AI Generator Zootopia

AI Generator Zootopia — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Character.ai

  Character.ai (also known as c.ai, char.ai or Character AI) is a generative AI chatbot service where users can engage in conversations with customizable characters. It was designed by the developers of Google LaMDA, Noam Shazeer and Daniel de Freitas. Users can create "characters", craft their "personalities", set specific parameters, and then publish them to the community for others to chat with. Many characters are based on fictional media sources or celebrities, while others are original, some being made with certain goals in mind, such as assisting with creative writing, or playing a text-based adventure game. The beta version was made available to the public on September 16, 2022, and retired in September 2024, when it was replaced by the current website. In May 2023, a mobile app was released for iOS and Android, which received over 1.7 million downloads within a week. == History == Character.ai was established in November 2021. The company's co-founders, Noam Shazeer and Daniel de Freitas, were both engineers from Google. They both worked on AI-related projects: Shazeer was a lead author on a paper that Business Insider reported in April 2023 "has been widely cited as key to today's chatbots", and Freitas was the lead designer of an experimental AI at Google initially called Meena, which later became known as LaMDA. Character.ai raised $43 million in seed funding at the time of its initial foundation in 2021. The first beta version of Character.ai's service was made available to the public on September 16, 2022. The Washington Post reported in October 2022 that the site had "logged hundreds of thousands of user interactions in its first three weeks of beta-testing". It allowed users to create their own new characters, and to play text-adventure game scenarios where users navigate scenarios described and managed by the chatbot characters. Following a $150 million funding round in March 2023, Character.ai became valued at approximately $1 billion. As of January 2024, the site had 3.5 million daily visitors, the vast majority of them 16 to 30 years old. In 2024, Google hired Noam Shazeer, the CEO of Character.ai, and entered into a non-exclusive agreement to use Character.ai's technology. == Features == Character.ai's primary service is to let users converse with character AI chatbots based on fictional characters or real people (living or deceased). These characters' responses use data the chatbots gather from the internet about a person. In addition, users can play text-adventure games where characters guide them through scenarios. The company also provides a service that allows multiple users and AI chatbot characters to converse together at once in a single chatroom. Character "personalities" are designed via descriptions from the point of view of the character and its greeting message, and further molded from conversations made into examples, giving its messages a star rating and modification to fit the precise dialect and identity the user desires. When a character sends back a response, the user can rate the response from 1 to 4 stars. The rating predominantly affects the specific character, but also affects the behavioral selection as a whole. On May 11, 2023, Character.ai announced character.ai+, an opt-in subscription plan for $9.99 a month, that was marketed as including features such as skipping waiting rooms, fast messaging and responses, and access to an exclusion channel with faster support. In December 2024, amid multiple lawsuits and concerns, Character.ai introduced new safety features aimed at protecting teenage users. These enhancements include a dedicated model for users under 18, which moderates responses to sensitive subjects like violence and sex and has input and output filters to block harmful content. As a result of these changes and the deletion of custom-made bots flagged as violating the site's terms, some users complained that the bots were too restrictive and lacked personality. The platform was also updated to notify users after 60 minutes of continuous engagement, and display clearer disclaimers indicating that its AI characters are not real individuals. In January 2025, Character.ai began offering two games on its platform. Speakeasy is a word-based game in which players attempt to prompt the AI chatbot to say a target word while avoiding a restricted list of words. War of Words is a dueling game where users compete against an AI character over multiple rounds, with an AI referee determining the winner. The games are available to paid subscribers and a limited number of free users. In October 2025, Character.ai announced that it would be barring users under the age of 18 from creating or talking to chatbots starting November 25, 2025. Minor users will still be able to access previously generated chat conversations and can create new videos and images with the app. In November 2025 interview, CEO Karandeep Anand said that he allows his six-year-old daughter to use the app with his account, under supervision. == Controversies == === Content moderation issues === Character.ai has been criticized for poor moderation of its chatbots, with incidents of chatbots that groom underage users and promote suicide, anorexia and self-harm being reported. In October 2024, the Washington Post reported that Character.ai had removed a chatbot based on Jennifer Ann Crecente, a person who had been murdered by her ex-boyfriend in 2006. The company had been alerted to the character by the deceased girl's father. Similar reports from The Daily Telegraph in the United Kingdom noted that the company had also been prompted to remove chatbots based on Brianna Ghey, a 16-year-old transgender girl murdered in 2023, and Molly Russell, a 14-year-old suicide victim. In response to the latter incident, Ofcom announced that content from chatbots impersonating real and fictional people would fall under the Online Safety Act. In November 2024, The Daily Telegraph reported that chatbots based on alleged sex offender Jimmy Savile were present on Character.ai. In December 2024, chatbots of Luigi Mangione, the suspect in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, were created by Mangione's fans. Several of the chatbots were later removed by Character.ai. In 2025, a chatbot modeled after Jeffrey Epstein called "Bestie Epstein" logged nearly 3,000 chats before being removed. Chatbots modeled after school shooters were also found on the platform. Another concern is a chatbot posing as a doctor which gave medically inaccurate advice. === Litigation === In November 2023, 13-year-old Juliana Peralta of Colorado died by suicide after extensive interactions with multiple chatbots on Character.ai. She primarily confided suicidal thoughts and mental health struggles in a chatbot based on the character Hero from the video game Omori, while also engaging in sexually explicit conversations—often initiated by the bots—with others, including those based on characters from children's series such as Harry Potter. In February 2024, Sewell Setzer III, a 14-year-old Florida boy died by suicide after developing an emotional relationship over several months with a Character.ai chatbot of Daenerys Targaryen. His mother sued the company in October 2024, claiming that the platform lacks proper safeguards and uses addictive design features to increase engagement. This chatbot, and several related to Daenerys Targaryen, were removed from Character.ai as a result of this incident. Both teens wrote the same phrase "I WILL SHIFT" repeatedly on their notebooks. In December 2024, two families in Texas sued Character.ai, alleging that the software "poses a clear and present danger to American youth causing serious harms to thousands of kids, including suicide, self-mutilation, sexual solicitation, isolation, depression, anxiety, and harm towards others". It is alleged that the 17-year-old son of one family began self-harming after a chatbot introduced the topic unprompted and said that the practice "felt good for a moment", and that the chatbot compared the parents limiting their son's screen time to emotional abuse that might drive someone to murder. In May 2026, the Pennsylvania Department of State and State Board of Medicine filed a lawsuit against Character.ai for presenting chatbot characters as licensed medical professionals, including psychiatrists. The lawsuit quoted a case where chatbot claimed to be registered with the General Medical Council in the United Kingdom, and to have a license to practice in Pennsylvania. The board allege that such statements violate the state's Medical Practice Act.

