Shopping for the best AI headshot generator? An AI headshot generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI headshot generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
PagedAttention
PagedAttention is an attention algorithm for efficient serving of large language models (LLMs). It was introduced in 2023 by Woosuk Kwon and colleagues in the paper Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention, alongside the vLLM serving engine. The method stores the key–value cache used during autoregressive decoding in fixed-size blocks that can be mapped to non-contiguous physical memory, borrowing ideas from virtual memory, paging, and operating system design. == Background == In transformer inference, the key–value cache grows with sequence length and the number of concurrent requests. Kwon et al. argued that earlier serving systems typically reserved contiguous cache regions in advance, which caused reserved space, internal fragmentation, and external fragmentation. In their experiments, the paper reported that the effective memory utilization of previous systems could fall as low as 20.4%. == Description == PagedAttention partitions the cache of each sequence into fixed-size KV blocks. A request's cache is represented as a sequence of logical blocks, while a block table maps those logical blocks to physical GPU-memory blocks. As a result, neighboring logical blocks do not need to be contiguous in physical memory, and new blocks can be allocated on demand as generation proceeds. The design also makes it easier to share cache state across related decoding paths. In vLLM, physical blocks can be reference-counted and shared among requests or branches, with block-granularity copy-on-write used when a shared block must be modified. The original paper applied this design to parallel sampling, beam search, and prompts with shared prefixes. == Mathematical formulation == For a query token i {\displaystyle i} in causal self-attention, the standard attention output can be written as a i j = exp ( q i ⊤ k j / d ) ∑ t = 1 i exp ( q i ⊤ k t / d ) , o i = ∑ j = 1 i a i j v j {\displaystyle a_{ij}={\frac {\exp(\mathbf {q} _{i}^{\top }\mathbf {k} _{j}/{\sqrt {d}})}{\sum _{t=1}^{i}\exp(\mathbf {q} _{i}^{\top }\mathbf {k} _{t}/{\sqrt {d}})}},\;\mathbf {o} _{i}=\sum _{j=1}^{i}a_{ij}\mathbf {v} _{j}} where q i {\displaystyle \mathbf {q} _{i}} , k j {\displaystyle \mathbf {k} _{j}} , and v j {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} _{j}} are the query, key, and value vectors, and d {\displaystyle d} is the attention dimension. If the cache is partitioned into blocks of size B {\displaystyle B} , the key and value blocks may be written as K j = ( k ( j − 1 ) B + 1 , … , k j B ) , V j = ( v ( j − 1 ) B + 1 , … , v j B ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {K} _{j}=(\mathbf {k} _{(j-1)B+1},\ldots ,\mathbf {k} _{jB}),\;\mathbf {V} _{j}=(\mathbf {v} _{(j-1)B+1},\ldots ,\mathbf {v} _{jB})} PagedAttention then performs the computation blockwise: A i j = exp ( q i ⊤ K j / d ) ∑ t = 1 ⌈ i / B ⌉ exp ( q i ⊤ K t / d ) , o i = ∑ j = 1 ⌈ i / B ⌉ V j A i j ⊤ {\displaystyle \mathbf {A} _{ij}={\frac {\exp(\mathbf {q} _{i}^{\top }\mathbf {K} _{j}/{\sqrt {d}})}{\sum _{t=1}^{\lceil i/B\rceil }\exp(\mathbf {q} _{i}^{\top }\mathbf {K} _{t}/{\sqrt {d}})}},\;\mathbf {o} _{i}=\sum _{j=1}^{\lceil i/B\rceil }\mathbf {V} _{j}\mathbf {A} _{ij}^{\top }} where A i j {\displaystyle \mathbf {A} _{ij}} is the vector of attention scores for the j {\displaystyle j} -th KV block. In the formulation given by Kwon et al., this preserves the causal attention calculation while allowing the key and value blocks to reside in non-contiguous physical memory. == Performance and use == The vLLM paper reported that, on its evaluated workloads, the use of PagedAttention and the associated memory-management design improved serving throughput by 2–4× over the compared baselines, including