In computer vision and image processing a neighborhood operation is a commonly used class of computations on image data which implies that it is processed according to the following pseudo code: Visit each point p in the image data and do { N = a neighborhood or region of the image data around the point p result(p) = f(N) } This general procedure can be applied to image data of arbitrary dimensionality. Also, the image data on which the operation is applied does not have to be defined in terms of intensity or color, it can be any type of information which is organized as a function of spatial (and possibly temporal) variables in p. The result of applying a neighborhood operation on an image is again something which can be interpreted as an image, it has the same dimension as the original data. The value at each image point, however, does not have to be directly related to intensity or color. Instead it is an element in the range of the function f, which can be of arbitrary type. Normally the neighborhood N is of fixed size and is a square (or a cube, depending on the dimensionality of the image data) centered on the point p. Also the function f is fixed, but may in some cases have parameters which can vary with p, see below. In the simplest case, the neighborhood N may be only a single point. This type of operation is often referred to as a point-wise operation. == Examples == The most common examples of a neighborhood operation use a fixed function f which in addition is linear, that is, the computation consists of a linear shift invariant operation. In this case, the neighborhood operation corresponds to the convolution operation. A typical example is convolution with a low-pass filter, where the result can be interpreted in terms of local averages of the image data around each image point. Other examples are computation of local derivatives of the image data. It is also rather common to use a fixed but non-linear function f. This includes median filtering, and computation of local variances. The Nagao-Matsuyama filter is an example of a complex local neighbourhood operation that uses variance as an indicator of the uniformity within a pixel group. The result is similar to a convolution with a low-pass filter with the added effect of preserving sharp edges. There is also a class of neighborhood operations in which the function f has additional parameters which can vary with p: Visit each point p in the image data and do { N = a neighborhood or region of the image data around the point p result(p) = f(N, parameters(p)) } This implies that the result is not shift invariant. Examples are adaptive Wiener filters. == Implementation aspects == The pseudo code given above suggests that a neighborhood operation is implemented in terms of an outer loop over all image points. However, since the results are independent, the image points can be visited in arbitrary order, or can even be processed in parallel. Furthermore, in the case of linear shift-invariant operations, the computation of f at each point implies a summation of products between the image data and the filter coefficients. The implementation of this neighborhood operation can then be made by having the summation loop outside the loop over all image points. An important issue related to neighborhood operation is how to deal with the fact that the neighborhood N becomes more or less undefined for points p close to the edge or border of the image data. Several strategies have been proposed: Compute result only for points p for which the corresponding neighborhood is well-defined. This implies that the output image will be somewhat smaller than the input image. Zero padding: Extend the input image sufficiently by adding extra points outside the original image which are set to zero. The loops over the image points described above visit only the original image points. Border extension: Extend the input image sufficiently by adding extra points outside the original image which are set to the image value at the closest image point. The loops over the image points described above visit only the original image points. Mirror extension: Extend the image sufficiently much by mirroring the image at the image boundaries. This method is less sensitive to local variations at the image boundary than border extension. Wrapping: The image is tiled, so that going off one edge wraps around to the opposite side of the image. This method assumes that the image is largely homogeneous, for example a stochastic image texture without large textons.
