In mathematics and computer science, the Krohn–Rhodes theory (or algebraic automata theory) is an approach to the study of finite semigroups and automata that seeks to decompose them in terms of elementary components. These components correspond to finite aperiodic semigroups and finite simple groups that are combined in a feedback-free manner (called a "wreath product" or "cascade"). Krohn and Rhodes found a general decomposition for finite automata. The authors discovered and proved an unexpected major result in finite semigroup theory, revealing a deep connection between finite automata and semigroups. Decidability of Krohn-Rhodes complexity long motivated much work in semigroup theory. In June 2024, Stuart Margolis, John Rhodes, and Anne Schilling announced a proof that the complexity is decidable. == Definitions and description of the Krohn–Rhodes theorem == Let T {\displaystyle T} be a semigroup. A semigroup S {\displaystyle S} that is a homomorphic image of a subsemigroup of T {\displaystyle T} is said to be a divisor of T {\displaystyle T} . The Krohn–Rhodes theorem for finite semigroups states that every finite semigroup S {\displaystyle S} is a divisor of a finite alternating wreath product of finite simple groups, each a divisor of S {\displaystyle S} , and finite aperiodic semigroups (which contain no nontrivial subgroups). In the automata formulation, the Krohn–Rhodes theorem for finite automata states that given a finite automaton A {\displaystyle A} with states Q {\displaystyle Q} and input alphabet I {\displaystyle I} , output alphabet U {\displaystyle U} , then one can expand the states to Q ′ {\displaystyle Q'} such that the new automaton A ′ {\displaystyle A'} embeds into a cascade of "simple", irreducible automata: In particular, A {\displaystyle A} is emulated by a feed-forward cascade of (1) automata whose transformation semigroups are finite simple groups and (2) automata that are banks of flip-flops running in parallel. The new automaton A ′ {\displaystyle A'} has the same input and output symbols as A {\displaystyle A} . Here, both the states and inputs of the cascaded automata have a very special hierarchical coordinate form. Moreover, each simple group (prime) or non-group irreducible semigroup (subsemigroup of the flip-flop monoid) that divides the transformation semigroup of A {\displaystyle A} must divide the transformation semigroup of some component of the cascade, and only the primes that must occur as divisors of the components are those that divide A {\displaystyle A} 's transformation semigroup. == Group complexity == The Krohn–Rhodes complexity (also called group complexity or just complexity) of a finite semigroup S is the least number of groups in a wreath product of finite groups and finite aperiodic semigroups of which S is a divisor. All finite aperiodic semigroups have complexity 0, while non-trivial finite groups have complexity 1. In fact, there are semigroups of every non-negative integer complexity. For example, for any n greater than 1, the multiplicative semigroup of all (n+1) × (n+1) upper-triangular matrices over any fixed finite field has complexity n (Kambites, 2007). A major open problem in finite semigroup theory is the decidability of complexity: is there an algorithm that will compute the Krohn–Rhodes complexity of a finite semigroup, given its multiplication table? Upper bounds and ever more precise lower bounds on complexity have been obtained (see, e.g. Rhodes & Steinberg, 2009). Rhodes has conjectured that the problem is decidable. In June 2024, Stuart Margolis, John Rhodes, and Anne Schilling announced a proof in the affirmative of the conjecture, though as of 2025 the result has yet to be confirmed. == History and applications == At a conference in 1962, Kenneth Krohn and John Rhodes announced a method for decomposing a (deterministic) finite automaton into "simple" components that are themselves finite automata. This joint work, which has implications for philosophy, comprised both Krohn's doctoral thesis at Harvard University and Rhodes' doctoral thesis at MIT. Simpler proofs, and generalizations of the theorem to infinite