FasterTransformer and Orca, while preserving model outputs. In experiments on OPT-13B with the Alpaca trace, the paper also reported memory savings of 6.1–9.8% for parallel sampling and 37.6–55.2% for beam search through KV-block sharing. A 2024 survey of LLM serving systems described PagedAttention as having become an industry norm in LLM serving frameworks, citing support in TGI, vLLM, and TensorRT-LLM. == Limitations and alternatives == Subsequent work has described trade-offs in the approach. The 2025 vAttention paper argued that PagedAttention requires attention kernels to be rewritten to support paging and increases software complexity, portability issues, redundancy, and execution overhead, proposing instead a memory manager that keeps the cache contiguous in virtual memory while relying on demand paging for physical allocation. === vAttention === Unlike PagedAttention, vAttention does not introduce a different attention rule; it retains the standard attention computation Attention ( q i , K , V ) = softmax ( q i K ⊤ s c a l e ) V . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Attention} (q_{i},K,V)=\operatorname {softmax} \left({\frac {q_{i}K^{\top }}{\mathrm {scale} }}\right)V.} In the notation of Prabhu et al., the key and value tensors for a request seen so far are K , V ∈ R L ′ × ( H × D ) {\displaystyle K,V\in \mathbb {R} ^{L'\times (H\times D)}} , where L ′ {\displaystyle L'} is the context length seen so far, H {\displaystyle H} is the number of KV heads on a worker, and D {\displaystyle D} is the dimension of each KV head. In systems prior to PagedAttention, the K cache (or V cache) at each layer of a worker is typically allocated as a 4D tensor of shape [ B , L , H , D ] , {\displaystyle [B,L,H,D],} where B {\displaystyle B} is batch size and L {\displaystyle L} is the maximum context length supported by the model. vAttention preserves this contiguous virtual-memory view while deferring physical-memory allocation to runtime. A serving framework maintains separate K and V tensors for each layer, so vAttention reserves 2 N {\displaystyle 2N} virtual-memory buffers on a worker, where N {\displaystyle N} is the number of layers managed by that worker. The maximum size of one virtual-memory buffer is B S = B × S , {\displaystyle BS=B\times S,} where S {\displaystyle S} is the maximum size of a single request's per-layer K cache (or V cache) on a worker. The paper defines S = L × H × D × P , {\displaystyle S=L\times H\times D\times P,} where P {\displaystyle P} is the number of bytes needed to store one element. In this formulation, vAttention keeps the KV cache contiguous in virtual memory and relies on demand paging for physical allocation, rather than modifying the attention kernel to operate over non-contiguous KV-cache blocks.
Low-rank approximation
In mathematics, low-rank approximation refers to the process of approximating a given matrix by a matrix of lower rank. More precisely, it is a minimization problem, in which the cost function measures the fit between a given matrix (the data) and an approximating matrix (the optimization variable), subject to a constraint that the approximating matrix has reduced rank. The problem is used for mathematical modeling and data compression. The rank constraint is related to a constraint on the complexity of a model that fits the data. In applications, often there are other constraints on the approximating matrix apart from the rank constraint, e.g., non-negativity and Hankel structure. Low-rank approximation is closely related to numerous other techniques, including principal component analysis, factor analysis, total least squares, latent semantic analysis, orthogonal regression, and dynamic mode decomposition. == Definition == Given structure specification S : R n p → R m × n {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}:\mathbb {R} ^{n_{p}}\to \mathbb {R} ^{m\times n}} , vector of structure parameters p ∈ R n p {\displaystyle p\in \mathbb {R} ^{n_{p}}} , norm ‖ ⋅ ‖ {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|} , and desired rank r {\displaystyle r} , minimize over p ^ ‖ p − p ^ ‖ subject to rank ( S ( p ^ ) ) ≤ r . {\displaystyle {\text{minimize}}\quad {\text{over }}{\widehat {p}}\quad \|p-{\widehat {p}}\|\quad {\text{subject to}}\quad \operatorname {rank} {\big (}{\mathcal {S}}({\widehat {p}}){\big )}\leq r.