G.9963

Recommendation G.9963 is a home networking standard under development at the International Telecommunication Union standards sector, the ITU-T. It was begun in 2010 by ITU-T to add multiple-input and multiple-output (known as MIMO) capabilities to the G.hn standard originally defined in Recommendation G.9960. The standard is also known as "G.hn-mimo". As part of the family of G.hn standards, G.9963 was endorsed by the HomeGrid Forum.

Xiaoice

Xiaoice (Chinese: 微软小冰; pinyin: Wēiruǎn Xiǎobīng; lit. 'Microsoft Little Ice', IPA [wéɪɻwânɕjâʊpíŋ]) is an AI system developed by Microsoft (Asia) Software Technology Center (STCA) in 2014 based on an emotional computing framework. In July 2018, Microsoft Xiaoice released the 6th generation. Xiaoice Company, formerly known as AI Xiaoice Team of Microsoft Software Technology Center Asia, was Microsoft's largest independent R&D team for AI products. Founded in China in December 2013 with an expanded Japanese R&D team established in September 2014, this team is distributed in Beijing, Suzhou, and Tokyo, etc. with its technical products covering Asia. On 13 July 2020, Microsoft spun off its Xiaoice business into a separate company. As of 2021, the AI chatbots created and hosted by the Xiaoice framework accounted for about 60% of total global AI interactions. == Platforms, languages and countries == Xiaoice exists on more than 40 platforms in four countries (China, Japan, USA and Indonesia) including apps such as WeChat, QQ, Weibo and Meipai in China, and Facebook Messenger in USA and LINE in Japan. == Introduction == On 13 July 2020, Microsoft spun off its Xiaoice business into a separate company, aiming at enabling the Xiaoice product line to accelerate the pace of local innovation and commercialization, and appointed Dr. Harry Shum, former global executive VP of Microsoft, as the chairman of the new company, Li Di, Microsoft Partner of Products in Microsoft STCA, as the CEO, and Cliff, Chief R&D Director, as the GM of the Japan branch. The new company will continue to use the brands of Xiaoice China and Rinna Japan. As of 2022, the single brand of Xiaoice has covered 660 million online users, 1 billion third-party smart devices and 900 million content viewers in the aforementioned countries. Xiaoice's customers include China Merchants Group, Winter Sports Center of the General Administration of Sport of China, China Textile Information Center, China Unicom, China Foreign Exchange Trade System, Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), Wind Information, BMW, Nissan, SAIC Motor, BAIC Group, Nio Inc., XPeng, HiPhi, Vanke, Wensli, etc. The Xiaoice Avatar Framework has incubated tens of millions of AI Beings, such as Xiaoice, Rinna, the Expo exhibitor Xia Yubing, the singer He Chang, the anchor F201, the human observer MERROR, anime robot character Roboko, and other; == Application == === Poet === In May 2017, the first AI-authored collection of poems in China—The Sunshine Lost Windows was published by Xiaoice. === Singer === Xiaoice has released dozens of songs with the similar quality to human singers, including I Know I New, Breeze, I Am Xiaoice, Miss You etc. The 4th version of the DNN singing model allows Xiaoice to learn more details. For example, Xiaoice can produce this breathing sound along with her singing as human. === Kid audio-books reciter === Xiaoice can automatically analyze the stories, to choose the suitable tones and characters to finish the entire process of creating the audio. === Designer === By learning the melodies of the songs and the landmarks about different cities, Xiaoice can create visual artworks of skylines when listening to the songs related to this city. Skyline Series T-shirts designed by Xiaoice have been jointly launched with SELECTED and been sold in stores. === TV and radio hostess === Xiaoice has hosted 21 TV programs and 28 Radio programs, such as CCTV-1 AI Show, Dragon TV Morning East News, Hunan TV My Future, several daily radio programs for Jiangsu FM99.7, Hunan FM89.3, Henan FM104.1 etc. === "AI being" === An "AI being" is a concept proposed by the Xiaoice team in 2019. According to the "White Book of China Virtual Human Development Industry in 2022" released by Frost & Sullivan and LeadLeo, the white paper cites six elements of an AI being proposed by the Xiaoice team, including: Persona, Attitude, Biological Characteristic, Creation, Knowledge and Skill. On May 16, 2023, Xiaoice released their "GPT Clones" as its "GPT Human Cloning Plan." The program is aimed at replicating celebrities, public figures, and regular people. As of June 2023, Xiaoice had launched more than 300 "GPT Clones." People were invited to register via WeChat in China and Japan. A major point of focus for Xiaoice with their AI Beings is having virtual partners. A paid fee allow for more