Artificial intelligence and elections
As artificial intelligence (AI) has become more mainstream, there is growing concern about how this will influence elections. Potential targets of AI include election processes, election offices, election officials and election vendors. There are also global efforts to improve elections using AI. == Tactics == Generative AI capabilities allow creation of misleading content. Examples of this include text-to-video, deepfake videos, text-to-image, AI-altered images, text-to-speech, voice cloning, and text-to-text. In the context of an election, a deepfake video of a candidate may propagate information that the candidate does not endorse. Chatbots could spread misinformation related to election locations, times or voting methods. In contrast to malicious actors in the past, these techniques require little technical skill and can spread rapidly. LLM-generated messages have the capacity to persuade humans on political issues. Researchers have begun to investigate how people rate messages that LLMs generate for how persuasive they are. When it came to policy issues, the LLM-generated messages received a 2.91 compared to a 2.80 when it came to smartness between the AI and humans. The LLM-generated messages were often more technical and analytical than human-generated messages. Generative AI has been used to micro-target people during tight political elections. The generation of targeted large language models has triggered concern that they will be used to leverage readily scale microtargeting. Rephrasing inputs have been used to generate fraudulent emails and phishing websites. Rephrasing inputs in a microtargeting does not violate the terms of OpenAI usage. There are no safeguards to prevent the use of rephrasing and creation of fraudulent emails. Political campaign managers have access to this allowing for them to create targeted content. == Usage by country == === Argentina === ==== 2023 elections ==== During the 2023 Argentine primary elections, Javier Milei's team distributed AI generated images including a fabricated image of his rival Sergio Massa and drew 3 million views. The team also created an unofficial Instagram account entitled "AI for the Homeland." Sergio Massa's team also distributed AI generated images and videos. === Bangladesh === ==== 2024 elections ==== In the run up to the 2024 Bangladeshi general election, deepfake videos of female opposition politicians appeared. Rumin Farhana was pictured in a bikini while Nipun Ray was shown in a swimming pool. === Canada === ==== 2025 elections ==== In the run up to the 2025 Canadian federal election, the use of AI tools is likely to figure prominently. India, Pakistan and Iran are all expected to make efforts to subvert the national vote using disinformation campaigns to deceive voters and sway diaspora communities. In a report by the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security called "Cyber Threats to Canada's Democratic Process: 2025 Update", it states that malicious actors including China and Russia: "are most likely to use generative AI as a means of creating and spreading disinformation, designed to sow division among Canadians and push narratives conducive to the interests of foreign states". === France === ==== 2024 elections ==== In the 2024 French legislative election, deepfake videos appeared claiming: i) That they showed the family of Marine le Pen. In the videos, young women, supposedly Le Pen's nieces, are seen skiing, dancing and at the beach "while making fun of France’s racial minorities": However, the family members don't exist. On social media there were over 2 million views. ii) In a video seen on social media, a deepfake video of a France24 broadcast appeared to report that the Ukrainian leadership had "tried to lure French president Emmanuel Macron to Ukraine to assassinate him and then blame his death on Russia". === Ghana === ==== 2024 elections ==== During the months before the December 2024 Ghanaian general election, a network of at least 171 fake accounts has been used to spam social media. Posts have been used by a group identified as "@TheTPatriots" to promote the New Patriotic Party, although it is not known whether the two are connected. All the networks' posts were "highly likely" to have been generated by ChatGPT and appear to be the "first secretly partisan network using AI to influence elections in Ghana". The opposition National Democratic Congress was also criticized with its leader John Mahama being called a drunkard. === India === ==== 2024 elections ==== In the 2024 Indian general election, politicians used deepfakes in their campaign materials. These deepfakes included politicians who had died prior to the election. Mathuvel Karunanidhi's party posted with his likeness even though he had died 2018. A video The All-India Anna Dravidian Progressive Federation party posted showed an audio clip of Jayaram Jayalalithaa even though she had died in 2016. The Deepfakes Analysis Unit (DAU) is an open source platform created in March 2024 for the public to share misleading content and assess if it had been AI-generated. AI was also used to translate political speeches in real time. This translating ability was widely used to reach more voters. === Indonesia === ==== 2024 elections ==== In the 2024 Indonesian presidential election, Prabowo Subianto made extensive use of AI-generated art in his campaign, which ranged from images of himself as an adorable child to various child portrayals in his advertisements. The Indonesian Children's Protection Commission condemned these ads, labeling them as a form of misuse. Other candidates, Anies Baswedan and Ganjar Pranowo, also incorporated AI art into their campaigns. Throughout the election period, all presidential candidates