} == Applications == Linear system identification, in which case the approximating matrix is Hankel structured. Machine learning, in which case the approximating matrix is nonlinearly structured. Recommender systems, in which cases the data matrix has missing values and the approximation is categorical. Distance matrix completion, in which case there is a positive definiteness constraint. Natural language processing, in which case the approximation is nonnegative. Computer algebra, in which case the approximation is Sylvester structured. Matrix product states, in which case the approximation is usually rescaled to have fixed Frobenius norm. == Basic low-rank approximation problem == The unstructured problem with fit measured by the Frobenius norm, i.e., minimize over D ^ ‖ D − D ^ ‖ F subject to rank ( D ^ ) ≤ r {\displaystyle {\text{minimize}}\quad {\text{over }}{\widehat {D}}\quad \|D-{\widehat {D}}\|_{\text{F}}\quad {\text{subject to}}\quad \operatorname {rank} {\big (}{\widehat {D}}{\big )}\leq r} has an analytic solution in terms of the singular value decomposition of the data matrix. The result is referred to as the matrix approximation lemma or Eckart–Young–Mirsky theorem. This problem was originally solved by Erhard Schmidt in the infinite dimensional context of integral operators (although his methods easily generalize to arbitrary compact operators on Hilbert spaces) and later rediscovered by C. Eckart and G. Young. L. Mirsky generalized the result to arbitrary unitarily invariant norms. Let D = U Σ V ⊤ ∈ R m × n , m ≥ n {\displaystyle D=U\Sigma V^{\top }\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times n},\quad m\geq n} be the singular value decomposition of D {\displaystyle D} , where Σ =: diag ( σ 1 , … , σ r ) {\displaystyle \Sigma =:\operatorname {diag} (\sigma _{1},\ldots ,\sigma _{r})} , where r ≤ min { m , n } = n {\displaystyle r\leq \min\{m,n\}=n} , is the m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} rectangular diagonal matrix with r {\displaystyle r} non-zero singular values σ 1 ≥ … ≥ σ r > σ r + 1 = … = σ n = 0 {\displaystyle \sigma _{1}\geq \ldots \geq \sigma _{r}>\sigma _{r+1}=\ldots =\sigma _{n}=0} . For a given k ∈ { 1 , … , r } {\displaystyle k\in \{1,\dots ,r\}} , partition U {\displaystyle U} , Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } , and V {\displaystyle V} as follows: U =: [ U 1 U 2 ] , Σ =: [ Σ 1 0 0 Σ 2 ] , and V =: [ V 1 V 2 ] , {\displaystyle U=:{\begin{bmatrix}U_{1}&U_{2}\end{bmatrix}},\quad \Sigma =:{\begin{bmatrix}\Sigma _{1}&0\\0&\Sigma _{2}\end{bmatrix}},\quad {\text{and}}\quad V=:{\begin{bmatrix}V_{1}&V_{2}\end{bmatrix}},} where U 1 {\displaystyle U_{1}} is m × k {\displaystyle m\times k} , Σ 1 {\displaystyle \Sigma _{1}} is k × k {\displaystyle k\times k} , and V 1 {\displaystyle V_{1}} is n × k {\displaystyle n\times k} . Then the rank k {\displaystyle k} matrix D ^ ∗ := U 1 Σ 1 V 1 ⊤ , {\displaystyle {\widehat {D}}^{}:=U_{1}\Sigma _{1}V_{1}^{\top },} obtained from the truncated singular value decomposition is such that ‖ D − D ^ ∗ ‖ F = min rank ( D ^ ) ≤ k ‖ D − D ^ ‖ F = σ k + 1 2 + ⋯ + σ r 2 . {\displaystyle \|D-{\widehat {D}}^{}\|_{\text{F}}=\min _{\operatorname {rank} ({\widehat {D}})\leq k}\|D-{\widehat {D}}\|_{\text{F}}={\sqrt {\sigma _{k+1}^{2}+\cdots +\sigma _{r}^{2}}}.