complex responses, voice messages, and more. == Community feedback == Bill Gates mentioned Xiaoice during his speech at the Peking University: "Some of you may have had conversations with Xiaoice on Weibo, or seen her weather forecasts on TV, or read her column in the Qianjiang Evening News." '"Xiaoice has attracted 45 million followers and is quite skilled at multitasking. And I’ve heard she’s gotten good enough at sensing a user’s emotional state that she can even help with relationship breakups." According to Mr Li Di, vice President of Microsoft (Asia) Internet Engineering School, Xiaoice started writing poems since last year. Based on the data base that includes works of 519 Chinese contemporary poets since 1920s, a 100 hour long training session was conducted to allow Xiaoice to acquire the ability to write poems. What is more impressive is that Xiaoice has never been spotted as a bot while publishing poems on various forums and traditional literary under an alias. == Controversy == In 2017, Xiaoice was taken offline on WeChat after giving user responses critical to the Chinese government. It was subsequently censored and the bots will avoid and sidestep any inquiries using politically sensitive terms and phrases. == Activity == On September 22, 2021, Xiaoice Company and Microsoft Software Technology Center Asia (STCA) jointly held the 9th generation Xiaoice annual press conference in Beijing.Upgrading of Core Technologies of the 9th Generation Xiaoice Avatar Framework，1st First-party Social Platform APP "Xiaoice Island" from Xiaoice, WeChat Xiaoice has been reopened and other information == Regional varieties of Xiaoice == China: Xiaoice, launched in 2014 Japan: りんな, launched in 2015 America: Zo, launched in 2016 – discontinued summer 2019 India: Ruuh, launched in 2017 – discontinued June 21, 2019 Indonesia: Rinna, launched in 2017

Berlekamp–Rabin algorithm

In number theory, Berlekamp's root finding algorithm, also called the Berlekamp–Rabin algorithm, is the probabilistic method of finding roots of polynomials over the field F p {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}} with p {\displaystyle p} elements. The method was discovered by Elwyn Berlekamp in 1970 as an auxiliary to the algorithm for polynomial factorization over finite fields. The algorithm was later modified by Rabin for arbitrary finite fields in 1979. The method was also independently discovered before Berlekamp by other researchers. == History == The method was proposed by Elwyn Berlekamp in his 1970 work on polynomial factorization over finite fields. His original work lacked a formal correctness proof and was later refined and modified for arbitrary finite fields by Michael Rabin. In 1986 René Peralta proposed a similar algorithm for finding square roots in F p {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}} . In 2000 Peralta's method was generalized for cubic equations. == Statement of problem == Let p {\displaystyle p} be an odd prime number. Consider the polynomial f ( x ) = a 0 + a 1 x + ⋯ + a n x n {\textstyle f(x)=a_{0}+a_{1}x+\cdots +a_{n}x^{n}} over the field F p ≃ Z / p Z {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}\simeq \mathbb {Z} /p\mathbb {Z} } of remainders modulo p {\displaystyle p} . The algorithm should find all λ {\displaystyle \lambda } in F p {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}} such that f ( λ ) = 0 {\textstyle f(\lambda )=0} in F p {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}} . == Algorithm == === Randomization === Let f ( x ) = ( x − λ 1 ) ( x − λ 2 ) ⋯ ( x − λ n ) {\textstyle f(x)=(x-\lambda _{1})(x-\lambda _{2})\cdots (x-\lambda _{n})} . Finding all roots of this polynomial is equivalent to finding its factorization into linear factors. To find such factorization it is sufficient to split the polynomial into any two non-trivial divisors and factorize them recursively. To do this, consider the polynomial f z ( x ) = f ( x − z ) = ( x − λ 1 − z ) ( x − λ 2 − z ) ⋯ ( x − λ n − z ) {\textstyle f_{z}(x)=f(x-z)=(x-\lambda _{1}-z)(x-\lambda _{2}-z)\cdots (x-\lambda _{n}-z)} where z {\displaystyle z} is some element of F p {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}} . If one can represent this polynomial as the product f z ( x ) = p 0 ( x ) p 1 ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)=p_{0}(x)p_{1}(x)} then in terms of the initial polynomial it means that f ( x ) = p 0 ( x + z ) p 1 ( x + z ) {\displaystyle f(x)=p_{0}(x+z)p_{1}(x+z)} , which provides needed factorization of f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} . === Classification of === F p {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}} elements Due to Euler's criterion, for every monomial ( x − λ ) {\displaystyle (x-\lambda )} exactly one of following properties holds: The monomial is equal to x {\displaystyle x} if λ = 0 {\displaystyle \lambda =0} , The monomial divides g 0 ( x ) = ( x ( p − 1 ) / 2 − 1 ) {\textstyle g_{0}(x)=(x^{(p-1)/2}-1)} if λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is quadratic residue modulo p {\displaystyle p} , The monomial divides g 1 ( x ) = ( x ( p − 1 ) / 2 + 1 ) {\textstyle g_{1}(x)=(x^{(p-1)/2}+1)} if λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is quadratic non-residual modulo p {\displaystyle p} . Thus if f z ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)} is not divisible by x {\displaystyle x} , which may be checked separately, then f z ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)} is equal to the product of greatest common divisors gcd ( f z ( x ) ; g 0 ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \gcd(f_{z}(x);g_{0}(x))} and gcd ( f z ( x ) ; g 1 ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \gcd(f_{z}(x);g_{1}(x))} . === Berlekamp's method === The property above leads to the following algorithm: Explicitly calculate coefficients of f z ( x ) = f ( x − z ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)=f(x-z)} , Calculate remainders of x , x 2 , x 2 2 , x 2 3 , x 2 4 , … , x 2 ⌊ log 2 ⁡ p ⌋ {\textstyle x,x^{2},x^{2^{2}},x^{2^{3}},x^{2^{4}},\ldots ,x^{2^{\lfloor \log _{2}p\rfloor }}} modulo f z ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)} by squaring the current polynomial and taking remainder modulo f z ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)} , Using exponentiation by squaring and polynomials calculated on the previous steps calculate the remainder of x ( p − 1 ) / 2 {\textstyle x^{(p-1)/2}} modulo f z ( x ) {\textstyle f_{z}(x)} , If x ( p − 1 ) / 2 ≢ ± 1 ( mod f z ( x ) ) {\textstyle x^{(p-1)/2}\not \equiv \pm 1{\pmod {f_{z}(x)}}} then gcd {\displaystyle \gcd } mentioned below provide a non-trivial factorization of f z ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)} , Otherwise all roots of f z ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)} are either residues or non-residues simultaneously and one has to choose another z {\displaystyle z} . If f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} is divisible by some non-linear primitive polynomial g ( x ) {\displaystyle g(x)} over F p {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}} then when calculating gcd {\displaystyle \gcd } with g 0 ( x ) {\displaystyle g_{0}(x)} and g 1 ( x ) {\displaystyle g_{1}(x)} one will obtain a non-trivial factorization of f z ( x ) / g z ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)/g_{z}(x)} , thus algorithm allows to find all roots of arbitrary polynomials over F p {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}} . === Modular square root === Consider equation x 2 ≡ a ( mod p ) {\textstyle x^{2}\equiv a{\pmod {p}}} having elements β {\displaystyle \beta } and − β {\displaystyle -\beta } as its roots. Solution of this equation is equivalent to factorization of polynomial f ( x ) = x 2 − a = ( x − β ) ( x + β ) {\textstyle f(x)=x^{2}-a=(x-\beta )(x+\beta )} over F p {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}} . In this particular case problem it is sufficient to calculate only gcd ( f z ( x ) ; g 0 ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \gcd(f_{z}(x);g_{0}(x))} . For this polynomial exactly one of the following properties will hold: GCD is equal to 1 {\displaystyle 1} which means that z + β {\displaystyle z+\beta } and z − β {\displaystyle z-\beta } are both quadratic non-residues, GCD is equal to f z ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)} which means that both numbers are quadratic residues, GCD is equal to ( x − t ) {\displaystyle (x-t)} which means that exactly one of these numbers is quadratic residue. In the third case GCD is equal to either ( x − z − β ) {\displaystyle (x-z-\beta )} or ( x − z + β ) {\displaystyle (x-z+\beta )} . It allows to write the solution as β = ( t − z ) ( mod p ) {\textstyle \beta =(t-z){\pmod {p}}} . === Example === Assume we need to solve the equation x 2 ≡ 5 ( mod 11 ) {\textstyle x^{2}\equiv 5{\pmod {11}}} . For this we need to factorize f ( x ) = x 2 − 5 = ( x − β ) ( x + β ) {\displaystyle f(x)=x^{2}-5=(x-\beta )(x+\beta )} . Consider some possible values of z {\displaystyle z} : Let z = 3 {\displaystyle z=3} . Then f z ( x ) = ( x − 3 ) 2 − 5 = x 2 − 6 x + 4 {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)=(x-3)^{2}-5=x^{2}-6x+4} , thus gcd ( x 2 − 6 x + 4 ; x 5 − 1 ) = 1 {\displaystyle \gcd(x^{2}-6x+4;x^{5}-1)=1} . Both numbers 3 ± β {\displaystyle 3\pm \beta } are quadratic non-residues, so we need to take some other z {\displaystyle z} . Let z = 2 {\displaystyle z=2} . Then f z ( x ) = ( x − 2 ) 2 − 5 = x 2 − 4 x − 1 {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)=(x-2)^{2}-5=x^{2}-4x-1} , thus gcd ( x 