structures, have been published since then (see Chapter 4 of Rhodes and Steinberg's 2009 book The q-Theory of Finite Semigroups for an overview). In the 1965 paper by Krohn and Rhodes, the proof of the theorem on the decomposition of finite automata (or, equivalently sequential machines) made extensive use of the algebraic semigroup structure. Later proofs contained major simplifications using finite wreath products of finite transformation semigroups. The theorem generalizes the Jordan–Hölder decomposition for finite groups (in which the primes are the finite simple groups), to all finite transformation semigroups (for which the primes are again the finite simple groups plus all subsemigroups of the "flip-flop" (see above)). Both the group and more general finite automata decomposition require expanding the state-set of the general, but allow for the same number of input symbols. In the general case, these are embedded in a larger structure with a hierarchical "coordinate system". One must be careful in understanding the notion of "prime" as Krohn and Rhodes explicitly refer to their theorem as a "prime decomposition theorem" for automata. The components in the decomposition, however, are not prime automata (with prime defined in a naïve way); rather, the notion of prime is more sophisticated and algebraic: the semigroups and groups associated to the constituent automata of the decomposition are prime (or irreducible) in a strict and natural algebraic sense with respect to the wreath product (Eilenberg, 1976). Also, unlike earlier decomposition theorems, the Krohn–Rhodes decompositions usually require expansion of the state-set, so that the expanded automaton covers (emulates) the one being decomposed. These facts have made the theorem difficult to understand and challenging to apply in a practical way—until recently, when computational implementations became available (Egri-Nagy & Nehaniv 2005, 2008). H.P. Zeiger (1967) proved an important variant called the holonomy decomposition (Eilenberg 1976). The holonomy method appears to be relatively efficient and has been implemented computationally by A. Egri-Nagy (Egri-Nagy & Nehaniv 2005). Meyer and Thompson (1969) give a version of Krohn–Rhodes decomposition for finite automata that is equivalent to the decomposition previously developed by Hartmanis and Stearns, but for useful decompositions, the notion of expanding the state-set of the original automaton is essential (for the non-permutation automata case). Many proofs and constructions now exist of Krohn–Rhodes decompositions (e.g., [Krohn, Rhodes & Tilson 1968], [Ésik 2000], [Diekert et al. 2012]), with the holonomy method the most popular and efficient in general (although not in all cases). [Zimmermann 2010] gives an elementary proof of the theorem. Owing to the close relation between monoids and categories, a version of the Krohn–Rhodes theorem is applicable to category theory. This observation and a proof of an analogous result were offered by Wells (1980). The Krohn–Rhodes theorem for semigroups/monoids is an analogue of the Jordan–Hölder theorem for finite groups (for semigroups/monoids rather than groups). As such, the theorem is a deep and important result in semigroup/monoid theory. The theorem was also surprising to many mathematicians and computer scientists since it had previously been widely believed that the semigroup/monoid axioms were too weak to admit a structure theorem of any strength, and prior work (Hartmanis & Stearns) was only able to show much more rigid and less general decomposition results for finite automata. Work by Egri-Nagy and Nehaniv (2005, 2008–) continues to further automate the holonomy version of the Krohn–Rhodes decomposition extended with the related decomposition for finite groups (so-called Frobenius–Lagrange coordinates) using the computer algebra system GAP. Applications outside of the semigroup and monoid theories are now computationally feasible. They include computations in biology and biochemical systems (e.g. Egri-Nagy & Nehaniv 2008), artificial intelligence, finite-state physics, psychology, and game theory (see, for example, Rhodes 2009).