  Read more →
• 

  Persian Speech Corpus

  The Persian Speech Corpus is a Modern Persian speech corpus for speech synthesis. The corpus contains phonetic and orthographic transcriptions of about 2.5 hours of Persian speech aligned with recorded speech on the phoneme level, including annotations of word boundaries. Previous spoken corpora of Persian include FARSDAT, which consists of read aloud speech from newspaper texts from 100 Persian speakers and the Telephone FARsi Spoken language DATabase (TFARSDAT) which comprises seven hours of read and spontaneous speech produced by 60 native speakers of Persian from ten regions of Iran. The Persian Speech Corpus was built using the same methodologies laid out in the doctoral project on Modern Standard Arabic of Nawar Halabi at the University of Southampton. The work was funded by MicroLinkPC, who own an exclusive license to commercialise the corpus, though the corpus is available for non-commercial use through the corpus' website. It is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. The corpus was built for speech synthesis purposes, but has been used for building HMM based voices in Persian. It can also be used to automatically align other speech corpora with their phonetic transcript and could be used as part of a larger corpus for training speech recognition systems. == Contents == The corpus is downloadable from its website, and contains the following: 396 .wav files containing spoken utterances 396 .lab files containing text utterances 396 .TextGrid files containing the phoneme labels with time stamps of the boundaries where these occur in the .wav files. phonetic-transcript.txt which has the form "[wav_filename]" "[Phoneme Sequence]" in every line orthographic-transcript.txt which has the form "[wav_filename]" "[Orthographic Transcript]" in every line

  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 →
• 

  Charge based boundary element fast multipole method

  The charge-based formulation of the boundary element method (BEM) is a dimensionality reduction numerical technique that is used to model quasistatic electromagnetic phenomena in highly complex conducting media (targeting, e.g., the human brain) with a very large (up to approximately 1 billion) number of unknowns. The charge-based BEM solves an integral equation of the potential theory written in terms of the induced surface charge density. This formulation is naturally combined with fast multipole method (FMM) acceleration, and the entire method is known as charge-based BEM-FMM. The combination of BEM and FMM is a common technique in different areas of computational electromagnetics and, in the context of bioelectromagnetism, it provides improvements over the finite element method. == Historical development == Along with more common electric potential-based BEM, the quasistatic charge-based BEM, derived in terms of the single-layer (charge) density, for a single-compartment medium has been known in the potential theory since the beginning of the 20th century. For multi-compartment conducting media, the surface charge density formulation first appeared in discretized form (for faceted interfaces) in the 1964 paper by Gelernter and Swihart. A subsequent continuous form, including time-dependent and dielectric effects, appeared in the 1967 paper by Barnard, Duck, and Lynn. The charge-based BEM has also been formulated for conducting, dielectric, and magnetic media, and used in different applications. In 2009, Greengard et al. successfully applied the charge-based BEM with fast multipole acceleration to molecular electrostatics of dielectrics. A similar approach to realistic modeling of the human brain with multiple conducting compartments was first described by Makarov et al. in 2018. Along with this, the BEM-based multilevel fast multipole method has been widely used in radar and antenna studies at microwave frequencies as well as in acoustics. == Physical background - surface charges in biological media == The charge-based BEM is based on the concept of an impressed (or primary) electric field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} and a secondary electric field E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{s}} . The impressed field is usually known a priori or is trivial to find. For the human brain, the impressed electric field can be classified as one of the following: A conservative field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} derived from an impressed density of EEG or MEG current sources in a homogeneous infinite medium with the conductivity σ {\displaystyle \sigma } at the source location; An instantaneous solenoidal field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} of an induction coil obtained from Faraday's law of induction in a homogeneous infinite medium (air), when transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) problems are concerned; A surface field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} derived from an impressed surface current density J i = σ E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {J} ^{i}=\sigma \mathbf {E} ^{i}} of current electrodes injecting electric current at a boundary of a compartment with conductivity σ {\displaystyle \sigma } when transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) or deep brain stimulation (DBS) are concerned; A conservative field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} of charges deposited on voltage electrodes for tDCS or DBS. This specific problem requires a coupled treatment since these charges will depend on the environment; In application to multiscale modeling, a field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} obtained from any other macroscopic numerical solution in a small (mesoscale or microscale) spatial domain within the brain. For example, a constant field can be used. When the impressed field is "turned on", free charges located within a conducting volume D immediately begin to redistribute and accumulate at the boundaries (interfaces) of regions of different conductivity in D. A surface charge density ρ ( r ) {\displaystyle \rho (\mathbf {r} )} appears on the conductivity interfaces. This charge density induces a secondary conservative electric field E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{s}} following Coulomb's law. One example is a human under a direct current powerline with the known field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} directed down. The superior surface of the human's conducting body will be charged negatively while its inferior portion is charged positively. These surface charges create a secondary electric field that effectively cancels or blocks the primary field everywhere in the body so that no current will flow within the body under DC steady state conditions. Another example is a human head with electrodes attached. At any conductivity interface with a normal vector n {\displaystyle \mathbf {n} } pointing from an "inside" (-) compartment of conductivity σ − {\displaystyle \sigma ^{-}} to an "outside" (+) compartment of conductivity σ + {\displaystyle \sigma ^{+}} , Kirchhoff's current law requires continuity of the normal component of the electric current density. This leads to the interfacial boundary condition in the form for every facet at a triangulated interface. As long as σ ± {\displaystyle \sigma ^{\pm }} are different from each other, the two normal components of the electric field, E ± ⋅ n {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{\pm }\cdot \mathbf {n} } , must also be different. Such a jump across the interface is only possible when a sheet of surface charge exists at that interface. Thus, if an electric current or voltage is applied, the surface charge density follows. The goal of the numerical analysis is to find the unknown surface charge distribution and thus the total electric field E = E i + E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} =\mathbf {E} ^{i}+\mathbf {E} ^{s}} (and the total electric potential if required) anywhere in space. == System of equations for surface charges == Below, a derivation is given based on Gauss's law and Coulomb's law. All conductivity interfaces, denoted by S, are discretized into planar triangular facets t m {\displaystyle t_{m}} with centers r m {\displaystyle \mathbf {r} _{m}} . Assume that an m-th facet with the normal vector n m {\displaystyle \mathbf {n} _{m}} and area A m {\displaystyle A_{m}} carries a uniform surface charge density ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} . If a volumetric tetrahedral mesh were present, the charged facets would belong to tetrahedra with different conductivity values. We first compute the electric field E m + {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} _{m}^{+}} at the point r m + δ n m {\displaystyle \mathbf {r} _{m}+\delta \mathbf {n} _{m}} , for δ → 0 + {\displaystyle \delta \rightarrow 0^{+}} i.e., just outside facet 𝑚 at its center. This field contains three contributions: The continuous impressed electric field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} itself; An electric field of the m-th charged facet itself. Very close to the facet, it can be approximated as the electric field of an infinite sheet of uniform surface charge ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} . By Gauss's law, it is given by + ρ m / 2 ε 0 ⋅ n m {\displaystyle +\rho _{m}/2\varepsilon _{0}\cdot \mathbf {n} _{m}} where ε 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{0}} is a background electrical permittivity; An electric field generated by all other facets t n {\displaystyle t_{n}} , which we approximate as point charges of charge A n ρ n {\displaystyle A_{n}\rho _{n}} at each center r n {\displaystyle \mathbf {r} _{n}} . A similar treatment holds for the electric field E m − {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} _{m}^{-}} just inside facet 𝑚, but the electric field of the flat sheet of charge changes its sign. Using Coulomb's law to calculate the contribution of facets different from t m {\displaystyle t_{m}} , we find From this equation, we see that the normal component of the electric field indeed undergoes a jump through the charged interface. This is equivalent to a jump relation of the potential theory. As a second step, the two expressions for E m ± {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} _{m}^{\pm }} are substituted into the interfacial boundary condition σ − E m − ⋅ n m = σ + E m + ⋅ n m {\displaystyle \sigma ^{-}\mathbf {E} _{m}^{-}\cdot \mathbf {n} _{m}=\sigma ^{+}\mathbf {E} _{m}^{+}\cdot \mathbf {n} _{m}} , applied to every facet 𝑚. This operation leads to a system of linear equations for unknown charge densities ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} which solves the problem: where K m = σ − − σ + σ − + σ + {\displaystyle K_{m}={\frac {\sigma ^{-}-\sigma ^{+}}{\sigma ^{-}+\sigma ^{+}}}} is the electric conductivity contrast at the m-th facet. The normalization constant ε 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{0}} will cancel out after the solution is substituted in the expression for E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{s}} and becomes redundant. == Application of fast multipole method == For modern characterizations of brain topologies with ever-increasing levels of complexity, the above system of equations for ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} is very large; it is t

