE can be written as the sum of the variance of the estimator and the squared bias of the estimator, providing a useful way to calculate the MSE and implying that in the case of unbiased estimators, the MSE and variance are equivalent. MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = Var θ ⁡ ( θ ^ ) + Bias ⁡ ( θ ^ , θ ) 2 . {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})=\operatorname {Var} _{\theta }({\hat {\theta }})+\operatorname {Bias} ({\hat {\theta }},\theta )^{2}.} ==== Proof of variance and bias relationship ==== MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] + E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 + 2 ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + E θ ⁡ [ 2 ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) ] + E θ ⁡ [ ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + 2 ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ] + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ = constant = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + 2 ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] = constant = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 = Var θ ⁡ ( θ ^ ) + Bias θ ⁡ ( θ ^ , θ ) 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[({\hat {\theta }}-\theta )^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]+\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}+2\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[2\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)\right]+\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+2\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[{\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right]+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}&&\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta ={\text{constant}}\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+2\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}&&\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]={\text{constant}}\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\\&=\operatorname {Var} _{\theta }({\hat {\theta }})+\operatorname {Bias} _{\theta }({\hat {\theta }},\theta )^{2}\end{aligned}}} An even shorter proof can be achieved using the well-known formula that for a random variable X {\textstyle X} , E ( X 2 ) = Var ⁡ ( X ) + ( E ( X ) ) 2 {\textstyle \mathbb {E} (X^{2})=\operatorname {Var} (X)+(\mathbb {E} (X))^{2}} . By substituting X {\textstyle X} with, θ ^ − θ {\textstyle {\hat {\theta }}-\theta } , we have MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = E [ ( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] = Var ⁡ ( θ ^ − θ ) + ( E [ θ ^ − θ ] ) 2 = Var ⁡ ( θ ^ ) + Bias 2 ⁡ ( θ ^ , θ ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})&=\mathbb {E} [({\hat {\theta }}-\theta )^{2}]\\&=\operator

  Read more →