Landweber iteration
The Landweber iteration or Landweber algorithm is an algorithm to solve ill-posed linear inverse problems, and it has been extended to solve non-linear problems that involve constraints. The method was first proposed in the 1950s by Louis Landweber, and it can be now viewed as a special case of many other more general methods. == Basic algorithm == The original Landweber algorithm attempts to recover a signal x from (noisy) measurements y. The linear version assumes that y = A x {\displaystyle y=Ax} for a linear operator A. When the problem is in finite dimensions, A is just a matrix. When A is nonsingular, then an explicit solution is x = A − 1 y {\displaystyle x=A^{-1}y} . However, if A is ill-conditioned, the explicit solution is a poor choice since it is sensitive to any noise in the data y. If A is singular, this explicit solution doesn't even exist. The Landweber algorithm is an attempt to regularize the problem, and is one of the alternatives to Tikhonov regularization. We may view the Landweber algorithm as solving: min x ‖ A x − y ‖ 2 2 / 2 {\displaystyle \min _{x}\|Ax-y\|_{2}^{2}/2} using an iterative method. The algorithm is given by the update x k + 1 = x k − ω A ∗ ( A x k − y ) . {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\omega A^{}(Ax_{k}-y).} where the relaxation factor ω {\displaystyle \omega } satisfies 0 < ω < 2 / σ 1 2 {\displaystyle 0<\omega <2/\sigma _{1}^{2}} . Here σ 1 {\displaystyle \sigma _{1}} is the largest singular value of A {\displaystyle A} . If we write f ( x ) = ‖ A x − y ‖ 2 2 / 2 {\displaystyle f(x)=\|Ax-y\|_{2}^{2}/2} , then the update can be written in terms of the gradient x k + 1 = x k − ω ∇ f ( x k ) {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\omega \nabla f(x_{k})} and hence the algorithm is a special case of gradient descent. For ill-posed problems, the iterative method needs to be stopped at a suitable iteration index, because it semi-converges. This means that the iterates approach a regularized solution during the first iterations, but become unstable in further iterations. The reciprocal of the iteration index 1 / k {\displaystyle 1/k} acts as a regularization parameter. A suitable parameter is found, when the mismatch ‖ A x k − y ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \|Ax_{k}-y\|_{2}^{2}} approaches the noise level. Using the Landweber iteration as a regularization algorithm has been discussed in the literature. == Nonlinear extension == In general, the updates generated by x k + 1 = x k − τ ∇ f ( x k ) {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\tau \nabla f(x_{k})} will generate a sequence f ( x k ) {\displaystyle f(x_{k})} that converges to a minimizer of f whenever f is convex and the stepsize τ {\displaystyle \tau } is chosen such that 0 < τ < 2 / ( ‖ ∇ f ‖ 2 ) {\displaystyle 0<\tau <2/(\|\nabla f\|^{2})} where ‖ ⋅ ‖ {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|} is the spectral norm. Since this is special type of gradient descent, there currently is not much benefit to analyzing it on its own as the nonlinear Landweber, but such analysis was performed historically by many communities not aware of unifying frameworks. The nonlinear Landweber problem has been studied in many papers in many communities; see, for example. == Extension to constrained problems == If f is a convex function and C is a convex set, then the problem min x ∈ C f ( x ) {\displaystyle \min _{x\in C}f(x)} can be solved by the constrained, nonlinear Landweber iteration, given by: x k + 1 = P C ( x k − τ ∇ f ( x k ) ) {\displaystyle x_{k+1}={\mathcal {P}}_{C}(x_{k}-\tau \nabla f(x_{k}))} where P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} is the projection onto the set C. Convergence is guaranteed when 0 < τ < 2 / ( ‖ A ‖ 2 ) {\displaystyle 0<\tau <2/(\|A\|^{2})} . This is again a special case of projected gradient descent (which is a special case of the forward–backward algorithm) as discussed in. == Applications == Since the method has been around since the 1950s, it has been adopted and rediscovered by many scientific communities, especially those studying ill-posed problems. In X-ray computed tomography it is called simultaneous iterative reconstruction technique (SIRT). It has also been used in the computer vision community and the signal restoration community. It is also used in image processing, since many image problems, such as deconvolution, are ill-posed. Variants of this method have been used also in sparse approximation problems and compressed sensing settings.