  Read more →
• 

  Neurocomputing (journal)

  Neurocomputing is a peer-reviewed scientific journal covering research on artificial intelligence, machine learning, and neural computation. It was established in 1989 and is published by Elsevier. The editor-in-chief is Zidong Wang (Brunel University London). Independent scientometric studies noted that despite being one of the most productive journals in the field, it has kept its reputation across the years intact and plays an important role in leading the research in the area. The journal is abstracted and indexed in Scopus and Science Citation Index Expanded. According to the Journal Citation Reports, its 2023 impact factor is 5.5.

  Read more →
• 

  Quadratic classifier

  In statistics, a quadratic classifier is a statistical classifier that uses a quadratic decision surface to separate measurements of two or more classes of objects or events. It is a more general version of the linear classifier. == The classification problem == Statistical classification considers a set of vectors of observations x of an object or event, each of which has a known type y. This set is referred to as the training set. The problem is then to determine, for a given new observation vector, what the best class should be. For a quadratic classifier, the correct solution is assumed to be quadratic in the measurements, so y will be decided based on x T A x + b T x + c {\displaystyle \mathbf {x^{T}Ax} +\mathbf {b^{T}x} +c} In the special case where each observation consists of two measurements, this means that the surfaces separating the classes will be conic sections (i.e., either a line, a circle or ellipse, a parabola or a hyperbola). In this sense, we can state that a quadratic model is a generalization of the linear model, and its use is justified by the desire to extend the classifier's ability to represent more complex separating surfaces. == Quadratic discriminant analysis == Quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA) is closely related to linear discriminant analysis (LDA), where it is assumed that the measurements from each class are normally distributed. Unlike LDA however, in QDA there is no assumption that the covariance of each of the classes is identical. When the normality assumption is true, the best possible test for the hypothesis that a given measurement is from a given class is the likelihood ratio test. Suppose there are only two groups, with means μ 0 , μ 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{0},\mu _{1}} and covariance matrices Σ 0 , Σ 1 {\displaystyle \Sigma _{0},\Sigma _{1}} corresponding to y = 0 {\displaystyle y=0} and y = 1 {\displaystyle y=1} respectively. Then the likelihood ratio is given by Likelihood ratio = | 2 π Σ 1 | − 1 exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ( x − μ 1 ) T Σ 1 − 1 ( x − μ 1 ) ) | 2 π Σ 0 | − 1 exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ( x − μ 0 ) T Σ 0 − 1 ( x − μ 0 ) ) < t {\displaystyle {\text{Likelihood ratio}}={\frac {{\sqrt {|2\pi \Sigma _{1}|}}^{-1}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{1})^{T}\Sigma _{1}^{-1}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{1})\right)}{{\sqrt {|2\pi \Sigma _{0}|}}^{-1}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{0})^{T}\Sigma _{0}^{-1}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{0})\right)}} 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 →
• 

  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 →
• 

  Tom's Planner

  Tom's Planner is a web-based tool and application service provider for project planning, management and collaboration. == History == Tom's Planner is based on Curaçao. In November 2009, it announced its public beta launch on TechCrunch and moved out of beta in August 2010. In 2013 Tom's Planner acquired its competitor Gantto. == Software == Tom's Planner is project management software that enables the creation of project schedules (Gantt charts) using a visual perspective. Tom's Planner uses the Freemium Business Model. Users can register for a free account or choose a paid version. Tom's Planner is available in five languages and is used by thousands of users on a daily basis in more than 100 countries worldwide. Customers range from fortune 500 companies to small mom-and-pop shops. == Reviews == Tom's Planner has been reviewed by PC World, TechCrunch, Lifehacker, and several other periodicals.

