AI Image Generators

Explore the best AI Image Generators — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step how-to guides, curated by Aizhi.

• 

  Hybrid machine translation

  Hybrid machine translation is a method of machine translation that is characterized by the use of multiple machine translation approaches within a single machine translation system. The motivation for developing hybrid machine translation systems stems from the failure of any single technique to achieve a satisfactory level of accuracy. Many hybrid machine translation systems have been successful in improving the accuracy of the translations, and there are several popular machine translation systems which employ hybrid methods. == Approaches == === Multi-engine === This approach to hybrid machine translation involves running multiple machine translation systems in parallel. The final output is generated by combining the output of all the sub-systems. Most commonly, these systems use statistical and rule-based translation subsystems, but other combinations have been explored. For example, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University have had some success combining example-based, transfer-based, knowledge-based and statistical translation sub-systems into one machine translation system. === Statistical rule generation === This approach involves using statistical data to generate lexical and syntactic rules. The input is then processed with these rules as if it were a rule-based translator. This approach attempts to avoid the difficult and time-consuming task of creating a set of comprehensive, fine-grained linguistic rules by extracting those rules from the training corpus. This approach still suffers from many problems of normal statistical machine translation, namely that the accuracy of the translation will depend heavily on the similarity of the input text to the text of the training corpus. As a result, this technique has had the most success in domain-specific applications, and has the same difficulties with domain adaptation as many statistical machine translation systems. === Multi-Pass === This approach involves serially processing the input multiple times. The most common technique used in multi-pass machine translation systems is to pre-process the input with a rule-based machine translation system. The output of the rule-based pre-processor is passed to a statistical machine translation system, which produces the final output. This technique is used to limit the amount of information a statistical system need consider, significantly reducing the processing power required. It also removes the need for the rule-based system to be a complete translation system for the language, significantly reducing the amount of human effort and labor necessary to build the system. === Confidence-Based === This approach differs from the other hybrid approaches in that in most cases only one translation technology is used. A confidence metric is produced for each translated sentence from which a decision can be made whether to try a secondary translation technology or to proceed with the initial translation output. SMT is also used when common error patterns such as multiple repeat words appear in sequence, as is common with NMT when the attention mechanism is confused.

  Read more →
• 

  Policy gradient method

  Policy gradient methods are a class of reinforcement learning algorithms and a sub-class of policy optimization methods. Unlike value-based methods which learn a value function to derive a policy, policy optimization methods directly learn a policy function π {\displaystyle \pi } that selects actions without consulting a value function. For policy gradient to apply, the policy function π θ {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta }} is parameterized by a differentiable parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } . == Overview == In policy-based RL, the actor is a parameterized policy function π θ {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta }} , where θ {\displaystyle \theta } are the parameters of the actor. The actor takes as argument the state of the environment s {\displaystyle s} and produces a probability distribution π θ ( ⋅ ∣ s ) {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta }(\cdot \mid s)} . If the action space is discrete, then ∑ a π θ ( a ∣ s ) = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{a}\pi _{\theta }(a\mid s)=1} . If the action space is continuous, then ∫ a π θ ( a ∣ s ) d a = 1 {\displaystyle \int _{a}\pi _{\theta }(a\mid s)\mathrm {d} a=1} . The goal of policy optimization is to find some θ {\displaystyle \theta } that maximizes the expected episodic reward J ( θ ) {\displaystyle J(\theta )} : J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ t = 0 T γ t R t | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle J(\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\gamma ^{t}R_{t}{\Big |}S_{0}=s_{0}\right]} where γ {\displaystyle \gamma } is the discount factor, R t {\displaystyle R_{t}} is the reward at step t {\displaystyle t} , s 0 {\displaystyle s_{0}} is the starting state, and T {\displaystyle T} is the time-horizon (which can be infinite). The policy gradient is defined as ∇ θ J ( θ ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )} . Different policy gradient methods stochastically estimate the policy gradient in different ways. The goal of any policy gradient method is to iteratively maximize J ( θ ) {\displaystyle J(\theta )} by gradient ascent. Since the key part of any policy gradient method is the stochastic estimation of the policy gradient, they are also studied under the title of "Monte Carlo gradient estimation". == REINFORCE == === Policy gradient === The REINFORCE algorithm, introduced by Ronald J. Williams in 1992, was the first policy gradient method. It is based on the identity for the policy gradient ∇ θ J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ t = 0 T ∇ θ ln ⁡ π θ ( A t ∣ S t ) ∑ t = 0 T ( γ t R t ) | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t}\mid S_{t})\;\sum _{t=0}^{T}(\gamma ^{t}R_{t}){\Big |}S_{0}=s_{0}\right]} which can be improved via the "causality trick" ∇ θ J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ t = 0 T ∇ θ ln ⁡ π θ ( A t ∣ S t ) ∑ τ = t T ( γ τ R τ ) | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t}\mid S_{t})\sum _{\tau =t}^{T}(\gamma ^{\tau }R_{\tau }){\Big |}S_{0}=s_{0}\right]} Thus, we have an unbiased estimator of the policy gradient: ∇ θ J ( θ ) ≈ 1 N ∑ n = 1 N [ ∑ t = 0 T ∇ θ ln ⁡ π θ ( A t , n ∣ S t , n ) ∑ τ = t T ( γ τ − t R τ , n ) ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )\approx {\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{n=1}^{N}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t,n}\mid S_{t,n})\sum _{\tau =t}^{T}(\gamma ^{\tau -t}R_{\tau ,n})\right]} where the index n {\displaystyle n} ranges over N {\displaystyle N} rollout trajectories using the policy π θ {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta }} . The score function ∇ θ ln ⁡ π θ ( A t ∣ S t ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t}\mid S_{t})} can be interpreted as the direction in the parameter space that increases the probability of taking action A t {\displaystyle A_{t}} in state S t {\displaystyle S_{t}} . The policy gradient, then, is a weighted average of all possible directions to increase the probability of taking any action in any state, but weighted by reward signals, so that if taking a certain action in a certain state is associated with high reward, then that direction would be highly reinforced, and vice versa. === Algorithm === The REINFORCE algorithm is a loop: Rollout N {\displaystyle N} trajectories in the environment, using π θ t {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta _{t}}} as the policy function. Compute the policy gradient estimation: g i ← 1 N ∑ n = 1 N [ ∑ t = 0 T ∇ θ t ln ⁡ π θ ( A t , n ∣ S t , n ) ∑ τ = t T ( γ τ R τ , n ) ] {\displaystyle g_{i}\leftarrow {\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{n=1}^{N}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\nabla _{\theta _{t}}\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t,n}\mid S_{t,n})\sum _{\tau =t}^{T}(\gamma ^{\tau }R_{\tau ,n})\right]} Update the policy by gradient ascent: θ i + 1 ← θ i + α i g i {\displaystyle \theta _{i+1}\leftarrow \theta _{i}+\alpha _{i}g_{i}} Here, α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} is the learning rate at update step i {\displaystyle i} . == Variance reduction == REINFORCE is an on-policy algorithm, meaning that the trajectories used for the update must be sampled from the current policy π θ {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta }} . This can lead to high variance in the updates, as the returns R ( τ ) {\displaystyle R(\tau )} can vary significantly between trajectories. Many variants of REINFORCE have been introduced, under the title of variance reduction. === REINFORCE with baseline === A common way for reducing variance is the REINFORCE with baseline algorithm, based on the following identity: ∇ θ J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ t = 0 T ∇ θ ln ⁡ π θ ( A t | S t ) ( ∑ τ = t T ( γ τ R τ ) − b ( S t ) ) | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t}|S_{t})\left(\sum _{\tau =t}^{T}(\gamma ^{\tau }R_{\tau })-b(S_{t})\right){\Big |}S_{0}=s_{0}\right]} for any function b : States → R {\displaystyle b:{\text{States}}\to \mathbb {R} } . This can be proven by applying the previous lemma. The algorithm uses the modified gradient estimator g i ← 1 N ∑ n = 1 N [ ∑ t = 0 T ∇ θ t ln ⁡ π θ ( A t , n | S t , n ) ( ∑ τ = t T ( γ τ R τ , n ) − b i ( S t , n ) ) ] {\displaystyle g_{i}\leftarrow {\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{n=1}^{N}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\nabla _{\theta _{t}}\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t,n}|S_{t,n})\left(\sum _{\tau =t}^{T}(\gamma ^{\tau }R_{\tau ,n})-b_{i}(S_{t,n})\right)\right]} and the original REINFORCE algorithm is the special case where b i ≡ 0 {\displaystyle b_{i}\equiv 0} . === Actor-critic methods === If b i {\textstyle b_{i}} is chosen well, such that b i ( S t ) ≈ ∑ τ = t T ( γ τ R τ ) = γ t V π θ i ( S t ) {\textstyle b_{i}(S_{t})\approx \sum _{\tau =t}^{T}(\gamma ^{\tau }R_{\tau })=\gamma ^{t}V^{\pi _{\theta _{i}}}(S_{t})} , this could significantly decrease variance in the gradient estimation. That is, the baseline should be as close to the value function V π θ i ( S t ) {\displaystyle V^{\pi _{\theta _{i}}}(S_{t})} as possible, approaching the ideal of: ∇ θ J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ t = 0 T ∇ θ ln ⁡ π θ ( A t | S t ) ( ∑ τ = t T ( γ τ R τ ) − γ t V π θ ( S t ) ) | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t}|S_{t})\left(\sum _{\tau =t}^{T}(\gamma ^{\tau }R_{\tau })-\gamma ^{t}V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{t})\right){\Big |}S_{0}=s_{0}\right]} Note that, as the policy π θ t {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta _{t}}} updates, the value function V π θ i ( S t ) {\displaystyle V^{\pi _{\theta _{i}}}(S_{t})} updates as well, so the baseline should also be updated. One common approach is to train a separate function that estimates the value function, and use that as the baseline. This is one of the actor-critic methods, where the policy function is the actor and the value function is the critic. The Q-function Q π {\displaystyle Q^{\pi }} can also be used as the critic, since ∇ θ J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ 0 ≤ t ≤ T γ t ∇ θ ln ⁡ π θ ( A t | S t ) ⋅ Q π θ ( S t , A t ) | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )=E_{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{0\leq t\leq T}\gamma ^{t}\nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t}|S_{t})\cdot Q^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{t},A_{t}){\Big |}S_{0}=s_{0}\right]} by a similar argument using the tower law. Subtracting the value function as a baseline, we find that the advantage function A π ( S , A ) = Q π ( S , A ) − V π ( S ) {\displaystyle A^{\pi }(S,A)=Q^{\pi }(S,A)-V^{\pi }(S)} can be used as the critic as well: ∇ θ J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ 0 ≤ t ≤ T γ t ∇ θ ln ⁡ π θ ( A t | S t ) ⋅ A π θ ( S t , A t ) | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )=E_{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{0\leq t\leq T}\gamma ^{t}\nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{t}|S_{t})\cdot A^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{t},A_{t}){\Big |}S_{0}=s_{0}\right]} In summary, there are many unbiased estimators for ∇ θ J θ {\textstyle \nabla _{\theta }J_{\theta }} , all in the form of: ∇ θ J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ 0 ≤ t ≤ T ∇ θ ln ⁡ π θ ( A t | S t ) ⋅ Ψ t | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )=E_{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\su