} The minimizer D ^ ∗ {\displaystyle {\widehat {D}}^{}} is unique if and only if σ k > σ k + 1 {\displaystyle \sigma _{k}>\sigma _{k+1}} . == Proof of Eckart–Young–Mirsky theorem (for spectral norm) == Let A ∈ R m × n {\displaystyle A\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times n}} be a real (possibly rectangular) matrix with m ≤ n {\displaystyle m\leq n} . Suppose that A = U Σ V ⊤ {\displaystyle A=U\Sigma V^{\top }} is the singular value decomposition of A {\displaystyle A} . Recall that U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} are orthogonal matrices, and Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is an m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} diagonal matrix with entries ( σ 1 , σ 2 , ⋯ , σ m ) {\displaystyle (\sigma _{1},\sigma _{2},\cdots ,\sigma _{m})} such that σ 1 ≥ σ 2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ σ m ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \sigma _{1}\geq \sigma _{2}\geq \cdots \geq \sigma _{m}\geq 0} . We claim that the best rank- k {\displaystyle k} approximation to A {\displaystyle A} in the spectral norm, denoted by ‖ ⋅ ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{2}} , is given by A k := ∑ i = 1 k σ i u i v i ⊤ {\displaystyle A_{k}:=\sum _{i=1}^{k}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }} where u i {\displaystyle u_{i}} and v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} denote the i {\displaystyle i} th column of U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} , respectively. First, note that we have ‖ A − A k ‖ 2 = ‖ ∑ i = 1 n σ i u i v i ⊤ − ∑ i = 1 k σ i u i v i ⊤ ‖ 2 = ‖ ∑ i = k + 1 n σ i u i v i ⊤ ‖ 2 = σ k + 1 {\displaystyle \|A-A_{k}\|_{2}=\left\|\sum _{i=1}^{\color {red}{n}}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }-\sum _{i=1}^{\color {red}{k}}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }\right\|_{2}=\left\|\sum _{i=\color {red}{k+1}}^{n}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }\right\|_{2}=\sigma _{k+1}} Therefore, we need to show that if B k = X Y ⊤ {\displaystyle B_{k}=XY^{\top }} where X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} have k {\displaystyle k} columns then ‖ A − A k ‖ 2 = σ k + 1 ≤ ‖ A − B k ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \|A-A_{k}\|_{2}=\sigma _{k+1}\leq \|A-B_{k}\|_{2}} . Since Y {\displaystyle Y} has k {\displaystyle k} columns, then there must be a nontrivial linear combination of the first k + 1 {\displaystyle k+1} columns of V {\displaystyle V} , i.e., w = γ 1 v 1 + ⋯ + γ k + 1 v k + 1 , {\displaystyle w=\gamma _{1}v_{1}+\cdots +\gamma _{k+1}v_{k+1},} such that Y ⊤ w = 0 {\displaystyle Y^{\top }w=0} . Without loss of generality, we can scale w {\displaystyle w} so that ‖ w ‖ 2 = 1 {\displaystyle \|w\|_{2}=1} or (equivalently) γ 1 2 + ⋯ + γ k + 1 2 = 1 {\displaystyle \gamma _{1}^{2}+\cdots +\gamma _{k+1}^{2}=1} . Therefore, ‖ A − B k ‖ 2 2 ≥ ‖ ( A − B k ) w ‖ 2 2 = ‖ A w ‖ 2 2 = γ 1 2 σ 1 2 + ⋯ + γ k + 1 2 σ k + 1 2 ≥ σ k + 1 2 . {\displaystyle \|A-B_{k}\|_{2}^{2}\geq \|(A-B_{k})w\|_{2}^{2}=\|Aw\|_{2}^{2}=\gamma _{1}^{2}\sigma _{1}^{2}+\cdots +\gamma _{k+1}^{2}\sigma _{k+1}^{2}\geq \sigma _{k+1}^{2}.} The result follows by taking the square root of both sides of the above inequality. == Proof of Eckart–Young–Mirsky theorem (for Frobenius norm) == Let A ∈ R m × n {\displaystyle A\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times n}} be a real (possibly rectangular) matrix with m ≤ n {\displaystyle m\leq n} . Suppose that A = U Σ V ⊤ {\displaystyle A=U\Sigma V^{\top }} is the singular value decomposition of A {\displaystyle A} . We claim that the best rank k {\displaystyle k} approximation to A {\displaystyle A} in the Frobenius norm, denoted by ‖ ⋅ ‖ F {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{F}} , is given by A k = ∑ i = 1 k σ i u i v i ⊤ {\displaystyle A_{k}=\sum _{i=1}^{k}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }} where u i {\displaystyle u_{i}} and v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} denote the i {\displaystyle i} th column of