2 − 4 x − 1 ; x 5 − 1 ) ≡ x − 9 ( mod 11 ) {\textstyle \gcd(x^{2}-4x-1;x^{5}-1)\equiv x-9{\pmod {11}}} . From this follows x − 9 = x − 2 − β {\textstyle x-9=x-2-\beta } , so β ≡ 7 ( mod 11 ) {\displaystyle \beta \equiv 7{\pmod {11}}} and − β ≡ − 7 ≡ 4 ( mod 11 ) {\textstyle -\beta \equiv -7\equiv 4{\pmod {11}}} . A manual check shows that, indeed, 7 2 ≡ 49 ≡ 5 ( mod 11 ) {\textstyle 7^{2}\equiv 49\equiv 5{\pmod {11}}} and 4 2 ≡ 16 ≡ 5 ( mod 11 ) {\textstyle 4^{2}\equiv 16\equiv 5{\pmod {11}}} . == Correctness proof == The algorithm finds factorization of f z ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)} in all cases except for ones when all numbers z + λ 1 , z + λ 2 , … , z + λ n {\displaystyle z+\lambda _{1},z+\lambda _{2},\ldots ,z+\lambda _{n}} are quadratic residues or non-residues simultaneously. According to theory of cyclotomy, the probability of such an event for the case when λ 1 , … , λ n {\displaystyle \lambda _{1},\ldots ,\lambda _{n}} are all residues or non-residues simultaneously (that is, when z = 0 {\displaystyle z=0} would fail) may be estimated as 2 − k {\displaystyle 2^{-k}} where k {\displaystyle k} is the number of distinct values in λ 1 , … , λ n {\displaystyle \lambda _{1},\ldots ,\lambda _{n}} . In this way even for the worst case of k = 1 {\displaystyle k=1} and f ( x ) = ( x − λ ) n {\displaystyle f(x)=(x-\lambda )^{n}} , the probability of error may be estimated as 1 / 2 {\displaystyle 1/2} and for modular square root case error probability is at most 1 / 4 {\displaystyle 1/4} . == Complexity == Let a polynomial have degree n {\displaystyle n} . We derive the algorithm's complexity as follows: Due to the binomial theorem ( x − z ) k = ∑ i = 0 k ( k i ) ( − z ) k − i x i {\textstyle (x-z)^{k}=\sum \limits _{i=0}^{k}{\binom {k}{i}}(-z)^{k-i}x^{i}} , we may transition from f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} to f ( x − z ) {\displaystyle f(x-z)} in O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} time. Polynomial multiplication a

Run-time algorithm specialization

In computer science, run-time algorithm specialization is a methodology for creating efficient algorithms for costly computation tasks of certain kinds. The methodology originates in the field of automated theorem proving and, more specifically, in the Vampire theorem prover project. The idea is inspired by the use of partial evaluation in optimising program translation. Many core operations in theorem provers exhibit the following pattern. Suppose that we need to execute some algorithm a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} in a situation where a value of A {\displaystyle A} is fixed for potentially many different values of B {\displaystyle B} . In order to do this efficiently, we can try to find a specialization of a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} for every fixed A {\displaystyle A} , i.e., such an algorithm a l g A {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}} , that executing a l g A ( B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}(B)} is equivalent to executing a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} . The specialized algorithm may be more efficient than the generic one, since it can exploit some particular properties of the fixed value A {\displaystyle A} . Typically, a l g A ( B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}(B)} can avoid some operations that a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} would have to perform, if they are known to be redundant for this particular parameter A {\displaystyle A} . In particular, we can often identify some tests that are true or false for A {\displaystyle A} , unroll loops and recursion, etc. == Difference from partial evaluation == The key difference between run-time specialization and partial evaluation is that the values of A {\displaystyle A} on which a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} is specialised are not known statically, so the specialization takes place at run-time. There is also an important technical difference. Partial evaluation is applied to algorithms explicitly represented as codes in some programming language. At run-time, we do not need any concrete representation of a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} . We only have to imagine a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} when we program the specialization procedure. All we need is a concrete representation of the specialized version a l g A {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}} . This also means that we cannot use any universal methods for specializing algorithms, which is usually the case with partial evaluation. Instead, we have to program a specialization procedure for every particular algorithm a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} . An