  Read more →
• 

  Representer theorem

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

  Read more →
• 

  Huber loss

  In statistics, the Huber loss is a loss function used in robust regression, that is less sensitive to outliers in data than the squared error loss. A variant for classification is also sometimes used. == Definition == The Huber loss function describes the penalty incurred by an estimation procedure f. Huber (1964) defines the loss function piecewise by L δ ( a ) = { 1 2 a 2 for | a | ≤ δ , δ ⋅ ( | a | − 1 2 δ ) , otherwise. {\displaystyle L_{\delta }(a)={\begin{cases}{\frac {1}{2}}{a^{2}}&{\text{for }}|a|\leq \delta ,\\[4pt]\delta \cdot \left(|a|-{\frac {1}{2}}\delta \right),&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}} This function is quadratic for small values of a, and linear for large values, with equal values and slopes of the different sections at the two points where | a | = δ {\displaystyle |a|=\delta } . The variable a often refers to the residuals, that is to the difference between the observed and predicted values a = y − f ( x ) {\displaystyle a=y-f(x)} , so the former can be expanded to L δ ( y , f ( x ) ) = { 1 2 ( y − f ( x ) ) 2 for | y − f ( x ) | ≤ δ , δ ⋅ ( | y − f ( x ) | − 1 2 δ ) , otherwise. {\displaystyle L_{\delta }(y,f(x))={\begin{cases}{\frac {1}{2}}{\left(y-f(x)\right)}^{2}&{\text{for }}\left|y-f(x)\right|\leq \delta ,\\[4pt]\delta \ \cdot \left(\left|y-f(x)\right|-{\frac {1}{2}}\delta \right),&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}} The Huber loss is the convolution of the absolute value function with the rectangular function, scaled and translated. Thus it "smoothens out" the former's corner at the origin. == Motivation == Two very commonly used loss functions are the squared loss, L ( a ) = a 2 {\displaystyle L(a)=a^{2}} , and the absolute loss, L ( a ) = | a | {\displaystyle L(a)=|a|} . The squared loss function results in an arithmetic mean-unbiased estimator, and the absolute-value loss function results in a median-unbiased estimator (in the one-dimensional case, and a geometric median-unbiased estimator for the multi-dimensional case). The squared loss has the disadvantage that it has the tendency to be dominated by outliers—when summing over a set of a {\displaystyle a} 's (as in ∑ i = 1 n L ( a i ) {\textstyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}L(a_{i})} ), the sample mean is influenced too much by a few particularly large a {\displaystyle a} -values when the distribution is heavy tailed: in terms of estimation theory, the asymptotic relative efficiency of the mean is poor for heavy-tailed distributions. As defined above, the Huber loss function is strongly convex in a uniform neighborhood of its minimum a = 0 {\displaystyle a=0} ; at the boundary of this uniform neighborhood, the Huber loss function has a differentiable extension to an affine function at points a = − δ {\displaystyle a=-\delta } and a = δ {\displaystyle a=\delta } . These properties allow it to combine much of the sensitivity of the mean-unbiased, minimum-variance estimator of the mean (using the quadratic loss function) and the robustness of the median-unbiased estimator (using the absolute value function). == Pseudo-Huber loss function == The Pseudo-Huber loss function can be used as a smooth approximation of the Huber loss function. It combines the best properties of L2 squared loss and L1 absolute loss by being strongly convex when close to the target/minimum and less steep for extreme values. The scale at which the Pseudo-Huber loss function transitions from L2 loss for values close to the minimum to L1 loss for extreme values and the steepness at extreme values can be controlled by the δ {\displaystyle \delta } value. The Pseudo-Huber loss function ensures that derivatives are continuous for all degrees. It is defined as L δ ( a ) = δ 2 ( 1 + ( a / δ ) 2 − 1 ) . {\displaystyle L_{\delta }(a)=\delta ^{2}\left({\sqrt {1+(a/\delta )^{2}}}-1\right).} As such, this function approximates a 2 / 2 {\displaystyle a^{2}/2} for small values of a {\displaystyle a} , and approximates a straight line with slope δ {\displaystyle \delta } for large values of a {\displaystyle a} . While the above is the most common form, other smooth approximations of the Huber loss function also exist. == Variant for classification == For classification purposes, a variant of the Huber loss called modified Huber is sometimes used. Given a prediction f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} (a real-valued classifier score) and a true binary class label y ∈ { + 1 , − 1 } {\displaystyle y\in \{+1,-1\}} , the modified Huber loss is defined as L ( y , f ( x ) ) = { max ( 0 , 1 − y f ( x ) ) 2 for y f ( x ) > − 1 , − 4 y f ( x ) otherwise. {\displaystyle L(y,f(x))={\begin{cases}\max(0,1-y\,f(x))^{2}&{\text{for }}\,\,y\,f(x)>-1,\\[4pt]-4y\,f(x)&{\text{otherwise.}}\end{cases}}} The term max ( 0 , 1 − y f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \max(0,1-y\,f(x))} is the hinge loss used by support vector machines; the quadratically smoothed hinge loss is a generalization of L {\displaystyle L} . == Applications == The Huber loss function is used in robust statistics, M-estimation and additive modelling.

