Toad is a database management toolset from Quest Software for managing relational and non-relational databases using SQL aimed at database developers, database administrators, and data analysts. The Toad toolset runs against Oracle, SQL Server, IBM DB2 (LUW & z/OS), SAP and MySQL. A Toad product for data preparation supports many data platforms. == History == A practicing Oracle DBA, Jim McDaniel, designed Toad for his own use in the mid-1990s. He called it Tool for Oracle Application Developers, shortened to "TOAD". McDaniel initially distributed the tool as shareware and later online as freeware. Quest Software acquired TOAD in October 1998. Quest Software itself was acquired by Dell in 2012 to form Dell Software. In June 2016, Dell announced the sale of their software division, including the Quest business, to Francisco Partners and Elliott Management Corporation. On October 31, 2016, the sale was finalized. On November 1, 2016, the sale of Dell Software to Francisco Partners and Elliott Management was completed, and the company re-launched as Quest Software. == Features == Connection Manager - Allow users to connect natively to the vendor’s database whether on-premise or DBaaS. Browser - Allow users to browse all the different database/schema objects and their properties effective management. Editor - A way to create and maintain scripts and database code with debugging and integration with source control. Unit Testing (Oracle) - Ensures code is functionally tested before it is released into production. Static code review (Oracle) - Ensures code meets required quality level using a rules-based system. SQL Optimization - Provides developers with a way to tune and optimize SQL statements and database code without relying on a DBA. Advanced optimization enables DBAs to tune SQL effectively in production. Scalability testing and database workload replay - Ensures that database code and SQL will scale properly before it gets released into production. == Books == Toad Pocket Reference for Oracle plsql 1st Edition by Jim McDaniel and Patrick McGrath, O'Reilly, 2002 (ISBN 0596003374, ISBN 978-0-596-00337-1) Toad Pocket Reference for Oracle 2nd Edition by Jeff Smith, Bert Scalzo, and Patrick McGrath, O'Reilly, 2005 (ISBN 0596009712, ISBN 978-0-596-00971-7) TOAD Handbook by Bert Scalzo and Dan Hotka, Sams, 2003 (ISBN 0672324865, ISBN 978-0-672-32486-4) TOAD Handbook 2nd Edition by Bert Scalzo and Dan Hotka, Addison-Wesley Professional, 2009 (ISBN 0321649109, ISBN 978-0-321-64910-2). TOAD Handbook 2nd Edition by Bert Scalzo and Dan Hotka, Addison-Wesley Professional, 2009 (ISBN 0321649109, ISBN 978-0-321-64910-2).
Neural field
In machine learning, a neural field (also known as implicit neural representation, neural implicit, or coordinate-based neural network), is a mathematical field that is fully or partially parametrized by a neural network. Initially developed to tackle visual computing tasks, such as rendering or reconstruction (e.g., neural radiance fields), neural fields emerged as a promising strategy to deal with a wider range of problems, including surrogate modelling of partial differential equations, such as in physics-informed neural networks. Differently from traditional machine learning algorithms, such as feed-forward neural networks, convolutional neural networks, or transformers, neural fields do not work with discrete data (e.g. sequences, images, tokens), but map continuous inputs (e.g., spatial coordinates, time) to continuous outputs (i.e., scalars, vectors, etc.). This makes neural fields not only discretization independent, but also easily differentiable. Moreover, dealing with continuous data allows for a significant reduction in space complexity, which translates to a much more lightweight network. == Formulation and training == According to the universal approximation theorem, provided adequate learning, sufficient number of hidden units, and the presence of a deterministic relationship between the input and the output, a neural network can approximate any function to any degree of accuracy. Hence, in mathematical terms, given a field y = Φ ( x ) {\textstyle {\boldsymbol {y}}=\Phi ({\boldsymbol {x}})} , with x ∈ R n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} and y ∈ R m {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {y}}\in \mathbb {R} ^{m}} , a neural field Ψ θ {\displaystyle \Psi _{\theta }} , with parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} , is such that: Ψ θ ( x ) = y ^ ≈ y {\displaystyle \Psi _{\theta }({\boldsymbol {x}})={\hat {\boldsymbol {y}}}\approx {\boldsymbol {y}}} === Training === For supervised tasks, given N {\displaystyle N} examples in the training dataset (i.e., ( x i , y i ) ∈ D t r a i n , i = 1 , … , N {\displaystyle ({\boldsymbol {x_{i}}},{\boldsymbol {y_{i}}})\in {\mathcal {D_{train}}},i=1,\dots ,N} ), the neural field parameters can be learned by minimizing a loss function L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}} (e.g., mean squared error). The parameters θ ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {\theta }}} that satisfy the optimization problem are found as: θ ~ = argmin θ 1 N ∑ ( x i , y i ) ∈ D t r a i n L ( Ψ θ ( x i ) , y i ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {\boldsymbol {\theta }}}={\underset {\boldsymbol {\theta }}{\text{argmin}}}\;{\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{({\boldsymbol {x_{i}}},{\boldsymbol {y_{i}}})\in {\mathcal {D_{train}}}}{\mathcal {L}}(\Psi _{\theta }({\boldsymbol {x}}_{i}),{\boldsymbol {y}}_{i})} Notably, it is not necessary to know the analytical expression of Φ {\displaystyle \Phi } , for the previously reported training procedure only requires input-output pairs. Indeed, a neural field is able to offer a continuous and differentiable surrogate of the true field, even from purely experimental data. Moreover, neural fields can be used in unsupervised settings, with training objectives that depend on the specific task. For example, physics-informed neural networks may be trained on just the residual. === Spectral bias === As for any artificial neural network, neural fields may be characterized by a spectral bias (i.e., the tendency to preferably learn the low frequency content of a field), possibly leading to a poor representation of the ground truth. In order to overcome this limitation, several strategies have been developed. For example, SIREN uses sinusoidal activations, while the Fourier-features approach embeds the input through sines and cosines. == Conditional neural fields == In many real-world cases, however, learning a single field is not enough. For example, when reconstructing 3D vehicle shapes from Lidar data, it is desirable to have a machine learning model that can work with arbitrary shapes (e.g., a car, a bicycle, a truck, etc.). The solution is to include additional parameters, the latent variables (or latent code) z ∈ R d {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {z}}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} , to vary the field and adapt it to diverse tasks. === Latent code production === When dealing with conditional neural fields, the first design choice is represented by the way in which the latent code is produced. Specifically, two main strategies can be identified: Encoder: the latent code is the output of a second neural network, acting as an encoder. During training, the loss function is the objective used to learn the parameters of both the neural field and the encoder. Auto-decoding: each training example has its own latent code, jointly trained with the neural field parameters. When the model has to process new examples (i.e., not originally present in the training dataset), a small optimization problem is solved, keeping the network parameters fixed and only learning the new latent variables. Since the latter strategy requires additional optimization steps at inference time, it sacrifices speed, but keeps the overall model smaller. Moreover, despite being simpler to implement, an encoder may harm the generalization capabilities of the model. For example, when dealing with a physical scalar field f : R 2 → R {\displaystyle f:\mathbb {R} ^{2}\rightarrow \mathbb {R} } (e.g., the pressure of a 2D fluid), an auto-decoder-based conditional neural field can map a single point to the corresponding value of the field, following a learned latent code z {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {z}}} . However, if the latent variables were produced by an encoder, it would require access to the entire set of points and corresponding values (e.g. as a regular grid or a mesh graph), leading to a less robust model. === Global and local conditioning === In a neural field with global conditioning, the latent code does not depend on the input and, hence, it offers a global representation (e.g., the overall shape of a vehicle). However, depending on the task, it may be more useful to divide the domain of x {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}} in several