faced attacks from deepfakes, both in video and audio formats. === Ireland === ==== 2024 elections ==== In the last weeks of the 2024 Irish general election a spoof election poster appeared in Dublin featuring "an AI-generated candidate with three arms". The candidate is called Aidan Irwin, but no-one stood in the election with that name. A slogan on the poster says "put matters into artificial intelligence’s hands". The convincing election poster shows a man that "has six fingers on one hand, three arms, and a distorted thumb". === New Zealand === ==== 2023 elections ==== In May 2023, ahead of the 2023 New Zealand general election in October 2023, the New Zealand National Party published a "series of AI-generated political advertisements" on its Instagram account. After confirming that the images were faked, a party spokesperson said that it was "an innovative way to drive our social media". === Pakistan === ==== 2024 elections ==== AI has been used by the imprisoned ex-Prime Minister Imran Khan and his media team in the 2024 Pakistani general election: i) An AI generated audio of his voice was added to a video clip and was broadcast at a virtual rally. ii) An op-ed in The Economist written by Khan was later claimed by himself to have been written by AI which was later denied by his team. The article was liked and shared on social media by thousands of users. === South Africa === ==== 2024 elections ==== In the 2024 South African general election, there were several uses of AI content: i) A deepfaked video of Joe Biden emerged on social media showing him saying that "The U.S. would place sanctions on SA and declare it an enemy state if the African National Congress (ANC) won". ii) In a deepfake video, Donald Trump was shown endorsing the uMkhonto weSizwe party. It was posted to social media and was viewed more than 158,000 times. iii) Less than 3 months before the elections, a deepfake video showed U.S. rapper Eminem endorsing the Economic Freedom Fighters party while criticizing the ANC. The deepfake was viewed on social media more than 173,000 times. === South Korea === ==== 2022 elections ==== In the 2022 South Korean presidential election, a committee for one presidential candidate Yoon Suk Yeol released an AI avatar 'Al Yoon Seok-yeol' that would campaign in places the candidate could not go. The other presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung introduced a chatbot that provided information about the candidate's pledges. ==== 2024 elections ==== Deepfakes were used to spread misinformation before the 2024 South Korean legislative election with one source reporting 129 deepfake violations of election laws within a two week period. Seoul hosted the 2024 Summit for Democracy, a virtual gathering of world leaders initiated by US President Joe Biden in 2021. The focus of the summit was on digital threats to democracy including artificial intelligence and deepfakes. === Taiwan === ==== 2024 elections ==== AI-generated content was used during the 2024 Taiwanese presidential election. Among the media were: i) A deepfake video of General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Xi Jinping which showed him supporting the presidential elections. Created on social media, the video was "widely circulated
Confusion network
A confusion network (sometimes called a word confusion network or informally known as a sausage) is a natural language processing method that combines outputs from multiple automatic speech recognition or machine translation systems. Confusion networks are simple linear directed acyclic graphs with the property that each a path from the start node to the end node goes through all the other nodes. The set of words represented by edges between two nodes is called a confusion set. In machine translation, the defining characteristic of confusion networks is that they allow multiple ambiguous inputs, deferring committal translation decisions until later stages of processing. This approach is used in the open source machine translation software Moses and the proprietary translation API in IBM Bluemix Watson.
Photometric stereo
Photometric stereo is a technique in computer vision for estimating the surface normals of objects by observing that object under different lighting conditions (photometry). It is based on the fact that the amount of light reflected by a surface is dependent on the orientation of the surface in relation to the light source and the observer. By measuring the amount of light reflected into a camera, the space of possible surface orientations is limited. Given enough light sources from different angles, the surface orientation may be constrained to a single orientation or even overconstrained. The technique was originally introduced by Woodham in 1980. The special case where the data is a single image is known as shape from shading, and was analyzed by B. K. P. Horn in 1989. Photometric stereo has since been generalized to many other situations, including extended light sources and non-Lambertian surface finishes. Current research aims to make the method work in the presence of projected shadows, highlights, and non-uniform lighting. Photometric stereo is widely used in various fields, including archaeology, cultural heritage conservation, and quality control. It is now integrated into widely used open-source software, such as Meshroom. == Basic method == Under Woodham's original assumptions — Lambertian reflectance, known point-like distant light sources, and uniform albedo — the problem can be solved by inverting the linear equation I = L ⋅ n {\displaystyle I=L\cdot n} , where I {\displaystyle I} is a (known) vector of m {\displaystyle m} observed intensities, n {\displaystyle n} is the (unknown) surface normal, and L {\displaystyle L} is a (known) 3 × m {\displaystyle 3\times m} matrix of normalized light directions. This model can easily be extended to surfaces with non-uniform albedo, while keeping the problem linear. Taking an albedo reflectivity of k {\displaystyle k} , the formula for the reflected light intensity becomes I = k ( L ⋅ n ) . {\displaystyle I=k(L\cdot n).