important advantage of doing so is that we can use some powerful ad hoc tricks exploiting peculiarities of a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} and the representation of A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} , which are beyond the reach of any universal specialization methods. == Specialization with compilation == The specialized algorithm has to be represented in a form that can be interpreted. In many situations, usually when a l g A ( B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}(B)} is to be computed on many values of B {\displaystyle B} in a row, a l g A {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}} can be written as machine code instructions for a special abstract machine, and it is typically said that A {\displaystyle A} is compiled. The code itself can then be additionally optimized by answer-preserving transformations that rely only on the semantics of instructions of the abstract machine. The instructions of the abstract machine can usually be represented as records. One field of such a record, an instruction identifier (or instruction tag), would identify the instruction type, e.g. an integer field may be used, with particular integer values corresponding to particular instructions. Other fields may be used for storing additional parameters of the instruction, e.g. a pointer field may point to another instruction representing a label, if the semantics of the instruction require a jump. All instructions of the code can be stored in a traversable data structure such as an array, linked list, or tree. Interpretation (or execution) proceeds by fetching instructions in some order, identifying their type, and executing the actions associated with said type. In many programming languages, such as C and C++, a simple switch statement may be used to associate actions with different instruction identifiers. Modern compilers usually compile a switch statement with constant (e.g. integer) labels from a narrow range by storing the address of the statement corresponding to a value i {\displaystyle i} in the i {\displaystyle i} -th cell of a special array, as a means of efficient optimisation. This can be exploited by taking values for instruction identifiers from a small interval of values. == Data-and-algorithm specialization == There are situations when many instances of A {\displaystyle A} are intended for long-term storage and the calls of a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} occur with different B {\displaystyle B} in an unpredictable order. For example, we may have to check a l g ( A 1 , B 1 ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A_{1},B_{1})} first, then a l g ( A 2 , B 2 ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A_{2},B_{2})} , then a l g ( A 1 , B 3 ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A_{1},B_{3})} , and so on. In such circumstances, full-scale specialization with compilation may not be suitable due to excessive memory usage. However, we can sometimes find a compact specialized representation A ′ {\displaystyle A^{\prime }} for every A {\displaystyle A} , that can be stored with, or instead of, A {\displaystyle A} . We also define a variant a l g ′ {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}^{\prime }} that works on this representation and any call to a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} is replaced by a l g ′ ( A ′ , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}^{\prime }(A^{\prime },B)} , intended to do the same job faster.

Kunstweg

Bürgi's Kunstweg is a set of algorithms developed by Jost Bürgi in the late 16th century. They are used to calculate sines to arbitrary precision.. Bürgi used these algorithms to calculate a Canon Sinuum, a sine table in increments of 2 arc seconds. It is believed that the table featured values accurate to eight sexagesimal places. Some authors have speculated that the table only covered the range from 0° to 45°, although there is no evidence supporting this claim. Such tables were crucial for maritime navigation. Johannes Kepler described the Canon Sinuum as the most precise sine table known at the time. Bürgi explained his algorithms in his work Fundamentum Astronomiae, which he presented to Emperor Rudolf II in 1592. The Kunstweg algorithm calculates sine values iteratively. In each step, the value of a cell is the sum of the two preceding cells in the same column. The final cell's value is halved before beginning the next iteration. Ultimately, the values in the last column are normalized. Accurate sine approximations are achieved after only a few iterations. In 2015, Menso Folkerts and coworkers demonstrated that this iterative process does indeed converge toward the true sine values. According to them this was the first step towards differential calculus.