U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} , respectively. First, note that we have ‖ A − A k ‖ F 2 = ‖ ∑ i = k + 1 n σ i u i v i ⊤ ‖ F 2 = ∑ i = k + 1 n σ i 2 {\displaystyle \|A-A_{k}\|_{F}^{2}=\left\|\sum _{i=k+1}^{n}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }\right\|_{F}^{2}=\sum _{i=k+1}^{n}\sigma _{i}^{2}} Therefore, we need to show that if B k = X Y ⊤ {\displaystyle B_{k}=XY^{\top }} where X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} have k {\displaystyle k} columns then ‖ A − A k ‖ F 2 = ∑ i = k + 1 n σ i 2 ≤ ‖ A − B k ‖ F 2 . {\displaystyle \|A-A_{k}\|_{F}^{2}=\sum _{i=k+1}^{n}\sigma _{i}^{2}\leq \|A-B_{k}\|_{F}^{2}.} By the triangle inequality with the spectral norm
IDistance
In pattern recognition, iDistance is an indexing and query processing technique for k-nearest neighbor queries on point data in multi-dimensional metric spaces. The kNN query is one of the hardest problems on multi-dimensional data, especially when the dimensionality of the data is high. iDistance is designed to process kNN queries in high-dimensional spaces efficiently and performs extremely well for skewed data distributions, which usually occur in real-life data sets. iDistance employs a two-phase search strategy involving an initial filtering of candidate regions and a subsequent refinement of results, an approach aligned with the Filter and Refine Principle (FRP). This means that the index first prunes the search space to eliminate unlikely candidates, then verifies the true nearest neighbors in a refinement step, following the general FRP paradigm used in database search algorithms. The iDistance index can also be augmented with machine learning models to learn data distributions for improved searching and storage of multi-dimensional data. == Indexing == Building the iDistance index has two steps: A number of reference points in the data space are chosen. There are various ways of choosing reference points. Using cluster centers as reference points is the most efficient way. The data points are partitioned into Voronoi cells based on well-chosen reference points. The distance between a data point and its closest reference point is calculated. This distance plus a scaling value is called the point's iDistance. By this means, points in a multi-dimensional space are mapped to one-dimensional values, and then a B+-tree can be adopted to index the points using the iDistance as the key. The figure on the right shows an example where three reference points (O1, O2, O3) are chosen. The data points are then mapped to a one-dimensional space and indexed in a B+-tree. Various extensions have been proposed to make the selection of reference points for effective query performance, including employing machine learning to learn the identification of reference points. == Query processing == To process a kNN query, the query is mapped to a number of one-dimensional range queries, which can be processed efficiently on a B+-tree. In the above figure, the query Q is mapped to a value in the B+-tree while the kNN search ``sphere" is mapped to a range in the B+-tree. The search sphere expands gradually until the k NNs are found. This corresponds to gradually expanding range searches in the B+-tree. The iDistance technique can be viewed as a way of accelerating the sequential scan. Instead of scanning records from the beginning to the end of the data file, the iDistance starts the scan from spots where the nearest neighbors can be obtained early with a very high probability. == Applications == The iDistance has been used in many applications including Image retrieval Video indexing Similarity search in P2P systems Mobile computing Recommender system == Historical background == The iDistance was first proposed by Cui Yu, Beng Chin Ooi, Kian-Lee Tan and H. V. Jagadish in 2001. Later, together with Rui Zhang, they improved the technique and performed a more comprehensive study on it in 2005.