} If L {\displaystyle L} is square (there are exactly 3 lights) and non-singular, it can be inverted, giving L − 1 I = k n . {\displaystyle L^{-1}I=kn.} Since the normal vector is known to have length 1, k {\displaystyle k} must be the length of the vector k n {\displaystyle kn} , and n {\displaystyle n} is the normalised direction of that vector. If L {\displaystyle L} is not square (there are more than 3 lights), a generalisation of the inverse can be obtained using the Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse, by simply multiplying both sides with L T {\displaystyle L^{T}} , giving L T I = L T k ( L ⋅ n ) , {\displaystyle L^{T}I=L^{T}k(L\cdot n),} ( L T L ) − 1 L T I = k n , {\displaystyle (L^{T}L)^{-1}L^{T}I=kn,} after which the normal vector and albedo can be solved as described above. == Non-Lambertian surfaces == The classical photometric stereo problem concerns itself only with Lambertian surfaces, with perfectly diffuse reflection. This is unrealistic for many types of materials, especially metals, glass and smooth plastics, and will lead to aberrations in the resulting normal vectors. Many methods have been developed to lift this assumption. In this section, a few of these are listed. === Specular reflections === Historically, in computer graphics, the commonly used model to render surfaces started with Lambertian surfaces and progressed first to include simple specular reflections. Computer vision followed a similar course with photometric stereo. Specular reflections were among the first deviations from the Lambertian model. These are a few adaptations that have been developed. Many techniques ultimately rely on modelling the reflectance function of the surface, that is, how much light is reflected in each direction. This reflectance function has to be invertible. The reflected light intensities towards the camera is measured, and the inverse reflectance function is fit onto the measured intensities, resulting in a unique solution for the normal vector. === General BRDFs and beyond === According to the Bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) model, a surface may distribute the amount of light it receives in any outward direction. This is the most general known model for opaque surfaces. Some techniques have been developed to model (almost) general BRDFs. In practice, all of these require many light sources to obtain reliable data. These are methods in which surfaces with general BRDFs can be measured. Determine the explicit BRDF prior to scanning. To do this, a different surface is required that has the same or a very similar BRDF, of which the actual geometry (or at least the normal vectors for many points on the surface) is already known. The lights are then individually shone upon the known surface, and the amount of reflection into the camera is measured. Using this information, a look-up table can be created that maps reflected intensities for each light source to a list of possible normal vectors. This puts constraints on the possible normal vectors the surface may have, and reduces the photometric stereo problem to an interpolation between measurements. Typical known surfaces to calibrate the look-up table with are spheres for their wide variety of surface orientations. Restricting the BRDF to be symmetrical. If the BRDF is symmetrical, the direction of the light can be restricted to a cone about the direction to the camera. Which cone this is depends on the BRDF itself, the normal vector of the surface, and the measured intensity. Given enough measured intensities and the resulting light directions, these cones can be approximated and therefore the normal vectors of the surface. Some progress has been made towards modelling an even more general surfaces, such as Spatially Varying Bidirectional Distribution Functions (SVBRDF), Bidirectional surface scattering reflectance distribution functions (BSSRDF), and accounting for interreflections. However, such methods are still fairly restrictive in photometric stereo. Better results have been achieved with structured light. == Uncalibrated photometric stereo == Uncalibrated Photometric Stereo is an approach in photometric stereo that aims to reconstruct the 3D shape of an object from images captured under unknown lighting conditions. Unlike classical methods, which often assume controlled or known lighting setups, this approach removes these constraints, making it adaptable to diverse and real-world environments. The advent of deep learning has revolutionized universal PS by replacing handcrafted assumptions with data-driven models. Recent approaches leverage Transformer-based architectures and multi-scale encoder–decoder networks to directly estimate surface normals from input images. Uncalibrated Photometric Stereo is inherently an ill-posed problem, as it attempts to recover 3D shape and lighting conditions simultaneously from images alone. This leads to fundamental ambiguities in the reconstruction process, which manifest as systematic errors in the recovered geometry, including global distortions in the object's overall shape, and misinterpretation of surface orientation, where concave regions may appear convex and vice versa. To address the challenges of uncalibrated photometric stereo, hybrid methods have emerged that combine multi-view stereo and photometric stereo. These approaches leverage the strengths of both techniques, including geometric reliability and resolution.