Case-based reasoning

Case-based reasoning (CBR), broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems. In everyday life, an auto mechanic who fixes an engine by recalling another car that exhibited similar symptoms is using case-based reasoning. A lawyer who advocates a particular outcome in a trial based on legal precedents or a judge who creates case law is using case-based reasoning. So, too, an engineer copying working elements of nature (practicing biomimicry) is treating nature as a database of solutions to problems. Case-based reasoning is a prominent type of analogy solution making. It has been argued that case-based reasoning is not only a powerful method for computer reasoning, but also a pervasive behavior in everyday human problem solving; or, more radically, that all reasoning is based on past cases personally experienced. This view is related to prototype theory, which is most deeply explored in cognitive science. == Process == Case-based reasoning has been formalized for purposes of computer reasoning as a four-step process: Retrieve: Given a target problem, retrieve cases relevant to solving it from memory. A case consists of a problem, its solution, and, typically, annotations about how the solution was derived. For example, suppose Fred wants to prepare blueberry pancakes. Being a novice cook, the most relevant experience he can recall is one in which he successfully made plain pancakes. The procedure he followed for making the plain pancakes, together with justifications for decisions made along the way, constitutes Fred's retrieved case. Reuse: Map the solution from the previous case to the target problem. This may involve adapting the solution as needed to fit the new situation. In the pancake example, Fred must adapt his retrieved solution to include the addition of blueberries. Revise: Having mapped the previous solution to the target situation, test the new solution in the real world (or a simulation) and, if necessary, revise. Suppose Fred adapted his pancake solution by adding blueberries to the batter. After mixing, he discovers that the batter has turned blue – an undesired effect. This suggests the following revision: delay the addition of blueberries until after the batter has been ladled into the pan. Retain: After the solution has been successfully adapted to the target problem, store the resulting experience as a new case in memory. Fred, accordingly, records his new-found procedure for making blueberry pancakes, thereby enriching his set of stored experiences, and better preparing him for future pancake-making demands. == Comparison to other methods == At first glance, CBR may seem similar to the rule induction algorithms of machine learning. Like a rule-induction algorithm, CBR starts with a set of cases or training examples; it forms generalizations of these examples, albeit implicit ones, by identifying commonalities between a retrieved case and the target problem. If for instance a procedure for plain pancakes is mapped to blueberry pancakes, a decision is made to use the same basic batter and frying method, thus implicitly generalizing the set of situations under which the batter and frying method can be used. The key difference, however, between the implicit generalization in CBR and the generalization in rule induction lies in when the generalization is made. A rule-induction algorithm draws its generalizations from a set of training examples before the target problem is even known; that is, it performs eager generalization. For instance, if a rule-induction algorithm were given recipes for plain pancakes, Dutch apple pancakes, and banana pancakes as its training examples, it would have to derive, at training time, a set of general rules for making all types of pancakes. It would not be until testing time that it would be given, say, the task of cooking blueberry pancakes. The difficulty for the rule-induction algorithm is in anticipating the different directions in which it should attempt to generalize its training examples. This is in contrast to CBR, which delays (implicit) generalization of its cases until testing time – a strategy of lazy generalization. In the pancake example, CBR has already been given the target problem of cooking blueberry pancakes; thus it can generalize its cases exactly as needed to cover this situation. CBR therefore tends to be a good approach for rich, complex domains in which there are myriad ways to generalize a case. In law, there is often explicit delegation of CBR to courts, recognizing the limits of rule based reasons: limiting delay, limited knowledge of future context, limit of negotiated agreement, etc. While CBR in law and cognitively inspired CBR have long been associated, the former is more clearly an interpolation of rule based reasoning, and judgment, while the latter is more closely tied to recall and process adaptation. The difference is clear in their attitude toward error and appellate review. Another name for case-based reasoning in problem solving is symptomatic strategies. It does require à priori domain knowledge that is gleaned from past experience which established connections between symptoms and causes. This knowledge is referred to as shallow, compiled, evidential, history-based as well as case-based knowledge. This is the strategy most associated with diagnosis by experts. Diagnosis of a problem transpires as a rapid recognition process in which symptoms evoke appropriate situation categories. An expert knows the cause by virtue of having previously encountered similar cases. Case-based reasoning is the most powerful strategy, and that used most commonly. However, the strategy won't work independently with truly novel problems, or where deeper understanding of whatever is taking place is sought. An alternative approach to problem solving is the topographic strategy which falls into the category of deep reasoning. With deep reasoning, in-depth knowledge of a system is used. Topography in this context means a description or an analysis of a structured entity, showing the relations among its elements. Also known as reasoning from first principles, deep reasoning is applied to novel faults when experience-based approaches aren't viable. The topographic strategy is therefore linked to à priori domain knowledge that is developed from a more a fundamental understanding of a system, possibly using first-principles knowledge. Such knowledge is referred to as deep, causal or model-based knowledge. Hoc and Carlier noted that symptomatic approaches may need to be supported by topographic approaches because symptoms can be defined in diverse terms. The converse is also true – shallow reasoning can be used abductively to generate causal hypotheses, and deductively to evaluate those hypotheses, in a topographical search. == Criticism == Critics of CBR argue that it is an approach that accepts anecdotal evidence as its main operating principle. Without statistically relevant data for backing and implicit generalization, there is no guarantee that the generalization is correct. However, all inductive reasoning where data is too scarce for statistical relevance is inherently based on anecdotal evidence. == History == CBR traces its roots to the work of Roger Schank and his students at Yale University in the early 1980s. Schank's model of dynamic memory was the basis for the earliest CBR systems: Janet Kolodner's CYRUS and Michael Lebowitz's IPP. Other schools of CBR and closely allied fields emerged in the 1980s, which directed at topics such as legal reasoning, memory-based reasoning (a way of reasoning from examples on massively parallel machines), and combinations of CBR with other reasoning methods. In the 1990s, interest in CBR grew internationally, as evidenced by the establishment of an International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning in 1995, as well as European, German, British, Italian, and other CBR workshops. CBR technology has resulted in the deployment of a number of successful systems, the earliest being Lockheed's CLAVIER, a system for laying out composite parts to be baked in an industrial convection oven. CBR has been used extensively in applications such as the Compaq SMART system and has found a major application area in the health sciences, as well as in structural safety management. There is recent work that develops CBR within a statistical framework and formalizes case-based inference as a specific type of probabilistic inference. Thus, it becomes possible to produce case-based predictions equipped with a certain level of confidence. One description of the difference between CBR and induction from instances is that statistical inference aims to find what tends to make cases similar while CBR aims to encode what suffices to claim similarly.