Devi Parikh
Devi Parikh is an American computer scientist. == Career == Parikh earned her PhD in Electrical and Computer Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. She has served as a professor at Virginia Tech and Georgia Tech, and as of 2022 she is a research director at Meta. == Research == Parikh's research focuses on computer vision and natural language processing. In 2015, Parikh and her students at Virginia Tech worked on AI for Visual Question Answering (VQA). This technology allows users to ask questions about pictures, e.g. "Is this a vegetarian pizza?" Parikh's VQA dataset has been used to evaluate over 30 AI models. In 2017, Parikh published a conversational agent called ParlAI. In 2020, she developed an AI system that generates dance moves in sync with songs. In 2022, Parikh and a team at Meta developed Make-a-Video, a text-to-video AI model that is based on the diffusion algorithm. == Awards == 2017 IJCAI Computers and Thought Award 2011 ICCV Best-Paper Award ("Marr Prize")
Jared Kaplan
Jared Daniel Kaplan is a theoretical physicist and artificial intelligence researcher. He is an associate professor in the Johns Hopkins University Department of Physics & Astronomy, and a co-founder and chief science officer of Anthropic. == Education == Kaplan attended the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy during high school. He received a bachelor's degree in physics and mathematics from Stanford University and a PhD in physics from Harvard University. His doctoral thesis is titled Aspects of holography, advised by Nima Arkani-Hamed. == Academic career and physics research == Kaplan’s research interests include quantum gravity, holography (AdS/CFT), conformal field theory, and related topics in particle physics and cosmology. He worked as a postdoctoral fellow at SLAC and Stanford University and has been a professor at Johns Hopkins University since 2012. == Machine learning research == Kaplan joined OpenAI in 2019 as a researcher, where he co-authored Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models (2020), which reported that empirically, the performance of language models steadily improves with their size and the amount of data and compute used for training. He is also a co-author of Language Models are Few-Shot Learners (2020), which introduced GPT-3. At the company, he was also involved in the development of Codex. == Anthropic == Kaplan co-founded Anthropic and serves as its chief science officer. In October 2024, Anthropic announced that Kaplan would serve as the company's "Responsible Scaling Officer", overseeing its responsible scaling policy (RSP). In this role, Kaplan determines the safety assessments and precautions to adopt before model release. In December 2025, The Guardian published an interview with Kaplan about AI autonomy and recursive self-improvement timelines. == Honors and recognition == Kaplan was a Hertz Fellow (2005). He has also received a Sloan Research Fellowship and an NSF CAREER award (PHY-1454083). == Selected works == Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models (2020). Language Models are Few-Shot Learners (2020). A Natural Language for AdS/CFT Correlators (2011). == Personal life == As of 2026, Forbes estimated Kaplan's net worth at $3.7 billion. He lives in Pacifica, California, and has a son.
Ocrad
Ocrad is an optical character recognition program and part of the GNU Project. It is free software licensed under the GNU GPL. Based on a feature extraction method, it reads images in portable pixmap formats known as Portable anymap and produces text in byte (8-bit) or UTF-8 formats. Also included is a layout analyser, able to separate the columns or blocks of text normally found on printed pages. == User interface == Ocrad can be used as a stand-alone command-line application or as a back-end to other programs. Kooka, which was the KDE environment's default scanning application until KDE 4, can use Ocrad as its OCR engine. Since conversion to newer Qt versions, current versions of KDE no longer contain Kooka; development continues in the KDE git repository. Ocrad can be also used as an OCR engine in OCRFeeder. == History == Ocrad has been developed by Antonio Diaz Diaz since 2003. Version 0.7 was released in February 2004, 0.14 in February 2006 and 0.18 in May 2009. It is written in C++. Archives of the bug-ocrad mailing list go back to October 2003.
Spectral shape analysis
Spectral shape analysis relies on the spectrum (eigenvalues and/or eigenfunctions) of the Laplace–Beltrami operator to compare and analyze geometric shapes. Since the spectrum of the Laplace–Beltrami operator is invariant under isometries, it is well suited for the analysis or retrieval of non-rigid shapes, i.e. bendable objects such as humans, animals, plants, etc. == Laplace == The Laplace–Beltrami operator is involved in many important differential equations, such as the heat equation and the wave equation. It can be defined on a Riemannian manifold as the divergence of the gradient of a real-valued function f: Δ f := div grad f . {\displaystyle \Delta f:=\operatorname {div} \operatorname {grad} f.} Its spectral components can be computed by solving the Helmholtz equation (or Laplacian eigenvalue problem): Δ φ i + λ i φ i = 0. {\displaystyle \Delta \varphi _{i}+\lambda _{i}\varphi _{i}=0.