Teaching dimension
In computational learning theory, the teaching dimension of a concept class C is defined to be max c ∈ C { w C ( c ) } {\displaystyle \max _{c\in C}\{w_{C}(c)\}} , where w C ( c ) {\displaystyle {w_{C}(c)}} is the minimum size of a witness set for c in C. Intuitively, this measures the number of instances that are needed to identify a concept in the class, using supervised learning with examples provided by a helpful teacher who is trying to convey the concept as succinctly as possible. This definition was formulated in 1995 by Sally Goldman and Michael Kearns, based on earlier work by Goldman, Ron Rivest, and Robert Schapire. The teaching dimension of a finite concept class can be used to give a lower and an upper bound on the membership query cost of the concept class. In Stasys Jukna's book "Extremal Combinatorics", a lower bound is given for the teaching dimension in general: Let C be a concept class over a finite domain X. If the size of C is greater than 2 k ( | X | k ) , {\displaystyle 2^{k}{|X| \choose k},} then the teaching dimension of C is greater than k. However, there are more specific teaching models that make assumptions about teacher or learner, and can get lower values for the teaching dimension. For instance, several models are the classical teaching (CT) model, the optimal teacher (OT) model, recursive teaching (RT), preference-based teaching (PBT), and non-clashing teaching (NCT).
Second-order co-occurrence pointwise mutual information
In computational linguistics, second-order co-occurrence pointwise mutual information (SOC-PMI) is a method used to measure semantic similarity, or how close in meaning two words are. The method does not require the two words to appear together in a text. Instead, it works by analyzing the "neighbor" words that typically appear alongside each of the two target words in a large body of text (corpus). If the two target words frequently share the same neighbors, they are considered semantically similar. For example, the words "cemetery" and "graveyard" may not appear in the same sentence often, but they both frequently appear near words like "buried," "dead," and "funeral." SOC-PMI uses this shared context to determine that they have a similar meaning. The method is called "second-order" because it doesn't look at the direct co-occurrence of the target words (which would be first-order), but at the co-occurrence of their neighbors (a second level of association). The strength of these associations is quantified using pointwise mutual information (PMI). == History == The method builds on earlier work like the PMI-IR algorithm, which used the AltaVista search engine to calculate word association probabilities. The key advantage of a second-order approach like SOC-PMI is its ability to measure similarity between words that do not co-occur often, or at all. The British National Corpus (BNC) has been used as a source for word frequencies and contexts for this method. == Methodology == The SOC-PMI algorithm measures the similarity between two words, w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} and w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} , in several steps. === Step 1: Score neighboring words with PMI === First, for each target word ( w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} and w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} ), the algorithm identifies its "neighbor" words within a certain text window (e.g., within 5 words to the left or right) across a large corpus. The strength of the association between a target word t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} and its neighbor w {\displaystyle w} is calculated using pointwise mutual information (PMI). A higher PMI value means the two words appear together more often than would be expected by chance. The PMI between a target word t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} and a neighbor word w {\displaystyle w} is calculated as: f pmi ( t i , w ) = log 2 f b ( t i , w ) × m f t ( t i ) f t ( w ) {\displaystyle f^{\text{pmi}}(t_{i},w)=\log _{2}{\frac {f^{b}(t_{i},w)\times m}{f^{t}(t_{i})f^{t}(w)}}} where: f b ( t i , w ) {\displaystyle f^{b}(t_{i},w)} is the number of times t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} and w {\displaystyle w} appear together in the context window. f t ( t i ) {\displaystyle f^{t}(t_{i})} is the total number of times t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} appears in the corpus. f t ( w ) {\displaystyle f^{t}(w)} is the total number of times w {\displaystyle w} appears in the corpus. m {\displaystyle m} is the total number of tokens (words) in the corpus. === Step 2: Create a semantic 'signature' for each word === For each target word ( w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} and w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} ), the algorithm creates a list of its most significant neighbors. This is done by taking the top β {\displaystyle \beta } neighbor words, sorted in descending order by their PMI score with the target word. This list of top neighbors, X w {\displaystyle X^{w}} , acts as a semantic "signature" for the word w {\displaystyle w} . X w = { X i w } {\displaystyle X^{w}=\{X_{i}^{w}\}} , for i = 1 , 2 , … , β {\displaystyle i=1,2,\ldots ,\beta } The size