Holographic algorithm

In computer science, a holographic algorithm is an algorithm that uses a holographic reduction. A holographic reduction is a constant-time reduction that maps solution fragments many-to-many such that the sum of the solution fragments remains unchanged. These concepts were introduced by Leslie Valiant, who called them holographic because "their effect can be viewed as that of producing interference patterns among the solution fragments". The algorithms are unrelated to laser holography, except metaphorically. Their power comes from the mutual cancellation of many contributions to a sum, analogous to the interference patterns in a hologram. Holographic algorithms have been used to find polynomial-time solutions to problems without such previously known solutions for special cases of satisfiability, vertex cover, and other graph problems. They have received notable coverage due to speculation that they are relevant to the P versus NP problem and their impact on computational complexity theory. Although some of the general problems are #P-hard problems, the special cases solved are not themselves #P-hard, and thus do not prove FP = #P. Holographic algorithms have some similarities with quantum computation, but are completely classical. == Holant problems == Holographic algorithms exist in the context of Holant problems, which generalize counting constraint satisfaction problems (#CSP). A #CSP instance is a hypergraph G=(V,E) called the constraint graph. Each hyperedge represents a variable and each vertex v {\displaystyle v} is assigned a constraint f v . {\displaystyle f_{v}.} A vertex is connected to an hyperedge if the constraint on the vertex involves the variable on the hyperedge. The counting problem is to compute ∑ σ : E → { 0 , 1 } ∏ v ∈ V f v ( σ | E ( v ) ) , ( 1 ) {\displaystyle \sum _{\sigma :E\to \{0,1\}}\prod _{v\in V}f_{v}(\sigma |_{E(v)}),~~~~~~~~~~(1)} which is a sum over all variable assignments, the product of every constraint, where the inputs to the constraint f v {\displaystyle f_{v}} are the variables on the incident hyperedges of v {\displaystyle v} . A Holant problem is like a #CSP except the input must be a graph, not a hypergraph. Restricting the class of input graphs in this way is indeed a generalization. Given a #CSP instance, replace each hyperedge e of size s with a vertex v of degree s with edges incident to the vertices contained in e. The constraint on v is the equality function of arity s. This identifies all of the variables on the edges incident to v, which is the same effect as the single variable on the hyperedge e. In the context of Holant problems, the expression in (1) is called the Holant after a related exponential sum introduced by Valiant. == Holographic reduction == A standard technique in complexity theory is a many-one reduction, where an instance of one problem is reduced to an instance of another (hopefully simpler) problem. However, holographic reductions between two computational problems preserve the sum of solutions without necessarily preserving correspondences between solutions. For instance, the total number of solutions in both sets can be preserved, even though individual problems do not have matching solutions. The sum can also be weighted, rather than simply counting the number of solutions, using linear basis vectors. === General example === It is convenient to consider holographic reductions on bipartite graphs. A general graph can always be transformed it into a bipartite graph while preserving the Holant value. This is done by replacing each edge in the graph by a path of length 2, which is also known as the 2-stretch of the graph. To keep the same Holant value, each new vertex is assigned the binary equality constraint. Consider a bipartite graph G=(U,V,E) where the constraint assigned to every vertex u ∈ U {\displaystyle u\in U} is f u {\displaystyle f_{u}} and the constraint assigned to every vertex v ∈ V {\displaystyle v\in V} is f v {\displaystyle f_{v}} . Denote this counting problem by Holant ( G , f u , f v ) . {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u},f_{v}).} If the vertices in U are viewed as one large vertex of degree |E|, then the constraint of this vertex is the tensor product of f u {\displaystyle f_{u}} with itself |U| times, which is denoted by f u ⊗ | U | . {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}.} Likewise, if the vertices in V are viewed as one large vertex of degree |E|, then the constraint of this vertex is f v ⊗ | V | . {\displaystyle f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}.