} The solutions are the eigenfunctions φ i {\displaystyle \varphi _{i}} (modes) and corresponding eigenvalues λ i {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}} , representing a diverging sequence of positive real numbers. The first eigenvalue is zero for closed domains or when using the Neumann boundary condition. For some shapes, the spectrum can be computed analytically (e.g. rectangle, flat torus, cylinder, disk or sphere). For the sphere, for example, the eigenfunctions are the spherical harmonics. The most important properties of the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions are that they are isometry invariants. In other words, if the shape is not stretched (e.g. a sheet of paper bent into the third dimension), the spectral values will not change. Bendable objects, like animals, plants and humans, can move into different body postures with only minimal stretching at the joints. The resulting shapes are called near-isometric and can be compared using spectral shape analysis. == Discretizations == Geometric shapes are often represented as 2D curved surfaces, 2D surface meshes (usually triangle meshes) or 3D solid objects (e.g. using voxels or tetrahedra meshes). The Helmholtz equation can be solved for all these cases. If a boundary exists, e.g. a square, or the volume of any 3D geometric shape, boundary conditions need to be specified. Several discretizations of the Laplace operator exist (see Discrete Laplace operator) for the different types of geometry representations. Many of these operators do not approximate well the underlying continuous operator. == Spectral shape descriptors == === ShapeDNA and its variants === The ShapeDNA is one of the first spectral shape descriptors. It is the normalized beginning sequence of the eigenvalues of the Laplace–Beltrami operator. Its main advantages are the simple representation (a vector of numbers) and comparison, scale invariance, and in spite of its simplicity a very good performance for shape retrieval of non-rigid shapes. Competitors of shapeDNA include singular values of Geodesic Distance Matrix (SD-GDM) and Reduced BiHarmonic Distance Matrix (R-BiHDM). However, the eigenvalues are global descriptors, therefore the shapeDNA and other global spectral descriptors cannot be used for local or partial shape analysis. === Global point signature (GPS) === The global point signature at a point x {\displaystyle x} is a vector of scaled eigenfunctions of the Laplace–Beltrami operator computed at x {\displaystyle x} (i.e. the spectral embedding of the shape). The GPS is a global feature in the sense that it cannot be used for partial shape matching. === Heat kernel signature (HKS) === The heat kernel signature makes use of the eigen-decomposition of the heat kernel: h t ( x , y ) = ∑ i = 0 ∞ exp ( − λ i t ) φ i ( x ) φ i ( y ) . {\displaystyle h_{t}(x,y)=\sum _{i=0}^{\infty }\exp(-\lambda _{i}t)\varphi _{i}(x)\varphi _{i}(y).} For each point on the surface the diagonal of the heat kernel h t ( x , x ) {\displaystyle h_{t}(x,x)} is sampled at specific time values t j {\displaystyle t_{j}} and yields a local signature that can also be used for partial matching or symmetry detection. === Wave kernel signature (WKS) === The WKS follows a similar idea to the HKS, replacing the heat equation with the Schrödinger wave equation. === Improved wave kernel signature (IWKS) === The IWKS improves the WKS for non-rigid shape retrieval by introducing a new scaling function to the eigenvalues and aggregating a new curvature term. === Spectral graph wavelet signature (SGWS) === SGWS is a local descriptor that is not only isometric invariant, but also compact, easy to compute and combines the advantages of both band-pass and low-pass filters. An important facet of SGWS is the ability to combine the advantages of WKS and HKS into a single signature, while allowing a multiresolution representation of shapes. == Spectral Matching == The spectral decomposition of the graph Laplacian associated with complex shapes (see Discrete Laplace operator) provides eigenfunctions (modes) which are invariant to isometries. Each vertex on the shape could be uniquely represented with a combinations of the eigenmodal values at each point, sometimes called spectral coordinates: s ( x ) = ( φ 1 ( x ) , φ 2 ( x ) , … , φ N ( x ) ) for vertex x . {\displaystyle s(x)=(\varphi _{1}(x),\varphi _{2}(x),\ldots ,\varphi _{N}(x)){\text{ for vertex }}x.} Spectral matching consists of establishing the point correspondences by pairing vertices on different shapes that have the most similar spectral coordinates. Early work focused on sparse correspondences for stereoscopy. Computational efficiency now enables dense correspondences on full meshes, for instance between cortical surfaces. Spectral matching could also be used for complex non-rigid image registration, which is notably difficult when images have very large deformations. Such image registration methods based on spectral eigenmodal values indeed capture global shape characteristics, and contrast with conventional non-rigid image registration methods which are often based on local shape characteristics (e.g., image gradients).
How to Choose an AI Photo Editor
In search of the best AI photo editor? An AI photo editor is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI photo editor slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.