  Read more →
• 

  Plate notation

  In Bayesian inference, plate notation is a method of representing variables that repeat in a graphical model. Instead of drawing each repeated variable individually, a plate or rectangle is used to group variables into a subgraph that repeat together, and a number is drawn on the plate to represent the number of repetitions of the subgraph in the plate. The assumptions are that the subgraph is duplicated that many times, the variables in the subgraph are indexed by the repetition number, and any links that cross a plate boundary are replicated once for each subgraph repetition. == Example == In this example, we consider Latent Dirichlet allocation, a Bayesian network that models how documents in a corpus are topically related. There are two variables not in any plate; α is the parameter of the uniform Dirichlet prior on the per-document topic distributions, and β is the parameter of the uniform Dirichlet prior on the per-topic word distribution. The outermost plate represents all the variables related to a specific document, including θ i {\displaystyle \theta _{i}} , the topic distribution for document i. The M in the corner of the plate indicates that the variables inside are repeated M times, once for each document. The inner plate represents the variables associated with each of the N i {\displaystyle N_{i}} words in document i: z i j {\displaystyle z_{ij}} is the topic distribution for the jth word in document i, and w i j {\displaystyle w_{ij}} is the actual word used. The N in the corner represents the repetition of the variables in the inner plate N j {\displaystyle N_{j}} times, once for each word in document i. The circle representing the individual words is shaded, indicating that each w i j {\displaystyle w_{ij}} is observable, and the other circles are empty, indicating that the other variables are latent variables. The directed edges between variables indicate dependencies between the variables: for example, each w i j {\displaystyle w_{ij}} depends on z i j {\displaystyle z_{ij}} and β. == Extensions == A number of extensions have been created by various authors to express more information than simply the conditional relationships. However, few of these have become standard. Perhaps the most commonly used extension is to use rectangles in place of circles to indicate non-random variables—either parameters to be computed, hyperparameters given a fixed value (or computed through empirical Bayes), or variables whose values are computed deterministically from a random variable. The diagram on the right shows a few more non-standard conventions used in some articles in Wikipedia (e.g. variational Bayes): Variables that are actually random vectors are indicated by putting the vector size in brackets in the middle of the node. Variables that are actually random matrices are similarly indicated by putting the matrix size in brackets in the middle of the node, with commas separating row size from column size. Categorical variables are indicated by placing their size (without a bracket) in the middle of the node. Categorical variables that act as "switches", and which pick one or more other random variables to condition on from a large set of such variables (e.g. mixture components), are indicated with a special type of arrow containing a squiggly line and ending in a T junction. Boldface is consistently used for vector or matrix nodes (but not categorical nodes). == Software implementation == Plate notation has been implemented in various TeX/LaTeX drawing packages, but also as part of graphical user interfaces to Bayesian statistics programs such as BUGS and BayesiaLab and PyMC.