Loebner Prize
The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt
Luxafor
Luxafor () is a brand of office productivity tools designed to improve efficiency and communication in workplaces. The brands main product is LED status indicators for use in office settings. Luxafor is a product line under the company SIA Greynut, based in Riga, Latvia. == History == Luxafor was developed by the technology company SIA Greynut. The brand first gained attention through a Kickstarter campaign in 2015, which aimed to fund its initial product, the Luxafor Flag. Although the campaign was unsuccessful in reaching its funding goal, the product was still brought to market. In 2017, Luxafor launched another Kickstarter campaign for the Luxafor Bluetooth, a wireless version of its LED status indicator. This campaign also did not meet its funding goal, but like its predecessor, the product was still developed and released. Despite initial setbacks, Luxafor Bluetooth has become one of the brand's leading products. == Products == Luxafors main product range is LED status indicators, including: === Luxafor Flag === A USB-powered LED indicator that shows different colors to signal the user's availability. === Luxafor Bluetooth === A wireless LED indicator controlled via Bluetooth, integrating with productivity tools like Slack and Microsoft Teams. === Luxafor Switch === An advanced status indicator designed to manage room and workspace availability. === Other === Other Luxafor products include CO2 Dongle, Smart Button, Mute Button, Pomodoro Timer and others. == Features == Luxafor products are known for their customizable indicators, integration capabilities with IFTTT, Zapier, and remote control features. They are compatible with various operating systems, including Windows and macOS, and can be integrated with numerous communication and productivity platforms, like Microsoft Teams and Cisco Jabber.
Contextual image classification
Contextual image classification, a topic of pattern recognition in computer vision, is an approach of classification based on contextual information in images. "Contextual" means this approach is focusing on the relationship of the nearby pixels, which is also called neighbourhood. The goal of this approach is to classify the images by using the contextual information. == Introduction == Similar as processing language, a single word may have multiple meanings unless the context is provided, and the patterns within the sentences are the only informative segments we care about. For images, the principle is same. Find out the patterns and associate proper meanings to them. As the image illustrated below, if only a small portion of the image is shown, it is very difficult to tell what the image is about. Even try another portion of the image, it is still difficult to classify the image. However, if we increase the contextual of the image, then it makes more sense to recognize. As the full images shows below, almost everyone can classify it easily. During the procedure of segmentation, the methods which do not use the contextual information are sensitive to noise and variations, thus the result of segmentation will contain a great deal of misclassified regions, and often these regions are small (e.g., one pixel). Compared to other techniques, this approach is robust to noise and substantial variations for it takes the continuity of the segments into account. Several methods of this approach will be described below. == Applications == === Functioning as a post-processing filter to a labelled image === This approach is very effective against small regions caused by noise. And these small regions are usually formed by few pixels or one pixel. The most probable label is assigned to these regions. However, there is a drawback of this method. The small regions also can be formed by correct regions rather than noise, and in this case the method is actually making the classification worse. This approach is widely used in remote sensing applications. === Improving the post-processing classification === This is a two-stage classification process: For each pixel, label the pixel and form a new feature vector for it. Use the new feature vector and combine the contextual information to assign the final label to the === Merging the pixels in earlier stages === Instead of using single pixels, the neighbour pixels can be merged into homogeneous regions benefiting from contextual information. And provide these regions to classifier. === Acquiring pixel feature from neighbourhood === The original spectral data can be enriched by adding the contextual information carried by the neighbour pixels, or even replaced in some occasions. This kind of pre-processing methods are widely used in textured image recognition. The typical approaches include mean values, variances, texture description, etc. === Combining spectral and spatial information === The classifier uses the grey level and pixel neighbourhood (contextual information) to assign labels to pixels. In such case the information is a combination of spectral and spatial information. === Powered by the Bayes minimum