subdomains, and learn different latent codes for each of them (e.g., splitting a large and complex scene in sub-scenes for a more efficient rendering). This is called local conditioning. === Conditioning strategies === There are several strategies to include the conditioning information in the neural field. In the general mathematical framework, conditioning the neural field with the latent variables is equivalent to mapping them to a subset θ ∗ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}^{}} of the neural field parameters: θ ∗ = Γ ( z ) {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}^{}=\Gamma ({\boldsymbol {z}})} In practice, notable strategies are: Concatenation: the neural field receives, as input, the concatenation of the original input x {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}} with the latent codes z {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {z}}} . For feed-forward neural networks, this is equivalent to setting θ ∗ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}^{}} as the bias of the first layer and Γ ( z ) {\displaystyle \Gamma ({\boldsymbol {z}})} as an affine transformation. Hypernetworks: a hypernetwork is a neural network that outputs the parameters of another neural network. Specifically, it consists of approximating Γ ( z ) {\displaystyle \Gamma ({\boldsymbol {z}})} with a neural network Γ ^ γ ( z ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\Gamma }}_{\gamma }({\boldsymbol {z}})} , where γ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\gamma }}} are the trainable parameters of the hypernetwork. This approach is the most general, as it allows to learn the optimal mapping from latent codes to neural field parameters. However, hypernetworks are associated to larger computational and memory complexity, due to the large number of trainable parameters. Hence, leaner approaches have been developed. For example, in the Feature-wise Linear Modulation (FiLM), the hypernetwork only produces scale and bias coefficients for the neural field layers. === Meta-learning === Instead of relying on the latent code to adapt the neural field to a specific task, it is also possible to exploit gradient-based meta-learning. In this case, the neural field is seen as the specialization of an underlying meta-neural-field, whose parameters are modified to fit the specific task, through a few steps of gradient descent. An extension of this meta-learning framework is the CAVIA algorithm, that splits the trainable parameters in context-specific and shared groups, improving parallelization and interpretability, while reducing meta-overfitting. This strategy is similar to the auto-decoding conditional neural field, but the training procedure is substantially different. == Applications == Thanks to the possibility of efficiently modelling diverse mathematical fields with neural networks, neural fields have been applied to a wide range of problems: 3D scene reconstruction: neural fields can be used to model t
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
Gaussian process emulator
In statistics, Gaussian process emulator is one name for a general type of statistical model that has been used in contexts where the problem is to make maximum use of the outputs of a complicated (often non-random) computer-based simulation model. Each run of the simulation model is computationally expensive and each run is based on many different controlling inputs. The variation of the outputs of the simulation model is expected to vary reasonably smoothly with the inputs, but in an unknown way. The overall analysis involves two models: the simulation model, or "simulator", and the statistical model, or "emulator", which notionally emulates the unknown outputs from the simulator. The Gaussian process emulator model treats the problem from the viewpoint of Bayesian statistics. In this approach, even though the output of the simulation model is fixed for any given set of inputs, the actual outputs are unknown unless the computer model is run and hence can be made the subject of a Bayesian analysis. The main element of the Gaussian process emulator model is that it models the outputs as a Gaussian process on a space that is defined by the model inputs. The model includes a description of the correlation or covariance of the outputs, which enables the model to encompass the idea that differences in the output will be small if there are only small differences in the inputs.
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).