  Read more →
• 

  Zardoz (computer security)

  In computer security, the Security-Digest list, better known as the Zardoz list, was a semi-private full disclosure mailing list run by Neil Gorsuch from 1989 through 1991. It identified weaknesses in systems and gave directions on where to find them. It was a perennial target for computer hackers, who sought archives of the list for information on undisclosed software vulnerabilities. == Membership restrictions == Access to Zardoz was approved on a case-by-case basis by Gorsuch, principally by reference to the user account used to send subscription requests; requests were approved for root users, valid UUCP owners, or system administrators listed at the NIC. The openness of the list to users other than Unix system administrators was a regular topic of conversation, with participants expressing concern that vulnerabilities and exploitation details disclosed on the list were liable to spread to hackers. The circulation of Zardoz postings was an open secret among computer hackers, and mocked in a Phrack parody of an IRC channel populated by security experts. == Notable participants == Keith Bostic discussed BSD Sendmail vulnerabilities Chip Salzenberg discussed Peter Honeyman's posting of a UUCP worm, and shell script security Gene Spafford discussed VMS and Ultrix bugs, and relayed law enforcement enquiries about the Morris Worm Tom Christiansen discussed SUID shell scripts Chris Torek discussed devising exploits from general descriptions of vulnerabilities Henry Spencer discussed Unix security Brendan Kehoe discussed systems security Alec Muffett announced Crack, the Unix password cracker The majority of Zardoz participants were Unix systems administrators and C software developers. Neil Gorsuch and Gene Spafford were the most prolific contributors to the list.

  Read more →
• 

  Grammatical evolution

  Grammatical evolution (GE) is a genetic programming (GP) technique (or approach) from evolutionary computation pioneered by Conor Ryan, JJ Collins and Michael O'Neill in 1998 at the BDS Group in the University of Limerick. As in any other GP approach, the objective is to find an executable program, program fragment, or function, which will achieve a good fitness value for a given objective function. In most published work on GP, a LISP-style tree-structured expression is directly manipulated, whereas GE applies genetic operators to an integer string, subsequently mapped to a program (or similar) through the use of a grammar, which is typically expressed in Backus–Naur form. One of the benefits of GE is that this mapping simplifies the application of search to different programming languages and other structures. == Problem addressed == In type-free, conventional Koza-style GP, the function set must meet the requirement of closure: all functions must be capable of accepting as their arguments the output of all other functions in the function set. Usually, this is implemented by dealing with a single data-type such as double-precision floating point. While modern Genetic Programming frameworks support typing, such type-systems have limitations that Grammatical Evolution does not suffer from. == GE's solution == GE offers a solution to the single-type limitation by evolving solutions according to a user-specified grammar (usually a grammar in Backus-Naur form). Therefore, the search space can be restricted, and domain knowledge of the problem can be incorporated. The inspiration for this approach comes from a desire to separate the "genotype" from the "phenotype": in GP, the objects the search algorithm operates on and what the fitness evaluation function interprets are one and the same. In contrast, GE's "genotypes" are ordered lists of integers which code for selecting rules from the provided context-free grammar. The phenotype, however, is the same as in Koza-style GP: a tree-like structure that is evaluated recursively. This model is more in line with how genetics work in nature, where there is a separation between an organism's genotype and the final expression of phenotype in proteins, etc. Separating genotype and phenotype allows a modular approach. In particular, the search portion of the GE paradigm needn't be carried out by any one particular algorithm or method. Observe that the objects GE performs search on are the same as those used in genetic algorithms. This means, in principle, that any existing genetic algorithm package, such as the popular GAlib, can be used to carry out the search, and a developer implementing a GE system need only worry about carrying out the mapping from list of integers to program tree. It is also in principle possible to perform the search using some other method, such as particle swarm optimization (see the remark below); the modular nature of GE creates many opportunities for hybrids as the problem of interest to be solved dictates. Brabazon and O'Neill have successfully applied GE to predicting corporate bankruptcy, forecasting stock indices, bond credit ratings, and other financial applications. GE has also been used with a classic predator-prey model to explore the impact of parameters such as predator efficiency, niche number, and random mutations on ecological stability. It is possible to structure a GE grammar that for a given function/terminal set is equivalent to genetic programming. == Criticism == Despite its successes, GE has been the subject of some criticism. One issue is that as a result of its mapping operation, GE's genetic operators do not achieve high locality which is a highly regarded property of genetic operators in evolutionary algorithms. == Variants == Although GE was originally described in terms of using an Evolutionary Algorithm, specifically, a Genetic Algorithm, other variants exist. For example, GE researchers have experimented with using particle swarm optimization to carry out the searching instead of genetic algorithms with results comparable to that of normal GE; this is referred to as a "grammatical swarm"; using only the basic PSO model it has been found that PSO is probably equally capable of carrying out the search process in GE as simple genetic algorithms are. (Although PSO is normally a floating-point search paradigm, it can be discretized, e.g., by simply rounding each vector to the nearest integer, for use with GE.) Yet another possible variation that has been experimented with in the literature is attempting to encode semantic information in the grammar in order to further bias the search process. Other work showed that, with biased grammars that leverage domain knowledge, even random search can be used to drive GE. == Related work == GE was originally a combination of the linear representation as used by the Genetic Algorithm for Developing Software (GADS) and Backus Naur Form grammars, which were originally used in tree-based GP by Wong and Leung in 1995 and Whigham in 1996. Other related work noted in the original GE paper was that of Frederic Gruau, who used a conceptually similar "embryonic" approach, as well as that of Keller and Banzhaf, which similarly used linear genomes. == Implementations == There are several implementations of GE. These include the following.