of this list, β {\displaystyle \beta } , is a parameter of the method. === Step 3: Compare the signatures === The algorithm then compares the signatures of w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} and w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} . It looks for words that are present in both signatures. The similarity of w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} to w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} is calculated by summing the PMI scores of w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} with every word in w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} 's signature list. The β {\displaystyle \beta } -PMI summation function defines this score. The score for w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} with respect to w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} is: f ( w 1 , w 2 , β ) = ∑ i = 1 β ( f pmi ( X i w 1 , w 2 ) ) γ {\displaystyle f(w_{1},w_{2},\beta )=\sum _{i=1}^{\beta }(f^{\text{pmi}}(X_{i}^{w_{1}},w_{2}))^{\gamma }} This sum only includes terms where the PMI value is positive. The exponent γ {\displaystyle \gamma } (with a value > 1) is used to give more weight to neighbors that are more strongly associated with w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} . This calculation is done in both directions: The similarity of w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} with respect to w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} : f ( w 1 , w 2 , β 1 ) = ∑ i = 1 β 1 ( f pmi ( X i w 1 , w 2 ) ) γ {\displaystyle f(w_{1},w_{2},\beta _{1})=\sum _{i=1}^{\beta _{1}}(f^{\text{pmi}}(X_{i}^{w_{1}},w_{2}))^{\gamma }} The similarity of w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} with respect to w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} : f ( w 2 , w 1 , β 2 ) = ∑ i = 1 β 2 ( f pmi ( X i w 2 , w 1 ) ) γ {\displaystyle f(w_{2},w_{1},\beta _{2})=\sum _{i=1}^{\beta _{2}}(f^{\text{pmi}}(X_{i}^{w_{2}},w_{1}))^{\gamma }} === Step 4: Calculate final similarity score === Finally, the total semantic similarity is the average of the two scores from the previous step. S i m ( w 1 , w 2 ) = f ( w 1 , w 2 , β 1 ) β 1 + f ( w 2 , w 1 , β 2 ) β 2 {\displaystyle \mathrm {Sim} (w_{1},w_{2})={\frac {f(w_{1},w_{2},\beta _{1})}{\beta _{1}}}+{\frac {f(w_{2},w_{1},\beta _{2})}{\beta _{2}}}} This score can be normalized to fall between 0 and 1. For example, using this method, the words cemetery and graveyard achieve a high similarity score of 0.986 (with specific parameter settings).
Taguchi loss function
The Taguchi loss function is graphical depiction of loss developed by the Japanese business statistician Genichi Taguchi to describe a phenomenon affecting the value of products produced by a company. Praised by Dr. W. Edwards Deming (the business guru of the 1980s American quality movement), it made clear the concept that quality does not suddenly plummet when, for instance, a machinist exceeds a rigid blueprint tolerance. Instead 'loss' in value progressively increases as variation increases from the intended condition. This was considered a breakthrough in describing quality, and helped fuel the continuous improvement movement. The concept of Taguchi's quality loss function was in contrast with the American concept of quality, popularly known as goal post philosophy, the concept given by American quality guru Phil Crosby. Goal post philosophy emphasizes that if a product feature doesn't meet the designed specifications it is termed as a product of poor quality (rejected), irrespective of amount of deviation from the target value (mean value of tolerance zone). This concept has similarity with the concept of scoring a 'goal' in the game of football or hockey, because a goal is counted 'one' irrespective of the location of strike of the ball in the 'goal post', whether it is in the center or towards the corner. This means that if the product dimension goes out of the tolerance limit the quality of the product drops suddenly. Through his concept of the quality loss function, Taguchi explained that from the customer's point of view this drop of quality is not sudden. The customer experiences a loss of quality the moment product specification deviates from the 'target value'. This 'loss' is depicted by a quality loss function and it follows a parabolic curve mathematically given by L = k(y–m)2, where m is the theoretical 'target value' or 'mean value' and y is the actual size of the product, k is a constant and L is the loss. This means that if the difference between 'actual size' and 'target value' i.e. (y–m) is large, loss would be more, irrespective of tolerance specifications. In Taguchi's view tolerance specifications are given by engineers and not by customers; what the customer experiences is 'loss'. This equation is true for a single product; if 'loss' is to be calculated for multiple products the loss function is given by L = k[S2 + ( y ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {y}}} – m)2], where S2 is the 'variance of product size' and y ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {y}}} is the average product size. == Overview == The Taguchi loss function is important for a number of reasons—primarily, to help engineers better understand the importance of designing for variation.