error classifier === Contextual classification of image data is based on the Bayes minimum error classifier (also known as a naive Bayes classifier). Present the pixel: A pixel is denoted as x 0 {\displaystyle x_{0}} . The neighbourhood of each pixel x 0 {\displaystyle x_{0}} is a vector and denoted as N ( x 0 ) {\displaystyle N(x_{0})} . The values in the neighbourhood vector is denoted as f ( x i ) {\displaystyle f(x_{i})} . Each pixel is presented by the vector ξ = ( f ( x 0 ) , f ( x 1 ) , … , f ( x k ) ) {\displaystyle \xi =\left(f(x_{0}),f(x_{1}),\ldots ,f(x_{k})\right)} x i ∈ N ( x 0 ) ; i = 1 , … , k {\displaystyle x_{i}\in N(x_{0});\quad i=1,\ldots ,k} The labels (classification) of pixels in the neighbourhood N ( x 0 ) {\displaystyle N(x_{0})} are presented as a vector η = ( θ 0 , θ 1 , … , θ k ) {\displaystyle \eta =\left(\theta _{0},\theta _{1},\ldots ,\theta _{k}\right)} θ i ∈ { ω 0 , ω 1 , … , ω k } {\displaystyle \theta _{i}\in \left\{\omega _{0},\omega _{1},\ldots ,\omega _{k}\right\}} ω s {\displaystyle \omega _{s}} here denotes the assigned class. A vector presents the labels in the neighbourhood N ( x 0 ) {\displaystyle N(x_{0})} without the pixel x 0 {\displaystyle x_{0}} η ^ = ( θ 1 , θ 2 , … , θ k ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\eta }}=\left(\theta _{1},\theta _{2},\ldots ,\theta _{k}\right)} The neighbourhood: Size of the neighbourhood. There is no limitation of the size, but it is considered to be relatively small for each pixel x 0 {\displaystyle x_{0}} . A reasonable size of neighbourhood would be 3 × 3 {\displaystyle 3\times 3} of 4-connectivity or 8-connectivity ( x 0 {\displaystyle x_{0}} is marked as red and placed in the centre). The calculation: Apply the minimum error classification on a pixel x 0 {\displaystyle x_{0}} , if the probability of a class ω r {\displaystyle \omega _{r}} being presenting the pixel x 0 {\displaystyle x_{0}} is the highest among all, then assign ω r {\displaystyle \omega _{r}} as its class. θ 0 = ω r if P ( ω r ∣ f ( x 0 ) ) = max s = 1 , 2 , … , R P ( ω s ∣ f ( x 0 ) ) {\displaystyle \theta _{0}=\omega _{r}\quad {\text{ if }}\quad P(\omega _{r}\mid f(x_{0}))=\max _{s=1,2,\ldots ,R}P(\omega _{s}\mid f(x_{0}))} The contextual classification rule is described as below, it uses the feature vector x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} rather than x 0 {\displaystyle x_{0}} . θ 0 = ω r if P ( ω r ∣ ξ ) = max s = 1 , 2 , … , R P ( ω s ∣ ξ ) {\displaystyle \theta _{0}=\omega _{r}\quad {\text{ if }}\quad P(\omega _{r}\mid \xi )=\max _{s=1,2,\ldots ,R}P(\omega _{s}\mid \xi )} Use the Bayes formula to calculate the posteriori probability P ( ω s ∣ ξ ) {\displaystyle P(\omega _{s}\mid \xi )} P ( ω s ∣ ξ ) = p ( ξ ∣ ω s ) P ( ω s ) p ( ξ ) {\displaystyle P(\omega _{s}\mid \xi )={\frac {p(\xi \mid \omega _{s})P(\omega _{s})}{p\left(\xi \right)}}} The number of vectors is the same as the number of pixels in the image. For the classifier uses a vector corresponding to each pixel x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} , and the vector is generated from the pixel's neighbourhood. The basic steps of contextual image classification: Calculate the feature vector ξ {\displaystyle \xi } for each pixel. Calculate the parameters of probability distribution p ( ξ ∣ ω s ) {\displaystyle p(\xi \mid \omega _{s})} and P ( ω s ) {\displaystyle P(\omega _{s})} Calculate the posterior probabilities P ( ω r ∣ ξ ) {\displaystyle P(\omega _{r}\mid \xi )} and all labels θ 0 {\displaystyle \theta _{0}} . Get the image classification result. == Algorithms == === Template matching === The template matching is a "brute force" implementation of this approach. The concept is first create a set of templates, and then look for small parts in the image match with a template. This method is computationally high and inefficient. It keeps an entire templates list during the whole process and the number of combinations is extremely high. For a m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} pixel image, there could be a maximum of 2 m × n {\displaystyle 2^{m\times n}} combinations, which leads to high computation. This method is a top down method and often called table look-up or dictionary look-up. === Lower-order Markov chain === The Markov chain also can be applied in pattern recognition. The pixels in an image can be recognised as a set of random variables, then use the lower order Markov chain to find the relationship among the pixels. The image is treated as a virtual line, and the method uses conditional probability. === Hilbert space-filling curves === The Hilbert curve runs in a unique pattern through the whole image, it traverses every pixel without visiting any of them twice and keeps a continuous curve. It is fast and efficient. === Markov meshes === The lower-order Markov chain and Hilbert space-filling curves mentioned above are treating the image as a line structure. The Markov meshes however will take the two dimensional information into account. === Dependency tree === The dependency tree is a method using tree dependency to approximate probability distributions.