  Read more →
• 

  Farthest-first traversal

  In computational geometry, the farthest-first traversal of a compact metric space is a sequence of points in the space, where the first point is selected arbitrarily and each successive point is as far as possible from the set of previously-selected points. The same concept can also be applied to a finite set of geometric points, by restricting the selected points to belong to the set or equivalently by considering the finite metric space generated by these points. For a finite metric space or finite set of geometric points, the resulting sequence forms a permutation of the points, also known as the greedy permutation. Every prefix of a farthest-first traversal provides a set of points that is widely spaced and close to all remaining points. More precisely, no other set of equally many points can be spaced more than twice as widely, and no other set of equally many points can be less than half as far to its farthest remaining point. In part because of these properties, farthest-point traversals have many applications, including the approximation of the traveling salesman problem and the metric k-center problem. They may be constructed in polynomial time, or (for low-dimensional Euclidean spaces) approximated in near-linear time. == Definition and properties == A farthest-first traversal is a sequence of points in a compact metric space, with each point appearing at most once. If the space is finite, each point appears exactly once, and the traversal is a permutation of all of the points in the space. The first point of the sequence may be any point in the space. Each point p after the first must have the maximum possible distance to the set of points earlier than p in the sequence, where the distance from a point to a set is defined as the minimum of the pairwise distances to points in the set. A given space may have many different farthest-first traversals, depending both on the choice of the first point in the sequence (which may be any point in the space) and on ties for the maximum distance among later choices. Farthest-point traversals may be characterized by the following properties. Fix a number k, and consider the prefix formed by the first k points of the farthest-first traversal of any metric space. Let r be the distance between the final point of the prefix and the other points in the prefix. Then this subset has the following two properties: All pairs of the selected points are at distance at least r from each other, and All points of the metric space are at distance at most r from the subset. Conversely any sequence having these properties, for all choices of k, must be a farthest-first traversal. These are the two defining properties of a Delone set, so each prefix of the farthest-first traversal forms a Delone set. == Applications == Rosenkrantz, Stearns & Lewis (1977) used the farthest-first traversal to define the farthest-insertion heuristic for the travelling salesman problem. This heuristic finds approximate solutions to the travelling salesman problem by building up a tour on a subset of points, adding one point at a time to the tour in the ordering given by a farthest-first traversal. To add each point to the tour, one edge of the previous tour is broken and replaced by a pair of edges through the added point, in the cheapest possible way. Although Rosenkrantz et al. prove only a logarithmic approximation ratio for this method, they show that in practice it often works better than other insertion methods with better provable approximation ratios. Later, the same sequence of points was popularized by Gonzalez (1985), who used it as part of greedy approximation algorithms for two problems in clustering, in which the goal is to partition a set of points into k clusters. One of the two problems that Gonzalez solve in this way seeks to minimize the maximum diameter of a cluster, while the other, known as the metric k-center problem, seeks to minimize the maximum radius, the distance from a chosen central point of a cluster to the farthest point from it in the same cluster. For instance, the k-center problem can be used to model the placement of fire stations within a city, in order to ensure that every address within the city can be reached quickly by a fire truck. For both clustering problems, Gonzalez chooses a set of k cluster centers by selecting the first k points of a farthest-first traversal, and then creates clusters by assigning each input point to the nearest cluster center. If r is the distance from the set of k selected centers to the next point at position k + 1 in the traversal, then with this clustering every point is within distance r of its center and every cluster has diameter at most 2r. However, the subset of k centers together with the next point are all at distance at least r from each other, and any k-clustering would put some two of these points into a single cluster, with one of them at distance at least r/2 from its center and with diameter at least r. Thus, Gonzalez's heuristic gives an approximation ratio of 2 for both clustering problems. Gonzalez's heuristic was independently rediscovered for the metric k-center problem by Dyer & Frieze (1985), who applied it more generally to weighted k-center problems. Another paper on the k-center problem from the same time, Hochbaum & Shmoys (1985), achieves the same approximation ratio of 2, but its techniques are different. Nevertheless, Gonzalez's heuristic, and the name "farthest-first traversal", are often incorrectly attributed to Hochbaum and Shmoys. For both the min-max diameter clustering problem and the metric k-center problem, these approximations are optimal: the existence of a polynomial-time heuristic with any constant approximation ratio less than 2 would imply that P = NP. As well as for clustering, the farthest-first traversal can also be used in another type of facility location problem, the max-min facility dispersion problem, in which the goal is to choose the locations of k different facilities so that they are as far apart from each other as possible. More precisely, the goal in this problem is to choose k points from a given metric space or a given set of candidate points, in such a way as to maximize the minimum pairwise distance between the selected points. Again, this can be approximated by choosing the first k points of a farthest-first traversal. If r denotes the distance of the kth point from all previous points, then every point of the metric space or the candidate set is within distance r of the first k − 1 points. By the pigeonhole principle, some two points of the optimal solution (whatever it is) must both be within distance r of the same point among these first k − 1 chosen points, and (by the triangle inequality) within distance 2r of each other. Therefore, the heuristic solution given by the farthest-first traversal is within a factor of two of optimal. Other applications of the farthest-first traversal include color quantization (clustering the colors in an image to a smaller set of representative colors), progressive scanning of images (choosing an order to display the pixels of an image so that prefixes of the ordering produce good lower-resolution versions of the whole image rather than filling in the image from top to bottom), point selection in the probabilistic roadmap method for motion planning, simplification of point clouds, generating masks for halftone images, hierarchical clustering, finding the similarities between polygon meshes of similar surfaces, choosing diverse and high-value observation targets for underwater robot exploration, fault detection in sensor networks, modeling phylogenetic diversity, matching vehicles in a heterogenous fleet to customer delivery requests, uniform distribution of geodetic observatories on the Earth's surface or of other types of sensor network, generation of virtual point lights in the instant radiosity computer graphics rendering method, and geometric range searching data structures. == Algorithms == === Greedy exact algorithm === The farthest-first traversal of a finite point set may be computed by a greedy algorithm that maintains the distance of each point from the previously selected points, performing the following steps: Initialize the sequence of selected points to the empty sequence, and the distances of each point to the selected points to infinity. While not all points have been selected, repeat the following steps: Scan the list of not-yet-selected points to find a point p that has the maximum distance from the selected points. Remove p from the not-yet-selected points and add it to the end of the sequence of selected points. For each remaining not-yet-selected point q, replace the distance stored for q by the minimum of its old value and the distance from p to q. For a set of n points, this algorithm takes O(n2) steps and O(n2) distance computations. === Approximations === A faster approximation algorithm, given by Har-Peled & Mendel (2006), applie