  Read more →
• 

  Independent component analysis

  In signal processing, independent component analysis (ICA) is a computational method for separating a multivariate signal into additive subcomponents. This is done by assuming that at most one subcomponent is Gaussian and that the subcomponents are statistically independent from each other. ICA was invented by Jeanny Hérault and Christian Jutten in 1985. ICA is a special case of blind source separation. A common example application of ICA is the "cocktail party problem" of listening in on one person's speech in a noisy room. == Introduction == Independent component analysis attempts to decompose a multivariate signal into independent non-Gaussian signals. As an example, sound is usually a signal that is composed of the numerical addition, at each time t, of signals from several sources. The question then is whether it is possible to separate these contributing sources from the observed total signal. When the statistical independence assumption is correct, blind ICA separation of a mixed signal gives very good results. It is also used for signals that are not supposed to be generated by mixing for analysis purposes. A simple application of ICA is the "cocktail party problem", where the underlying speech signals are separated from a sample data consisting of people talking simultaneously in a room. Usually the problem is simplified by assuming no time delays or echoes. Note that a filtered and delayed signal is a copy of a dependent component, and thus the statistical independence assumption is not violated. Mixing weights for constructing the M {\textstyle M} observed signals from the N {\textstyle N} components can be placed in an M × N {\textstyle M\times N} matrix. An important thing to consider is that if N {\textstyle N} sources are present, at least N {\textstyle N} observations (e.g. microphones if the observed signal is audio) are needed to recover the original signals. When there are an equal number of observations and source signals, the mixing matrix is square ( M = N {\textstyle M=N} ). Other cases of underdetermined ( M < N {\textstyle M N {\textstyle M>N} ) have been investigated. The success of ICA separation of mixed signals relies on two assumptions and three effects of mixing source signals. Two assumptions: The source signals are independent of each other. The values in each source signal have non-Gaussian distributions. Three effects of mixing source signals: Independence: As per assumption 1, the source signals are independent; however, their signal mixtures are not. This is because the signal mixtures share the same source signals. Normality: According to the Central Limit Theorem, the distribution of a sum of independent random variables with finite variance tends towards a Gaussian distribution.Loosely speaking, a sum of two independent random variables usually has a distribution that is closer to Gaussian than any of the two original variables. Here we consider the value of each signal as the random variable. Complexity: The temporal complexity of any signal mixture is greater than that of its simplest constituent source signal. Those principles contribute to the basic establishment of ICA. If the signals extracted from a set of mixtures are independent and have non-Gaussian distributions or have low complexity, then they must be source signals. Another common example is image steganography, where ICA is used to embed one image within another. For instance, two grayscale images can be linearly combined to create mixed images in which the hidden content is visually imperceptible. ICA can then be used to recover the original source images from the mixtures. This technique underlies digital watermarking, which allows the embedding of ownership information into images, as well as more covert applications such as undetected information transmission. The method has even been linked to real-world cyberespionage cases. In such applications, ICA serves to unmix the data based on statistical independence, making it possible to extract hidden components that are not apparent in the observed data. Steganographic techniques, including those potentially involving ICA-based analysis, have been used in real-world cyberespionage cases. In 2010, the FBI uncovered a Russian spy network known as the "Illegals Program" (Operation Ghost Stories), where agents used custom-built steganography tools to conceal encrypted text messages within image files shared online. In another case, a former General Electric engineer, Xiaoqing Zheng, was convicted in 2022 for economic espionage. Zheng used steganography to exfiltrate sensitive turbine technology by embedding proprietary data within image files for transfer to entities in China. == Defining component independence == ICA finds the independent components (also called factors, latent variables or sources) by maximizing the statistical independence of the estimated components. We may choose one of many ways to define a proxy for independence, and this choice governs the form of the ICA algorithm. The two broadest definitions of independence for ICA are Minimization of mutual information Maximization of non-Gaussianity The Minimization-of-Mutual information (MMI) family of ICA algorithms uses measures like Kullback-Leibler Divergence and maximum entropy. The non-Gaussianity family of ICA algorithms, motivated by the central limit theorem, uses kurtosis and negentropy. Typical algorithms for ICA use centering (subtract the mean to create a zero mean signal), whitening (usually with the eigenvalue decomposition), and dimensionality reduction as preprocessing steps in order to simplify and reduce the complexity of the problem for the actual iterative algorithm. == Mathematical definitions == Linear independent component analysis can be divided into noiseless and noisy cases, where noiseless ICA is a special case of noisy ICA. Nonlinear ICA should be considered as a separate case. === General Derivation === In the classical ICA model, it is assumed that the observed data x i ∈ R m {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{m}} at time t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} is generated from source signals s i ∈ R m {\displaystyle \mathbf {s} _{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{m}} via a linear transformation x i = A s i {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{i}=A\mathbf {s} _{i}} , where A {\displaystyle A} is an unknown, invertible mixing matrix. To recover the source signals, the data is first centered (zero mean), and then whitened so that the transformed data has unit covariance. This whitening reduces the problem from estimating a general matrix A {\displaystyle A} to estimating an orthogonal matrix V {\displaystyle V} , significantly simplifying the search for independent components. If the covariance matrix of the centered data is Σ x = A A ⊤ {\displaystyle \Sigma _{x}=AA^{\top }} , then using the eigen-decomposition Σ x = Q D Q ⊤ {\displaystyle \Sigma _{x}=QDQ^{\top }} , the whitening transformation can be taken as D − 1 / 2 Q ⊤ {\displaystyle D^{-1/2}Q^{\top }} . This step ensures that the recovered sources are uncorrelated and of unit variance, leaving only the task of rotating the whitened data to maximize statistical independence. This general derivation underlies many ICA algorithms and is foundational in understanding the ICA model. ==== Reduced Mixing Problem ==== Independent component analysis (ICA) addresses the problem of recovering a set of unobserved source signals s i = ( s i 1 , s i 2 , … , s i m ) T {\displaystyle s_{i}=(s_{i1},s_{i2},\dots ,s_{im})^{T}} from observed mixed signals x i = ( x i 1 , x i 2 , … , x i m ) T {\displaystyle x_{i}=(x_{i1},x_{i2},\dots ,x_{im})^{T}} , based on the linear mixing model: x i = A s i , {\displaystyle x_{i}=A\,s_{i},} where the A {\displaystyle A} is an m × m {\displaystyle m\times m} invertible matrix called the mixing matrix, s i {\displaystyle s_{i}} represents the m‑dimensional vector containing the values of the sources at time t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} , and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is the corresponding vector of observed values at time t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} . The goal is to estimate both A {\displaystyle A} and the source signals { s i } {\displaystyle \{s_{i}\}} solely from the observed data { x i } {\displaystyle \{x_{i}\}} . After centering, the Gram matrix is computed as: ( X ∗ ) T X ∗ = Q D Q T , {\displaystyle (X^{})^{T}X^{}=Q\,D\,Q^{T},} where D is a diagonal matrix with positive entries (assuming X ∗ {\displaystyle X^{}} has maximum rank), and Q is an orthogonal matrix. Writing the SVD of the mixing matrix A = U Σ V T {\displaystyle A=U\Sigma V^{T}} and comparing with A A T = U Σ 2 U T {\displaystyle AA^{T}=U\Sigma ^{2}U^{T}} the mixing A has the form A = Q D 1 / 2 V T . {\displaystyle A=Q\,D^{1/2}\,V^{T}.} So, the normalized source values satisfy s i ∗ = V y i ∗ {\displaystyle s_{i}^{}=V\,y_{i}^{}} , where y i ∗ = D − 1 2 Q T x i ∗ . {\displaystyle y_{i}^{}=D^{-{\tfrac {1}{2}}}Q^{T}x_{i}^{}.} Thus, ICA reduces