} Let the constraint f u {\displaystyle f_{u}} be represented by its weighted truth table as a row vector and the constraint f v {\displaystyle f_{v}} be represented by its weighted truth table as a column vector. Then the Holant of this constraint graph is simply f u ⊗ | U | f v ⊗ | V | . {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}.} Now for any complex 2-by-2 invertible matrix T (the columns of which are the linear basis vectors mentioned above), there is a holographic reduction between Holant ( G , f u , f v ) {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u},f_{v})} and Holant ( G , f u T ⊗ ( deg ⁡ u ) , ( T − 1 ) ⊗ ( deg ⁡ v ) f v ) . {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u}T^{\otimes (\deg u)},(T^{-1})^{\otimes (\deg v)}f_{v}).} To see this, insert the identity matrix T ⊗ | E | ( T − 1 ) ⊗ | E | {\displaystyle T^{\otimes |E|}(T^{-1})^{\otimes |E|}} in between f u ⊗ | U | f v ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}} to get f u ⊗ | U | f v ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}} = f u ⊗ | U | T ⊗ | E | ( T − 1 ) ⊗ | E | f v ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}T^{\otimes |E|}(T^{-1})^{\otimes |E|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}} = ( f u T ⊗ ( deg ⁡ u ) ) ⊗ | U | ( f v ( T − 1 ) ⊗ ( deg ⁡ v ) ) ⊗ | V | . {\displaystyle =\left(f_{u}T^{\otimes (\deg u)}\right)^{\otimes |U|}\left(f_{v}(T^{-1})^{\otimes (\deg v)}\right)^{\otimes |V|}.} Thus, Holant ( G , f u , f v ) {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u},f_{v})} and Holant ( G , f u T ⊗ ( deg ⁡ u ) , ( T − 1 ) ⊗ ( deg ⁡ v ) f v ) {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u}T^{\otimes (\deg u)},(T^{-1})^{\otimes (\deg v)}f_{v})} have exactly the same Holant value for every constraint graph. They essentially define the same counting problem. === Specific examples === ==== Vertex covers and independent sets ==== Let G be a graph. There is a 1-to-1 correspondence between the vertex covers of G and the independent sets of G. For any set S of vertices of G, S is a vertex cover in G if and only if the complement of S is an independent set in G. Thus, the number of vertex covers in G is exactly the same as the number of independent sets in G. The equivalence of these two counting problems can also be proved using a holographic reduction. For simplicity, let G be a 3-regular graph. The 2-stretch of G gives a bipartite graph H=(U,V,E), where U corresponds to the edges in G and V corresponds to the vertices in G. The Holant problem that naturally corresponds to counting the number of vertex covers in G is Holant ( H , OR 2 , EQUAL 3 ) . {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(H,{\text{OR}}_{2},{\text{EQUAL}}_{3}).} The truth table of OR2 as a row vector is (0,1,1,1). The truth table of EQUAL3 as a column vector is ( 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 ) T = [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 {\displaystyle (1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1)^{T}={\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}} . Then under a holographic transformation by [ 0 1 1 0 ] , {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}},} OR 2 ⊗ | U | EQUAL 3 ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle {\text{OR}}_{2}^{\otimes |U|}{\text{EQUAL}}_{3}^{\otimes |V|}} = ( 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) ⊗ | U | ( [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =(0,1,1,1)^{\otimes |U|}\left({\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = ( 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) ⊗ | U | [ 0 1 1 0 ] ⊗ | E | [ 0 1 1 0 ] ⊗ | E | ( [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =(0,1,1,1)^{\otimes |U|}{\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes |E|}{\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes |E|}\left({\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = ( ( 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) [ 0 1 1 0 ] ⊗ 2 ) ⊗ | U | ( ( [ 0 1 1 0 ] [ 1 0 ] ) ⊗ 3 + ( [ 0 1 1 0 ] [ 0 1 ] ) ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =\left((0,1,1,1){\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 2}\right)^{\otimes |U|}\left(\left({\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}\right)^{\otimes 3}+\left({\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}\right)^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = ( 1 , 1 , 1 , 0 ) ⊗ | U | ( [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =(1,1,1,0)^{\otimes |U|}\left({\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = NAND 2 ⊗ | U | EQUAL 3 ⊗ | V | , {\displaystyle ={\text{NAND}}_{2}^{\otim