  Read more →
• 

  Cross-entropy

  In information theory, the cross-entropy between two probability distributions p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} , over the same underlying set of events, measures the average number of bits needed to identify an event drawn from the set when the coding scheme used for the set is optimized for an estimated probability distribution q {\displaystyle q} , rather than the true distribution p {\displaystyle p} . == Definition == The cross-entropy of the distribution q {\displaystyle q} relative to a distribution p {\displaystyle p} over a given set is defined as follows: H ( p , q ) = − E p ⁡ [ log ⁡ q ] , {\displaystyle H(p,q)=-\operatorname {E} _{p}[\log q],} where E p ⁡ [ ⋅ ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} _{p}[\cdot ]} is the expected value operator with respect to the distribution p {\displaystyle p} . The definition may be formulated using the Kullback–Leibler divergence D K L ( p ∥ q ) {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q)} , divergence of p {\displaystyle p} from q {\displaystyle q} (also known as the relative entropy of p {\displaystyle p} with respect to q {\displaystyle q} ). H ( p , q ) = H ( p ) + D K L ( p ∥ q ) , {\displaystyle H(p,q)=H(p)+D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q),} where H ( p ) {\displaystyle H(p)} is the entropy of p {\displaystyle p} . For discrete probability distributions p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} with the same support X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} , this means The situation for continuous distributions is analogous. We have to assume that p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} are absolutely continuous with respect to some reference measure r {\displaystyle r} (usually r {\displaystyle r} is a Lebesgue measure on a Borel σ-algebra). Let P {\displaystyle P} and Q {\displaystyle Q} be probability density functions of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} with respect to r {\displaystyle r} . Then − ∫ X P ( x ) log ⁡ Q ( x ) d x = E p ⁡ [ − log ⁡ Q ] , {\displaystyle -\int _{\mathcal {X}}P(x)\,\log Q(x)\,\mathrm {d} x=\operatorname {E} _{p}[-\log Q],} and therefore NB: The notation H ( p , q ) {\displaystyle H(p,q)} is also used for a different concept, the joint entropy of p {\displaystyle p} and q {\displaystyle q} . == Motivation == In information theory, the Kraft–McMillan theorem establishes that any directly decodable coding scheme for coding a message to identify one value x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} out of a set of possibilities { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} can be seen as representing an implicit probability distribution q ( x i ) = ( 1 2 ) ℓ i {\displaystyle q(x_{i})=\left({\frac {1}{2}}\right)^{\ell _{i}}} over { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} , where ℓ i {\displaystyle \ell _{i}} is the length of the code for x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} in bits. Therefore, cross-entropy can be interpreted as the expected message-length per datum when a wrong distribution q {\displaystyle q} is assumed while the data actually follows a distribution p {\displaystyle p} . That is why the expectation is taken over the true probability distribution p {\displaystyle p} and not q . {\displaystyle q.} Indeed the expected message-length under the true distribution p {\displaystyle p} is E p ⁡ [ ℓ ] = − E p ⁡ [ ln ⁡ q ( x ) ln ⁡ ( 2 ) ] = − E p ⁡ [ log 2 ⁡ q ( x ) ] = − ∑ x i p ( x i ) log 2 ⁡ q ( x i ) = − ∑ x p ( x ) log 2 ⁡ q ( x ) = H ( p , q ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {E} _{p}[\ell ]&=-\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[{\frac {\ln {q(x)}}{\ln(2)}}\right]\\[1ex]&=-\operatorname {E} _{p}\left[\log _{2}{q(x)}\right]\\[1ex]&=-\sum _{x_{i}}p(x_{i})\,\log _{2}q(x_{i})\\[1ex]&=-\sum _{x}p(x)\,\log _{2}q(x)=H(p,q).\end{aligned}}} == Estimation == There are many situations where cross-entropy needs to be measured but the distribution of p {\displaystyle p} is unknown. An example is language modeling, where a model is created based on a training set T {\displaystyle T} , and then its cross-entropy is measured on a test set to assess how accurate the model is in predicting the test data. In this example, p {\displaystyle p} is the true distribution of words in any corpus, and q {\displaystyle q} is the distribution of words as predicted by the model. Since the true distribution is unknown, cross-entropy cannot be directly calculated. In these cases, an estimate of cross-entropy is calculated using the following formula: H ( T , q ) = − ∑ i = 1 N 1 N log 2 ⁡ q ( x i ) {\displaystyle H(T,q)=-\sum _{i=1}^{N}{\frac {1}{N}}\log _{2}q(x_{i})} where N {\displaystyle N} is the size of the test set, and q ( x ) {\displaystyle q(x)} is the probability of event x {\displaystyle x} estimated from the training set. In other words, q ( x i ) {\displaystyle q(x_{i})} is the probability estimate of the model that the i-th word of the text is x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . The sum is averaged over the N {\displaystyle N} words of the test. This is a Monte Carlo estimate of the true cross-entropy, where the test set is treated as samples from p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} . == Relation to maximum likelihood == The cross entropy arises in classification problems when introducing a logarithm in the guise of the log-likelihood function. This section concerns the estimation of the probabilities of different discrete outcomes. To this end, denote a parametrized family of distributions by q θ {\displaystyle q_{\theta }} , with θ {\displaystyle \theta } subject to the optimization effort. Consider a given finite sequence of N {\displaystyle N} values x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from a training set, obtained from conditionally independent sampling. The likelihood assigned to any considered parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } of the model is then given by the product over all probabilities q θ ( X = x i ) {\displaystyle q_{\theta }(X=x_{i})} . Repeated occurrences are possible, leading to equal factors in the product. If the count of occurrences of the value equal to x {\displaystyle x} is denoted by # x {\displaystyle \#x} , then the frequency of that value equals # x / N {\displaystyle \#x/N} . If p ( X = x ) {\displaystyle p(X=x)} is the underlying probability distribution, for large N {\displaystyle N} we expect p ( X = x ) ≈ # x / N {\displaystyle p(X=x)\approx \#x/N} , by the law of large numbers. Writing our likelihood function as the product of observations from the distribution q θ {\displaystyle q_{\theta }} : L ( θ ; x ) = ∏ i q θ ( X = x i ) = ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) # x ≈ ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) N ⋅ p ( X = x ) = exp ⁡ log ⁡ [ ∏ x q θ ( X = x ) N ⋅ p ( X = x ) ] = exp ⁡ ( ∑ x N ⋅ p ( X = x ) log ⁡ q θ ( X = x ) ) , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\mathcal {L}}(\theta ;{\mathbf {x} })&=\prod _{i}q_{\theta }(X=x_{i})=\prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{\#x}\\&\approx \prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{N\cdot p(X=x)}=\exp \log \left[\prod _{x}q_{\theta }(X=x)^{N\cdot p(X=x)}\right]\\&=\exp \left(\sum _{x}N\cdot p(X=x)\log q_{\theta }(X=x)^{}\right),\end{aligned}}} where we have used the calculation rules for the logarithm in the final line. Notice how the exponent contains a − H ( p , q θ ) {\displaystyle -H(p,q_{\theta })} term. Taking the logarithm of both sides gives: log ⁡ L ( θ ; x ) = − N ⋅ H ( p , q θ ) . {\displaystyle \log {\mathcal {L}}(\theta ;{\mathbf {x} })=-N\cdot H(p,q_{\theta }).} Since the logarithm is a monotonically increasing function, the maximizing value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } is unaffected by this final step. Similarly, the maximizing value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } is unaffected by the factor of N {\displaystyle N} . So we observe that the likelihood maximization amounts to minimization of the cross-entropy. == Cross-entropy minimization == Cross-entropy minimization is frequently used in optimization and rare-event probability estimation. When comparing a distribution q {\displaystyle q} against a fixed reference distribution p {\displaystyle p} , cross-entropy and KL divergence are identical up to an additive constant (since p {\displaystyle p} is fixed): According to the Gibbs' inequality, both take on their minimal values when p = q {\displaystyle p=q} , which is 0 {\displaystyle 0} for KL divergence, and H ( p ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} (p)} for cross-entropy. In the engineering literature, the principle of minimizing KL divergence (Kullback's "Principle of Minimum Discrimination Information") is often called the Principle of Minimum Cross-Entropy (MCE), or Minxent. However, as discussed in the article Kullback–Leibler divergence, sometimes the distribution q {\displaystyle q} is the fixed prior reference distribution, and the distribution p {\displaystyle p} is optimized to be as close to q {\displaystyle q} as possible, subject to some constraint. In this case the two minimizations are not equivalent. This has led to some ambiguity in the literature, with some authors attempting to resolve the inconsistency by restating cross-entropy to be D K L ( p ∥ q ) {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {KL} }(p\parallel q)} , rather than H (