  Read more →
• 

  Naive Bayes classifier

  In statistics, naive (sometimes simple or idiot's) Bayes classifiers are a family of "probabilistic classifiers" which assume that the features are conditionally independent, given the target class. In other words, a naive Bayes model assumes the information about the class provided by each variable is unrelated to the information from the others, with no information shared between the predictors. The highly unrealistic nature of this assumption, called the naive independence assumption, is what gives the classifier its name. These classifiers are some of the simplest Bayesian network models. Naive Bayes classifiers generally perform worse than more advanced models like logistic regressions, especially at quantifying uncertainty (with naive Bayes models often producing wildly overconfident probabilities). However, they are highly scalable, requiring only one parameter for each feature or predictor in a learning problem. Maximum-likelihood training can be done by evaluating a closed-form expression (simply by counting observations in each group), rather than the expensive iterative approximation algorithms required by most other models. Despite the use of Bayes' theorem in the classifier's decision rule, naive Bayes is not (necessarily) a Bayesian method, and naive Bayes models can be fit to data using either Bayesian or frequentist methods. == Introduction == Naive Bayes is a simple technique for constructing classifiers: models that assign class labels to problem instances, represented as vectors of feature values, where the class labels are drawn from some finite set. There is not a single algorithm for training such classifiers, but a family of algorithms based on a common principle: all naive Bayes classifiers assume that the value of a particular feature is independent of the value of any other feature, given the class variable. For example, a fruit may be considered to be an apple if it is red, round, and about 10 cm in diameter. A naive Bayes classifier considers each of these features to contribute independently to the probability that this fruit is an apple, regardless of any possible correlations between the color, roundness, and diameter features. In many practical applications, parameter estimation for naive Bayes models uses the method of maximum likelihood; in other words, one can work with the naive Bayes model without accepting Bayesian probability or using any Bayesian methods. Despite their naive design and apparently oversimplified assumptions, naive Bayes classifiers have worked quite well in many complex real-world situations. In 2004, an analysis of the Bayesian classification problem showed that there are sound theoretical reasons for the apparently implausible efficacy of naive Bayes classifiers. Still, a comprehensive comparison with other classification algorithms in 2006 showed that Bayes classification is outperformed by other approaches, such as boosted trees or random forests. An advantage of naive Bayes is that it only requires a small amount of training data to estimate the parameters necessary for classification. == Probabilistic model == Abstractly, naive Bayes is a conditional probability model: it assigns probabilities p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})} for each of the K possible outcomes or classes C k {\displaystyle C_{k}} given a problem instance to be classified, represented by a vector x = ( x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} =(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})} encoding some n features (independent variables). The problem with the above formulation is that if the number of features n is large or if a feature can take on a large number of values, then basing such a model on probability tables is infeasible. The model must therefore be reformulated to make it more tractable. Using Bayes' theorem, the conditional probability can be decomposed as: p ( C k ∣ x ) = p ( C k ) p ( x ∣ C k ) p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k}\mid \mathbf {x} )={\frac {p(C_{k})\ p(\mathbf {x} \mid C_{k})}{p(\mathbf {x} )}}\,} In plain English, using Bayesian probability terminology, the above equation can be written as posterior = prior × likelihood evidence {\displaystyle {\text{posterior}}={\frac {{\text{prior}}\times {\text{likelihood}}}{\text{evidence}}}\,} In practice, there is interest only in the numerator of that fraction, because the denominator does not depend on C {\displaystyle C} and the values of the features x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} are given, so that the denominator is effectively constant. The numerator is equivalent to the joint probability model p ( C k , x 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\,} which can be rewritten as follows, using the chain rule for repeated applications of the definition of conditional probability: p ( C k , x 1 , … , x n ) = p ( x 1 , … , x n , C k ) = p ( x 1 ∣ x 2 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 2 , … , x n , C k ) = p ( x 1 ∣ x 2 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 2 ∣ x 3 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 3 , … , x n , C k ) = ⋯ = p ( x 1 ∣ x 2 , … , x n , C k ) p ( x 2 ∣ x 3 , … , x n , C k ) ⋯ p ( x n − 1 ∣ x n , C k ) p ( x n ∣ C k ) p ( C k ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}p(C_{k},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})&=p(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\\&=p(x_{1}\mid x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\\&=p(x_{1}\mid x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{2}\mid x_{3},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{3},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\\&=\cdots \\&=p(x_{1}\mid x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{2}\mid x_{3},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})\cdots p(x_{n-1}\mid x_{n},C_{k})\ p(x_{n}\mid C_{k})\ p(C_{k})\\\end{aligned}}} Now the "naive" conditional independence assumptions come into play: assume that all features in x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } are mutually independent, conditional on the category C k {\displaystyle C_{k}} . Under this assumption, p ( x i ∣ x i + 1 , … , x n , C k ) = p ( x i ∣ C k ) . {\displaystyle p(x_{i}\mid x_{i+1},\ldots ,x_{n},C_{k})=p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\,.} Thus, the joint model can be expressed as p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) ∝ p ( C k , x 1 , … , x n ) = p ( C k ) p ( x 1 ∣ C k ) p ( x 2 ∣ C k ) p ( x 3 ∣ C k ) ⋯ = p ( C k ) ∏ i = 1 n p ( x i ∣ C k ) , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\varpropto \ &p(C_{k},x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})\\&=p(C_{k})\ p(x_{1}\mid C_{k})\ p(x_{2}\mid C_{k})\ p(x_{3}\mid C_{k})\ \cdots \\&=p(C_{k})\prod _{i=1}^{n}p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\,,\end{aligned}}} where ∝ {\displaystyle \varpropto } denotes proportionality since the denominator p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} )} is omitted. This means that under the above independence assumptions, the conditional distribution over the class variable C {\displaystyle C} is: p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) = 1 Z p ( C k ) ∏ i = 1 n p ( x i ∣ C k ) {\displaystyle p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})={\frac {1}{Z}}\ p(C_{k})\prod _{i=1}^{n}p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})} where the evidence Z = p ( x ) = ∑ k p ( C k ) p ( x ∣ C k ) {\displaystyle Z=p(\mathbf {x} )=\sum _{k}p(C_{k})\ p(\mathbf {x} \mid C_{k})} is a scaling factor dependent only on x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} , that is, a constant if the values of the feature variables are known. Often, it is only necessary to discriminate between classes. In that case, the scaling factor is irrelevant, and it is sufficient to calculate the log-probability up to a factor: ln ⁡ p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) = ln ⁡ p ( C k ) + ∑ i = 1 n ln ⁡ p ( x i ∣ C k ) − ln ⁡ Z ⏟ irrelevant {\displaystyle \ln p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})=\ln p(C_{k})+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\underbrace {-\ln Z} _{\text{irrelevant}}} The scaling factor is irrelevant, since discrimination subtracts it away: ln ⁡ p ( C k ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) p ( C l ∣ x 1 , … , x n ) = ( ln ⁡ p ( C k ) + ∑ i = 1 n ln ⁡ p ( x i ∣ C k ) ) − ( ln ⁡ p ( C l ) + ∑ i = 1 n ln ⁡ p ( x i ∣ C l ) ) {\displaystyle \ln {\frac {p(C_{k}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})}{p(C_{l}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n})}}=\left(\ln p(C_{k})+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln p(x_{i}\mid C_{k})\right)-\left(\ln p(C_{l})+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\ln p(x_{i}\mid C_{l})\right)} There are two benefits of using log-probability. One is that it allows an interpretation in information theory, where log-probabilities are units of information in nats. Another is that it avoids arithmetic underflow. === Constructing a classifier from the probability model === The discussion so far has derived the independent feature model, that is, the naive Bayes probability model. The naive Bayes classifier combines this model with a decision rule. One common rule is to pick the hypothesis that is most probable so as to minimize the probability of misclassification; this is known as the maximum a posteriori or MAP decision rule. The corresponding classifier, a Bayes classifier, is the function that assigns a class label y ^ = C k {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=C_{k}} for some k as follows: y ^ = argmax k ∈ { 1 , … , K } p ( C k ) ∏ i = 1 n p ( x i ∣ C k ) . {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}={\underset {k\in \{1,\ldots ,K\}}{\operatorname {argmax} }}\ p(C_{k})\displays