Diagnostically acceptable irreversible compression
Diagnostically acceptable irreversible compression (DAIC) is the amount of lossy compression which can be used on a medical image to produce a result that does not prevent the reader from using the image to make a medical diagnosis. The term was first introduced at a workshop on irreversible compression convened by the European Society of Radiology (ESR) in Palma de Mallorca October 13, 2010, the results of which were reported in a subsequent position paper. == Determination == The "amount of compression" in irreversible compression used to be determined by the compression ratio, where the acceptable minimum is determined by the algorithm (typically JPEG or J2K) and the data type (body part and imaging method). Such a definition is easy to follow, and has been used by medical bodies in 2010 around the world. However, its downside is obvious: the compression ratio tells nothing about the real quality of the image, as different compressors can produce vastly different qualities under the same file size. For example, the JPEG format of 1992 can perform as well as many modern formats given newer techniques exploited in mozjpeg and ISO libjpeg, yet they would be lumped together with the legacy encoders in such a scheme. The image compression community has long used objective quality metrics like SSIM to measure the effects of compression. In the absence of good data regarding SSIM, the ESR review of 2010 concluded that it is still difficult to establish a criterion for whether a particular irreversible compression scheme applied with particular parameters to a particular individual image, or category of images, avoids the introduction of some quantifiable risk of a diagnostic error for any particular diagnostic task. A 2017 study showed that a SSIM variant called 4-G-r (4-component, gradient, structural component of SSIM) best reflects changes in images that affect the decision of radiologists out of 16 SSIM variants. A 2020 study shows that visual information fidelity (VIF), feature similarity index (FSIM), and noise quality metric (NQM) best reflect radiologist preferences out of ten metrics. It also mentions that the original version of SSIM works as poorly as a basic root-mean-square distance (RMSD) for this purpose, a result echoed by the 2017 study. The 4-G-r modification is not tested in the study.
Facial recognition system
A facial recognition system is a technology potentially capable of matching a human face from a digital image or a video frame against a database of faces. Such a system is typically employed to authenticate users through ID verification services, and works by pinpointing and measuring facial features from a given image. Development on similar systems began in the 1960s as a form of computer application. Since their inception, facial recognition systems have seen wider uses in recent times on smartphones and in other forms of technology, such as robotics. Because computerized facial recognition involves the measurement of a human's physiological characteristics, facial recognition systems are categorized as biometrics. Although the accuracy of facial recognition systems as a biometric technology is lower than iris recognition, fingerprint image acquisition, palm recognition or voice recognition, it is widely adopted due to its contactless process. Facial recognition systems have been deployed in advanced human–computer interaction, video surveillance, law enforcement, passenger screening, decisions on employment and housing, and automatic indexing of images. Facial recognition systems are employed throughout the world today by governments and private companies. Their effectiveness varies, and some systems have previously been scrapped because of their ineffectiveness. The use of facial recognition systems has also raised controversy, with claims that the systems violate citizens' privacy, commonly make incorrect identifications, encourage gender norms and racial profiling, and do not protect important biometric data. The appearance of synthetic media such as deepfakes has also raised concerns about its security. These claims have led to the ban of facial recognition systems in several cities in the United States. Growing societal concerns led social networking company Meta Platforms to shut down its Facebook facial recognition system in 2021, deleting the face-scan data of more than one billion users. The change represented one of the largest shifts in facial recognition usage in the technology's history. IBM also stopped offering facial recognition technology due to similar concerns. == History of facial recognition technology == Automated facial recognition was pioneered in the 1960s by Woody Bledsoe, Helen Chan Wolf, and Charles Bisson, whose work focused on teaching computers to recognize human faces. Their early facial recognition project was dubbed "man-machine" because a human first needed to establish the coordinates of facial features in a photograph before they could be used by a computer for recognition. Using a graphics tablet, a human would pinpoint facial features coordinates, such as the pupil centers, the inside and outside corners of eyes, and the widows peak in the hairline. The coordinates were used to calculate 20 individual distances, including the width of the mouth and of the eyes. A human could process about 40 pictures an hour, building a database of these computed distances. A computer would then automatically compare the distances for each photograph, calculate the difference between the distances, and return the closed records as a possible match. In 1970, Takeo Kanade publicly demonstrated a face-matching system that