  Read more →
• 

  Rademacher complexity

  In computational learning theory (machine learning and theory of computation), Rademacher complexity, named after Hans Rademacher, measures richness of a class of sets with respect to a probability distribution. The concept can also be extended to real valued functions. == Definitions == === Rademacher complexity of a set === Given a set A ⊆ R m {\displaystyle A\subseteq \mathbb {R} ^{m}} , the Rademacher complexity of A is defined as follows: Rad ⁡ ( A ) := 1 m E σ [ sup a ∈ A ∑ i = 1 m σ i a i ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {Rad} (A):={\frac {1}{m}}\mathbb {E} _{\sigma }\left[\sup _{a\in A}\sum _{i=1}^{m}\sigma _{i}a_{i}\right]} where σ 1 , σ 2 , … , σ m {\displaystyle \sigma _{1},\sigma _{2},\dots ,\sigma _{m}} are independent random variables drawn from the Rademacher distribution i.e. Pr ( σ i = + 1 ) = Pr ( σ i = − 1 ) = 1 / 2 {\displaystyle \Pr(\sigma _{i}=+1)=\Pr(\sigma _{i}=-1)=1/2} for i ∈ { 1 , 2 , … , m } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,2,\dots ,m\}} , and a = ( a 1 , … , a m ) ∈ A {\displaystyle a=(a_{1},\ldots ,a_{m})\in A} . Some authors take the absolute value of the sum before taking the supremum, but if A {\displaystyle A} is symmetric this makes no difference. === Rademacher complexity of a function class === Let S = { z 1 , z 2 , … , z m } ⊆ Z {\displaystyle S=\{z_{1},z_{2},\dots ,z_{m}\}\subseteq Z} be a sample of points and consider a function class F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} of real-valued functions over Z {\displaystyle Z} . Then, the empirical Rademacher complexity of F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} given S {\displaystyle S} is defined as: Rad S ⁡ ( F ) = 1 m E σ [ sup f ∈ F | ∑ i = 1 m σ i f ( z i ) | ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {Rad} _{S}({\mathcal {F}})={\frac {1}{m}}\mathbb {E} _{\sigma }\left[\sup _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}}\left|\sum _{i=1}^{m}\sigma _{i}f(z_{i})\right|\right]} This can also be written using the previous definition: Rad S ⁡ ( F ) = Rad ⁡ ( F ∘ S ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Rad} _{S}({\mathcal {F}})=\operatorname {Rad} ({\mathcal {F}}\circ S)} where F ∘ S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}\circ S} denotes function composition, i.e.: F ∘ S := { ( f ( z 1 ) , … , f ( z m ) ) ∣ f ∈ F } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}\circ S:=\{(f(z_{1}),\ldots ,f(z_{m}))\mid f\in {\mathcal {F}}\}} The worst case empirical Rademacher complexity is Rad ¯ m ( F ) = sup S = { z 1 , … , z m } Rad S ⁡ ( F ) {\displaystyle {\overline {\operatorname {Rad} }}_{m}({\mathcal {F}})=\sup _{S=\{z_{1},\dots ,z_{m}\}}\operatorname {Rad} _{S}({\mathcal {F}})} Let P {\displaystyle P} be a probability distribution over Z {\displaystyle Z} . The Rademacher complexity of the function class F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} with respect to P {\displaystyle P} for sample size m {\displaystyle m} is: Rad P , m ⁡ ( F ) := E S ∼ P m [ Rad S ⁡ ( F ) ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {Rad} _{P,m}({\mathcal {F}}):=\mathbb {E} _{S\sim P^{m}}\left[\operatorname {Rad} _{S}({\mathcal {F}})\right]} where the above expectation is taken over an identically independently distributed (i.i.d.) sample S = ( z 1 , z 2 , … , z m ) {\displaystyle S=(z_{1},z_{2},\dots ,z_{m})} generated according to P {\displaystyle P} . == Intuition == The Rademacher complexity is typically applied on a function class of models that are used for classification, with the goal of measuring their ability to classify points drawn from a probability space under arbitrary labellings. When the function class is rich enough, it contains functions that can appropriately adapt for each arrangement of labels, simulated by the random draw of σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}} under the expectation, so that this quantity in the sum is maximized. The Rademacher complexity of a set A {\displaystyle A} can be rewritten as Rad ⁡ ( A ) := 1 m E σ [ sup a ∈ A ∑ i = 1 m σ i a i ] = 1 m 2 m ∑ σ ∈ { − 1 / m , + 1 / m } m [ sup a ∈ A ⟨ σ , a ⟩ ] . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Rad} (A):={\frac {1}{m}}\mathbb {E} _{\sigma }\left[\sup _{a\in A}\sum _{i=1}^{m}\sigma _{i}a_{i}\right]={\frac {1}{{\sqrt {m}}2^{m}}}\sum _{\sigma \in \{-1/{\sqrt {m}},+1/{\sqrt {m}}\}^{m}}\left[\sup _{a\in A}\langle \sigma ,a\rangle \right].} Each term in the summation is the farthest distance of the set A {\displaystyle A} from the origin, along a unit-length direction σ {\displaystyle \sigma } . The directions are along the vertices of a hypercube. Thus, we can also write it as Rad ⁡ ( A ) = 1 2 m 1 2 m − 1 ∑ σ ∈ { − 1 / m , + 1 / m } m / { − 1 , + 1 } [ sup a ∈ A ⟨ σ , a ⟩ − inf a ∈ A ⟨ σ , a ⟩ ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {Rad} (A)={\frac {1}{2{\sqrt {m}}}}{\frac {1}{2^{m-1}}}\sum _{\sigma \in \{-1/{\sqrt {m}},+1/{\sqrt {m}}\}^{m}/\{-1,+1\}}\left[\sup _{a\in A}\langle \sigma ,a\rangle -\inf _{a\in A}\langle \sigma ,a\rangle \right]} Here, the set { − 1 / m , + 1 / m } m / { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle \{-1/{\sqrt {m}},+1/{\sqrt {m}}\}^{m}/\{-1,+1\}} denotes half of the vertices of a hypercube, selected so that each diagonal has exactly one vertex selected. In words, this states that 2 m Rad ⁡ ( A ) {\displaystyle 2{\sqrt {m}}\operatorname {Rad} (A)} is precisely the average width of the set A {\displaystyle A} along all diagonal directions of a hypercube. == Examples == A singleton set has 0 width in any direction, so it has Rademacher complexity 0. The set A = { ( 1 , 1 ) , ( 1 , 2 ) } ⊆ R 2 {\displaystyle A=\{(1,1),(1,2)\}\subseteq \mathbb {R} ^{2}} has average width 1 / 2 {\displaystyle 1/{\sqrt {2}}} along the two diagonal directions of the square, so it has Rademacher complexity 1 / 4 {\displaystyle 1/4} . The unit cube [ 0 , 1 ] m {\displaystyle [0,1]^{m}} has constant width m {\displaystyle {\sqrt {m}}} along the diagonal directions, so it has Rademacher complexity 1 / 2 {\displaystyle 1/2} . Similarly, the unit cross-polytope { x ∈ R m : ‖ x ‖ 1 ≤ 1 } {\displaystyle \{x\in \mathbb {R} ^{m}:\|x\|_{1}\leq 1\}} has constant width 2 / m {\displaystyle 2/{\sqrt {m}}} along the diagonal directions, so it has Rademacher complexity 1 / m {\displaystyle 1/m} . == Using the Rademacher complexity == The Rademacher complexity can be used to derive data-dependent upper-bounds on the learnability of function classes. Intuitively, a function-class with smaller Rademacher complexity is easier to learn. === Bounding the representativeness === In machine learning, it is desired to have a training set that represents the true distribution of some sample data S {\displaystyle S} . This can be quantified using the notion of representativeness. Denote by P {\displaystyle P} the probability distribution from which the samples are drawn. Denote by H {\displaystyle H} the set of hypotheses (potential classifiers) and denote by F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} the corresponding set of error functions, i.e., for every hypothesis h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} , there is a function f h ∈ F {\displaystyle f_{h}\in F} , that maps each training sample (features,label) to the error of the classifier h {\displaystyle h} (note in this case hypothesis and classifier are used interchangeably). For example, in the case that h {\displaystyle h} represents a binary classifier, the error function is a 0–1 loss function, i.e. the error function f h {\displaystyle f_{h}} returns 0 if h {\displaystyle h} correctly classifies a sample and 1 else. We omit the index and write f {\displaystyle f} instead of f h {\displaystyle f_{h}} when the underlying hypothesis is irrelevant. Define: L P ( f ) := E z ∼ P [ f ( z ) ] {\displaystyle L_{P}(f):=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim P}[f(z)]} – the expected error of some error function f ∈ F {\displaystyle f\in {\mathcal {F}}} on the real distribution P {\displaystyle P} ; L S ( f ) := 1 m ∑ i = 1 m f ( z i ) {\displaystyle L_{S}(f):={1 \over m}\sum _{i=1}^{m}f(z_{i})} – the estimated error of some error function f ∈ F {\displaystyle f\in {\mathcal {F}}} on the sample S {\displaystyle S} . The representativeness of the sample S {\displaystyle S} , with respect to P {\displaystyle P} and F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} , is defined as: Rep P ⁡ ( F , S ) := sup f ∈ F ( L P ( f ) − L S ( f ) ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Rep} _{P}({\mathcal {F}},S):=\sup _{f\in F}(L_{P}(f)-L_{S}(f))} Smaller representativeness is better, since it provides a way to avoid overfitting: it means that the true error of a classifier is not much higher than its estimated error, and so selecting a classifier that has low estimated error will ensure that the true error is also low. Note however that the concept of representativeness is relative and hence can not be compared across distinct samples. The expected representativeness of a sample can be bounded above by the Rademacher complexity of the function class: If F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is a set of functions with range within [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} , then Rad P , m ⁡ ( F ) − ln ⁡ 2 2 m ≤ E S ∼ P m [ Rep P ⁡ ( F , S ) ] ≤ 2 Rad P , m ⁡ ( F ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Rad} _{P,m}({\mathcal {F}})-{\sqrt {\frac {\ln 2}{2m}}}\leq \mathbb {E} _{S\sim P^{m}}[\operatorname {Rep} _{P}({\