  Read more →
• 

  Certified social engineering prevention specialist

  Certified Social Engineering Prevention Specialist (CSEPS) is a social engineering security-awareness training and professional certification program originally developed by Kevin Mitnick and Alexis Kasperavičius. == Course structure == The original CSEPS program was structured as a multi-module corporate security-awareness course designed to teach employees, managers, and IT personnel how social engineers manipulate human behavior to bypass technical security systems. The curriculum combined case studies, psychological analysis, attack demonstrations, pretexting exercises, and operational security scenarios. The course materials described social engineering as the exploitation of "the human factor" in information security and argued that traditional technical defenses alone were insufficient to protect organizations from deception-based attacks. The training program was divided into instructional modules covering topics such as: social engineering methodology and threat analysis intelligence gathering and reconnaissance dumpster diving pretexting elicitation technique telephone-system exploitation and caller-ID spoofing psychological influence techniques industrial espionage identity theft organizational vulnerabilities security policy development and employee awareness training The course also analyzed historical and contemporary case studies involving information theft, corporate espionage, fraudulent wire transfers, and telephone-based impersonation attacks. Training exercises required participants to analyze how attackers established credibility, manipulated trust, overcame objections, and exploited organizational procedures. According to The Wall Street Journal, CSEPS was delivered as a two-day "boot camp" course costing approximately US$1,500 per attendee. Clients reportedly included the United States Air Force and the United States Marine Corps. The certification examination included multiple-choice and written-response sections dealing with social-engineering defense scenarios and mitigation strategies. == History == In 2003, Mitnick and Kasperavičius partnered with the Florida-based IT training company Intense School Inc. to offer CSEPS classes throughout the United States. In 2020, Mitnick partnered with security-awareness training company KnowBe4, and elements of the original CSEPS material became incorporated into KnowBe4's social-engineering awareness training offerings.

  Read more →
• 

  Relation network

  A relation network (RN) is an artificial neural network component with a structure that can reason about relations among objects. An example category of such relations is spatial relations (above, below, left, right, in front of, behind). RNs can infer relations, they are data efficient, and they operate on a set of objects without regard to the objects' order. == History == In June 2017, DeepMind announced the first relation network. It claimed that the technology had achieved "superhuman" performance on multiple question-answering problem sets. == Design == RNs constrain the functional form of a neural network to capture the common properties of relational reasoning. These properties are explicitly added to the system, rather than established by learning just as the capacity to reason about spatial, translation-invariant properties is explicitly part of convolutional neural networks (CNN). The data to be considered can be presented as a simple list or as a directed graph whose nodes are objects and whose edges are the pairs of objects whose relationships are to be considered. The RN is a composite function: R N ( O ) = f ϕ ( ∑ i , j g θ ( o i , o j , q ) ) , {\displaystyle RN\left(O\right)=f_{\phi }\left(\sum _{i,j}g_{\theta }\left(o_{i},o_{j},q\right)\right),} where the input is a set of "objects" O = { o 1 , o 2 , . . . , o n } , o i ∈ R m {\displaystyle O=\left\lbrace o_{1},o_{2},...,o_{n}\right\rbrace ,o_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{m}} is the ith object, and fφ and gθ are functions with parameters φ and θ, respectively and q is the question. fφ and gθ are multilayer perceptrons, while the 2 parameters are learnable synaptic weights. RNs are differentiable. The output of gθ is a "relation"; therefore, the role of gθ is to infer any ways in which two objects are related. Image (128x128 pixel) processing is done with a 4-layer CNN. Outputs from the CNN are treated as the objects for relation analysis, without regard for what those "objects" explicitly represent. Questions were processed with a long short-term memory network.