located anatomical features such as the chin and calculated the distance ratio between facial features without human intervention. Later tests revealed that the system could not always reliably identify facial features. Nonetheless, interest in the subject grew and in 1977 Kanade published the first detailed book on facial recognition technology. In 1993, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) and the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) established the face recognition technology program FERET to develop "automatic face recognition capabilities" that could be employed in a productive real life environment "to assist security, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel in the performance of their duties." Face recognition systems that had been trialled in research labs were evaluated. The FERET tests found that while the performance of existing automated facial recognition systems varied, a handful of existing methods could viably be used to recognize faces in still images taken in a controlled environment. The FERET tests spawned three US companies that sold automated facial recognition systems. Vision Corporation and Miros Inc were founded in 1994, by researchers who used the results of the FERET tests as a selling point. Viisage Technology was established by an identification card defense contractor in 1996 to commercially exploit the rights to the facial recognition algorithm developed by Alex Pentland at MIT. Following the 1993 FERET face-recognition vendor test, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in West Virginia and New Mexico became the first DMV offices to use automated facial recognition systems to prevent people from obtaining multiple driving licenses using different names. Driver's licenses in the United States were at that point a commonly accepted form of photo identification. DMV offices across the United States were undergoing a technological upgrade and were in the process of establishing databases of digital ID photographs. This enabled DMV offices to deploy the facial recognition systems on the market to search photographs for new driving licenses against the existing DMV database. DMV offices became one of the first major markets for automated facial recognition technology and introduced US citizens to facial recognition as a standard method of identification. The increase of the US prison population in the 1990s prompted U.S. states to established connected and automated identification systems that incorporated digital biometric databases, in some instances this included facial recognition. In 1999, Minnesota incorporated the facial recognition system FaceIT by Visionics into a mug shot booking system that allowed police, judges and court officers to track criminals across the state. Until the 1990s, facial recognition systems were developed primarily by using photographic portraits of human faces. Research on face recognition to reliably locate a face in an image that contains other objects gained traction in the early 1990s with the principal component analysis (PCA). The PCA method of face detection is also known as Eigenface and was developed by Matthew Turk and Alex Pentland. Turk and Pentland combined the conceptual approach of the Karhunen–Loève theorem and factor analysis, to develop a linear model. Eigenfaces are determined based on global and orthogonal features in human faces. A human face is calculated as a weighted combination of a number of Eigenfaces. Because few Eigenfaces were used to encode human faces of a given population, Turk and Pentland's PCA face detection method greatly reduced the amount of data that had to be processed to detect a face. Pentland in 1994 defined Eigenface features, including eigen eyes, eigen mouths and eigen noses, to advance the use of PCA in facial recognition. In 1997, the PCA Eigenface method of face recognition was improved upon using linear discriminant analysis (LDA) to produce Fisherfaces. LDA Fisherfaces became dominantly used in PCA feature based face recognition. While Eigenfaces were also used for face reconstruction. In these approaches no global structure of the face is calculated which links the facial features or parts. Purely feature based approaches to facial recognition were overtaken in the late 1990s by the Bochum system, which used Gabor filter to record the face features and computed a grid of the face structure to link the features. Christoph von der Malsburg and his research team at the University of Bochum developed Elastic Bunch Graph Matching in the mid-1990s to extract a face out of an image using skin segmentation. By 1997, the face detection method developed by Malsburg outperformed most other facial detection systems on the market. The so-called "Bochum system" of face detection was sold commercially on the market as ZN-Face to operators of airports and other busy locations. The software was "robust enough to make identifications from less-than-perfect face views. It can also often see through such impediments to identification as mustaches, beards, changed hairstyles and glasses—even sunglasses". Real-time face detection in video footage became possible in 2001 with the Viola–Jones object detection framework for faces. Paul Viola and Michael Jones combined their face detection method with the Haar-like feature approach to object recognition in digital images to launch AdaBoost, the first real-time frontal-view face detector. By 2015, the Viola–Jones algorithm had been implemented using small low power detectors on handheld devices and embedded systems. Therefore, the Viola–Jones algorithm has not only broadened the practical application of face recognition systems but