  Read more →
• 

  Sum of absolute transformed differences

  The sum of absolute transformed differences (SATD) is a block matching criterion widely used in fractional motion estimation for video compression. It works by taking a frequency transform, usually a Hadamard transform, of the differences between the pixels in the original block and the corresponding pixels in the block being used for comparison. The transform itself is often of a small block rather than the entire macroblock. For example, in x264, a series of 4×4 blocks are transformed rather than doing the more processor-intensive 16×16 transform. == Comparison to other metrics == SATD is slower than the sum of absolute differences (SAD), both due to its increased complexity and the fact that SAD-specific MMX and SSE2 instructions exist, while there are no such instructions for SATD. However, SATD can still be optimized considerably with SIMD instructions on most modern CPUs. The benefit of SATD is that it more accurately models the number of bits required to transmit the residual error signal. As such, it is often used in video compressors, either as a way to drive and estimate rate explicitly, such as in the Theora encoder (since 1.1 alpha2), as an optional metric used in wide motion searches, such as in the Microsoft VC-1 encoder, or as a metric used in sub-pixel refinement, such as in x264.

  Read more →
• 

  Correspondence analysis

  Correspondence analysis (CA) is a multivariate statistical technique proposed by Herman Otto Hartley (Hirschfeld) and later developed by Jean-Paul Benzécri. It is conceptually similar to principal component analysis, but applies to categorical rather than continuous data. In a manner similar to principal component analysis, it provides a means of displaying or summarising a set of data in two-dimensional graphical form. Its aim is to display in a biplot any structure hidden in the multivariate setting of the data table. As such it is a technique from the field of multivariate ordination. Since the variant of CA described here can be applied either with a focus on the rows or on the columns it should in fact be called simple (symmetric) correspondence analysis. It is traditionally applied to the contingency table of a pair of nominal variables where each cell contains either a count or a zero value. If more than two categorical variables are to be summarized, a variant called multiple correspondence analysis should be chosen instead. CA may also be applied to binary data given the presence/absence coding represents simplified count data i.e. a 1 describes a positive count and 0 stands for a count of zero. Depending on the scores used CA preserves the chi-square distance between either the rows or the columns of the table. Because CA is a descriptive technique, it can be applied to tables regardless of a significant chi-squared test. Although the χ 2 {\displaystyle \chi ^{2}} statistic used in inferential statistics and the chi-square distance are computationally related they should not be confused since the latter works as a multivariate statistical distance measure in CA while the χ 2 {\displaystyle \chi ^{2}} statistic is in fact a scalar not a metric. == Details == Like principal components analysis, correspondence analysis creates orthogonal components (or axes) and, for each item in a table i.e. for each row, a set of scores (sometimes called factor scores, see Factor analysis). Correspondence analysis is performed on the data table, conceived as matrix C of size m × n where m is the number of rows and n is the number of columns. In the following mathematical description of the method capital letters in italics refer to a matrix while letters in italics refer to vectors. Understanding the following computations requires knowledge of matrix algebra. === Preprocessing === Before proceeding to the central computational step of the algorithm, the values in matrix C have to be transformed. First compute a set of weights for the columns and the rows (sometimes called masses), where row and column weights are given by the row and column vectors, respectively: w m = 1 n C C 1 , w n = 1 n C 1 T C . {\displaystyle w_{m}={\frac {1}{n_{C}}}C\mathbf {1} ,\quad w_{n}={\frac {1}{n_{C}}}\mathbf {1} ^{T}C.} Here n C = ∑ i = 1 n ∑ j = 1 m C i j {\displaystyle n_{C}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\sum _{j=1}^{m}C_{ij}} is the sum of all cell values in matrix C, or short the sum of C, and 1 {\displaystyle \mathbf {1} } is a column vector of ones with the appropriate dimension. Put in simple words, w m {\displaystyle w_{m}} is just a vector whose elements are the row sums of C divided by the sum of C, and w n {\displaystyle w_{n}} is a vector whose elements are the column sums of C divided by the sum of C. The weights are transformed into diagonal matrices W m = diag ⁡ ( 1 / w m ) {\displaystyle W_{m}=\operatorname {diag} (1/{\sqrt {w_{m}}})} and W n = diag ⁡ ( 1 / w n ) {\displaystyle W_{n}=\operatorname {diag} (1/{\sqrt {w_{n}}})} where the diagonal elements of W n {\displaystyle W_{n}} are 1 / w n {\displaystyle 1/{\sqrt {w_{n}}}} and those of W m {\displaystyle W_{m}} are 1 / w m {\displaystyle 1/{\sqrt {w_{m}}}} respectively i.e. the vector elements are the inverses of the square roots of the masses. The off-diagonal elements are all 0. Next, compute matrix P {\displaystyle P} by dividing C {\displaystyle C} by its sum P = 1 n C C . {\displaystyle P={\frac {1}{n_{C}}}C.} In simple words, Matrix P {\displaystyle P} is just the data matrix (contingency table or binary table) transformed into portions i.e. each cell value is just the cell portion of the sum of the whole table. Finally, compute matrix S {\displaystyle S} , sometimes called the matrix of standardized residuals, by matrix multiplication as S = W m ( P − w m w n ) W n {\displaystyle S=W_{m}(P-w_{m}w_{n})W_{n}} Note, the vectors w m {\displaystyle w_{m}} and w n {\displaystyle w_{n}} are combined in an outer product resulting in a matrix of the same dimensions as P {\displaystyle P} . In words the formula reads: matrix outer ⁡ ( w m , w n ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {outer} (w_{m},w_{n})} is subtracted from matrix P {\displaystyle P} and the resulting matrix is scaled (weighted) by the diagonal matrices W m {\displaystyle W_{m}} and W n {\displaystyle W_{n}} . Multiplying the resulting matrix by the diagonal matrices is equivalent to multiply the i-th row (or column) of it by the i-th element of the diagonal of W m {\displaystyle W_{m}} or W n {\displaystyle W_{n}} , respectively. === Interpretation of preprocessing === The vectors w m {\displaystyle w_{m}} and w n {\displaystyle w_{n}} are the row and column masses or the marginal probabilities for the rows and columns, respectively. Subtracting matrix outer ⁡ ( w m , w n ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {outer} (w_{m},w_{n})} from matrix P {\displaystyle P} is the matrix algebra version of double centering the data. Multiplying this difference by the diagonal weighting matrices results in a matrix containing weighted deviations from the origin of a vector space. This origin is defined by matrix outer ⁡ ( w m , w n ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {outer} (w_{m},w_{n})} . In fact matrix outer ⁡ ( w m , w n ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {outer} (w_{m},w_{n})} is identical with the matrix of expected frequencies in the chi-squared test. Therefore S {\displaystyle S} is computationally related to the independence model used in that test. But since CA is not an inferential method the term independence model is inappropriate here. === Orthogonal components === The table S {\displaystyle S} is then decomposed by a singular value decomposition as S = U Σ V ∗ {\displaystyle S=U\Sigma V^{}\,} where U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} are the left and right singular vectors of S {\displaystyle S} and Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is a square diagonal matrix with the singular values σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}} of S {\displaystyle S} on the diagonal. Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is of dimension p ≤ ( min ( m , n ) − 1 ) {\displaystyle p\leq (\min(m,n)-1)} hence U {\displaystyle U} is of dimension m×p and V {\displaystyle V} is of n×p. As orthonormal vectors U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} fulfill U ∗ U = V ∗ V = I {\displaystyle U^{}U=V^{}V=I} . In other words, the multivariate information that is contained in C {\displaystyle C} as well as in S {\displaystyle S} is now distributed across two (coordinate) matrices U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} and a diagonal (scaling) matrix Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } . The vector space defined by them has as number of dimensions p, that is the smaller of the two values, number of rows and number of columns, minus 1. === Inertia === While a principal component analysis may be said to decompose the (co)variance, and hence its measure of success is the amount of (co-)variance covered by the first few PCA axes - measured in eigenvalue -, a CA works with a weighted (co-)variance which is called inertia. The sum of the squared singular values is the total inertia I {\displaystyle \mathrm {I} } of the data table, computed as I = ∑ i = 1 p σ i 2 . {\displaystyle \mathrm {I} =\sum _{i=1}^{p}\sigma _{i}^{2}.} The total inertia I {\displaystyle \mathrm {I} } of the data table can also computed directly from S {\displaystyle S} as I = ∑ i = 1 n ∑ j = 1 m s i j 2 . {\displaystyle \mathrm {I} =\sum _{i=1}^{n}\sum _{j=1}^{m}s_{ij}^{2}.} The amount of inertia covered by the i-th set of singular vectors is ι i {\displaystyle \iota _{i}} , the principal inertia. The higher the portion of inertia covered by the first few singular vectors i.e. the larger the sum of the principal inertiae in comparison to the total inertia, the more successful a CA is. Therefore, all principal inertia values are expressed as portion ϵ i {\displaystyle \epsilon _{i}} of the total inertia ϵ i = σ i 2 / ∑ i = 1 p σ i 2 {\displaystyle \epsilon _{i}=\sigma _{i}^{2}/\sum _{i=1}^{p}\sigma _{i}^{2}} and are presented in the form of a scree plot. In fact a scree plot is just a bar plot of all principal inertia portions ϵ i {\displaystyle \epsilon _{i}} . === Coordinates === To transform the singular vectors to coordinates which preserve the chi-square distances between rows or columns an additional weighting step is necessary. The resulting coordinates are called principal coordinates in CA text books. If principal coordinates are used for