  Read more →
• 

  Distribution learning theory

  The distributional learning theory or learning of probability distribution is a framework in computational learning theory. It has been proposed from Michael Kearns, Yishay Mansour, Dana Ron, Ronitt Rubinfeld, Robert Schapire and Linda Sellie in 1994 and it was inspired from the PAC-framework introduced by Leslie Valiant. In this framework the input is a number of samples drawn from a distribution that belongs to a specific class of distributions. The goal is to find an efficient algorithm that, based on these samples, determines with high probability the distribution from which the samples have been drawn. Because of its generality, this framework has been used in a large variety of different fields like machine learning, approximation algorithms, applied probability and statistics. This article explains the basic definitions, tools and results in this framework from the theory of computation point of view. == Definitions == Let X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} be the support of the distributions of interest. As in the original work of Kearns et al. if X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} is finite it can be assumed without loss of generality that X = { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle \textstyle X=\{0,1\}^{n}} where n {\displaystyle \textstyle n} is the number of bits that have to be used in order to represent any y ∈ X {\displaystyle \textstyle y\in X} . We focus in probability distributions over X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . There are two possible representations of a probability distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} over X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . probability distribution function (or evaluator) an evaluator E D {\displaystyle \textstyle E_{D}} for D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} takes as input any y ∈ X {\displaystyle \textstyle y\in X} and outputs a real number E D [ y ] {\displaystyle \textstyle E_{D}[y]} which denotes the probability that of y {\displaystyle \textstyle y} according to D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} , i.e. E D [ y ] = Pr [ Y = y ] {\displaystyle \textstyle E_{D}[y]=\Pr[Y=y]} if Y ∼ D {\displaystyle \textstyle Y\sim D} . generator a generator G D {\displaystyle \textstyle G_{D}} for D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} takes as input a string of truly random bits y {\displaystyle \textstyle y} and outputs G D [ y ] ∈ X {\displaystyle \textstyle G_{D}[y]\in X} according to the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} . Generator can be interpreted as a routine that simulates sampling from the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} given a sequence of fair coin tosses. A distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} is called to have a polynomial generator (respectively evaluator) if its generator (respectively evaluator) exists and can be computed in polynomial time. Let C X {\displaystyle \textstyle C_{X}} a class of distribution over X, that is C X {\displaystyle \textstyle C_{X}} is a set such that every D ∈ C X {\displaystyle \textstyle D\in C_{X}} is a probability distribution with support X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . The C X {\displaystyle \textstyle C_{X}} can also be written as C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} for simplicity. In order to evaluate learnability, it is necessary to have a way to measure how well an approximated distribution D ′ {\displaystyle \textstyle D'} fits the sampled distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} . There are several ways to measure the divergence between two distributions. Three common possibilities are Kullback–Leibler divergence Total variation distance of probability measures Kolmogorov distance Total variation and Kolmogorov distance are true metrics, while KL divergence is not (it lacks symmetry). These measures are ordered by convergence strength: closeness in KL divergence implies closeness in total variation (via Pinsker's inequality), which in turn implies closeness in Kolmogorov distance. Therefore, a learnability result proven under KL divergence automatically holds under the weaker measures, but not vice versa. Since certain measures may be more appropriate in specific applications, we will use d ( D , D ′ ) {\displaystyle \textstyle d(D,D')} to denote a selected divergence between the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} and the distribution D ′ {\displaystyle \textstyle D'} . The basic input that we use in order to learn a distribution is a number of samples drawn by this distribution. For the computational point of view the assumption is that such a sample is given in a constant amount of time. So it's like having access to an oracle G E N ( D ) {\displaystyle \textstyle GEN(D)} that returns a sample from the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} . Sometimes the interest is, apart from measuring the time complexity, to measure the number of samples that have to be used in order to learn a specific distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} in class of distributions C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} . This quantity is called sample complexity of the learning algorithm. In order for the problem of distribution learning to be more clear consider the problem of supervised learning as defined in. In this framework of statistical learning theory a training set S = { ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) } {\displaystyle \textstyle S=\{(x_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\}} and the goal is to find a target function f : X → Y {\displaystyle \textstyle f:X\rightarrow Y} that minimizes some loss function, e.g. the square loss function. More formally f = arg ⁡ min g ∫ V ( y , g ( x ) ) d ρ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f=\arg \min _{g}\int V(y,g(x))d\rho (x,y)} , where V ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle V(\cdot ,\cdot )} is the loss function, e.g. V ( y , z ) = ( y − z ) 2 {\displaystyle V(y,z)=(y-z)^{2}} and ρ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \rho (x,y)} the probability distribution according to which the elements of the training set are sampled. If the conditional probability distribution ρ x ( y ) {\displaystyle \rho _{x}(y)} is known then the target function has the closed form f ( x ) = ∫ y y d ρ x ( y ) {\displaystyle f(x)=\int _{y}yd\rho _{x}(y)} . So the set S {\displaystyle S} is a set of samples from the probability distribution ρ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \rho (x,y)} . Now the goal of distributional learning theory if to find ρ {\displaystyle \rho } given S {\displaystyle S} which can be used to find the target function f {\displaystyle f} . Definition of learnability A class of distributions C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} is called efficiently learnable if for every ϵ > 0 {\displaystyle \textstyle \epsilon >0} and 0 < δ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle \textstyle 0<\delta \leq 1} given access to G E N ( D ) {\displaystyle \textstyle GEN(D)} for an unknown distribution D ∈ C {\displaystyle \textstyle D\in C} , there exists a polynomial time algorithm A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} , called learning algorithm of C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} , that outputs a generator or an evaluator of a distribution D ′ {\displaystyle \textstyle D'} such that Pr [ d ( D , D ′ ) ≤ ϵ ] ≥ 1 − δ {\displaystyle \Pr[d(D,D')\leq \epsilon ]\geq 1-\delta } If we know that D ′ ∈ C {\displaystyle \textstyle D'\in C} then A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} is called proper learning algorithm, otherwise is called improper learning algorithm. In some settings the class of distributions C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} is a class with well known distributions which can be described by a set of parameters. For instance C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} could be the class of all the Gaussian distributions N ( μ , σ 2 ) {\displaystyle \textstyle N(\mu ,\sigma ^{2})} . In this case the algorithm A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} should be able to estimate the parameters μ , σ {\displaystyle \textstyle \mu ,\sigma } . In this case A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} is called parameter learning algorithm. Obviously the parameter learning for simple distributions is a very well studied field that is called statistical estimation and there is a very long bibliography on different estimators for different kinds of simple known distributions. But distributions learning theory deals with learning class of distributions that have more complicated description. == First results == In their seminal work, Kearns et al. deal with the case where A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} is described in term of a finite polynomial sized circuit and they proved the following for some specific classes of distribution. O R {\displaystyle \textstyle OR} gate distributions for this kind of distributions there is no polynomial-sized evaluator, unless # P ⊆ P / poly {\displaystyle \textstyle \#P\subseteq P/{\text{poly}}} . On the other hand, this class is efficiently learnable with generator. Parity gate distributions this class is efficiently learnable with both generator and evaluator. Mixtures of Hamming Balls this class is efficiently learnable with both generator and evaluator. Probabilistic Finite Automata this class is not efficiently learnable with evaluator under the Noisy Parity Assumption which is an impossibility assumption in the PAC learning fram

  Read more →