  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 →
• 

  Digital Image Processing with Sound

  DIPS (Digital Image Processing with Sound) is a set of plug-in objects that handle real-time digital image processing in Max/MSP programming environment. Combining with the built-in objects of the environment, DIPS enables to program the interaction between audio and visual events with ease, and supports the realization of interactive multimedia art as well as interactive computer music. == Summary of Features == A plug-in software for Max/MSP (Max 5 and 6) More than 300 Max external objects and abstractions More than 90 OpenGL objects included More than 110 visual effect objects (Dfx library, Core Image Filters) A utility library for the easy of programming (prefix Dlib) A comprehensive set of sample patches, and a detailed tutorial Handling images & movie files (QuickTime, OpenGL) Render and move 3D models (OpenGL) Video signal input (QuickTime, video texture) Video input analysis: motion detect, face tracking (OpenCV, OpenGL) Importing 3D models (.obj file) Importing Quartz Composer files OpenGL Shading Language (GLSL) programming interface Easy integration of visual events using DIPSWindowMixer (OpenGL) == Description == DIPS is a free plug-in software (a set of external objects) for Max/MSP. It supports the designing of the interaction between sound and visual events in Max using Apple’s Core Image, OpenGL and OpenCV technologies, and consequently, provides a powerful and user-friendly programming environment for the creation of interactive multimedia art. DIPS can be used to detect a performer’s motions and to track positions of subtle details, such as the face, mouth, and eyes. It can also be used to measure the distance between objects and a Kinect sensor system, and offers powerful tools for realtime image processing of incoming video stream and stored movie files. In addition, it can be used to create complex images in a virtual three-dimensional space. The DIPS consists of a library of more than 300 Max external objects and abstractions, a comprehensive set of sample patches, and a detailed tutorial. Some of its strong points, in comparison with other similar plug-ins and software, are its ease of programming, power, and efficiency. The sample patches and tutorial contained in the installation package allows composers and artists who are interested in the creation of interactive art to realize sophisticated realtime video effects on a live video signal at their first practice. And because of its ease of programming, it is likely that one will soon acquire skills needed to create state-of-the-art interactive performance works, multimedia installations, interactive multimedia artworks, and Max VJ applications using DIPS. == History == Initially developed by Shu Matsuda in 1997, DIPS was a plug-in software for Max/FTS running on SGI Octane and O2 computers. Since 2000, it has been developed by the DIPS Development Group supervised by Takayuki Rai. Current active group members are Shu Matsuda, Yota Morimoto, Takuto Fukuda, and Keitaro Takahashi. Previously, Chikashi Miyama, Daichi Ando and Takayuki Hamano also contributed to its development. 2013 DIPS5 for Max (Mac OS X) 2009 DIPS4 for Max/MSP (Mac OS X) 2006 DIPS3 for Max/MSP (Mac OS X) 2003 DIPS2 for jMax4 (Mac OS X) 2002 DIPS for jMax2 (Mac OS X & Linux) 2000 DIPS for jMax (Linux)

  Read more →
• 

  Random projection

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

  Read more →
• 

  Neural Networks (journal)

  Neural Networks is a monthly peer-reviewed scientific journal and an official journal of the International Neural Network Society, European Neural Network Society, and Japanese Neural Network Society. == History == The journal was established in 1988 and is published by Elsevier. It covers all aspects of research on artificial neural networks. The founding editor-in-chief was Stephen Grossberg (Boston University). The current editors-in-chief are DeLiang Wang (Ohio State University) and Taro Toyoizumi (RIKEN Center for Brain Science). == Abstracting and indexing == The journal is abstracted and indexed in Scopus and the Science Citation Index Expanded. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2022 impact factor of 7.8.

  Read more →