Information quality (IQ) is a contextual property of or a perspective to the content within information systems. There exist two complementary yet partially conflicting definitions of high-quality: firstly, information is considered high quality if it is fit for its intended purpose ; secondly, it is deemed high quality if it conforms to specified requirements . The primary distinction between these definitions is that Juran's perspective focuses on the suitability of information for its intended purpose, which can be measured by the success of its application even without direct access to or exact knowledge of the data. For example, a black-box AI with access to English Wikipedia can work well for users' purposes but using Estonian Wikipedia fails for the same purposes. Given that the AI remains the same, it can be concluded that English version data would be of higher quality in comparison to Estonian version, even without exact comparison of data contents and their properties in each version. In contrast, Crosby emphasizes adherence to predefined specifications, assuming specific criteria rather than measuring the success of its use; for instance, information in Wikipedia could be proven to be good based on criteria such as existing peer validation and academic references, even if the AI results are poor. This approach falls into problems when data is not completely accessible or all quality properties cannot be known and measured leading to false impression of quality due to lacking and misleading metrics. Numerous IQ frameworks and methodologies provide tangible approach to assess and measure DQ/IQ in a robust and rigorous manner. == Conceptual problems == Although the foundational definitions are usable for most everyday purposes, specialists often use more complex models for information quality. It has been suggested, however, that higher the quality the greater will be the confidence in meeting more general, less specific contexts. == Dimensions and metrics of information quality == "Information quality" is a measure of its fitness for use or conformance to requirements. In this way, "quality" is considered contextual and it can then vary across users and uses of the information. The exact degree of quality is often described with dimensions such as accuracy, timeliness, completeness, and similar scales. Although a huge amount of academic research has been directed to these dimensions, there does not exist consensus on their definitions or practical usefulness . Historically, Richard Wang and Diane Strong proposed a list of dimensions or elements used in assessing Information Quality is: Intrinsic IQ: accuracy, objectivity, believability, reputation Contextual IQ: relevance, value-added, timeliness, completeness, amount of information Representational IQ: interpretability, format, coherence, compatibility Accessibility IQ: accessibility, access security Other authors propose similar but different lists of dimensions for analysis, and emphasize measurement and reporting as information quality metrics. Larry English prefers the term "characteristics" to dimensions. However, a considerable amount of information quality research involves investigating and describing various categories of desirable attributes (or dimensions) of data. Research has recently shown the huge diversity of terms and classification structures used. === Quality metrics === Source: Authority/verifiability Authority refers to the expertise or recognized official status of a source. Consider the reputation of the author and publisher. When working with legal or government information, consider whether the source is the official provider of the information. Verifiability refers to the ability of a reader to verify the validity of the information irrespective of how authoritative the source is. To verify the facts is part of the duty of care of the journalistic deontology, as well as, where possible, to provide the sources of information so that they can be verified Scope of coverage Scope of coverage refers to the extent to which a source explores a topic. Consider time periods, geography or jurisdiction and coverage of related or narrower topics. Composition and organization Composition and organization has to do with the ability of the information source to present its particular message in a coherent, logically sequential manner. Objectivity Objectivity is the bias or opinion expressed when a writer interprets or analyze facts. Consider the use of persuasive language, the source's presentation of other viewpoints, its reason for providing the information and advertising. Integrity Adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character The state of being whole, entire, or undiminished Comprehensiveness Of large scope; covering or involving much; inclusive: a comprehensive study. Comprehending mentally; having an extensive mental grasp. Insurance. covering or providing broad protection against loss. Validity Validity of some information has to do with the degree of obvious truthfulness which the information carries Uniqueness As much as 'uniqueness' of a given piece of information is intuitive in meaning, it also significantly implies not only the originating point of the information but also the manner in which it is presented and thus the perception which it conjures. The essence of any piece of information we process consists to a large extent of those two elements. Timeliness Timeliness refers to information that is current at the time of publication. Consider publication, creation and revision dates. Beware of Web site scripting that automatically reflects the current day's date on a page. Reproducibility (utilized primarily when referring to instructive information) Means that documented methods are capable of being used on the same data set to achieve a consistent result. == Professional associations == IQ International—the International Association for Information and Data Quality IQ International is a not-for-profit, vendor neutral, professional association formed in 2004, dedicated to building the information and data quality profession. CDOIQ Society Chief Data Officers and Information Quality Society is a global professional society supporting data leaders with networking, meetings, best practices, experience, certification, and training. == Information quality conferences == A number of major conferences relevant to information quality are held annually: Annual MIT Chief Data Officer & Information Quality (CDOIQ) Symposium Annual conferences held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA Data Governance and Information Quality Conference Commercial conferences held each year in the USA Data Quality Asia Pacific Commercial conference held annually in Sydney or Melbourne, Australia Enterprise Data and Business Intelligence Conference Europe Commercial conferences held annually in London, England. Information and Data Quality Conference Not for profit conference run annually by IQ International (the International Association for Information and Data Quality) in the USA International Conference on Information Quality Academic Conference launched through MITIQ held annually at a University Master Data Management & Data Governance Conferences Six major conferences are run annually by the MDM Institute in venues such as London, San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Madrid, Frankfurt, Shanghai and New York City.
AI nationalism
AI nationalism is the idea that nations should develop and control their own artificial intelligence technologies to advance their own interests and ensure technological sovereignty. This concept is gaining traction globally, leading countries to implement new laws, form strategic alliances, and invest significantly in domestic AI capabilities. == Global trends and national strategies == In 2018, British technology investor Ian Hogarth published an influential essay titled AI Nationalism. He argued that as AI gains more power and its economic and military significance expands, governments will take measures to bolster their own domestic AI industries, and predicted that the advancement of machine learning systems would lead to what he termed "AI nationalism." He anticipated that this rise in AI would accelerate a global arms race, resulting in more closed economies, restrictions on foreign acquisitions, and limitations on the movement of talent. Hogarth predicted that AI policy would become a central focus of government agendas. He also criticized Britain’s approach to AI strategy, citing the sale of London-based DeepMind—one of the leading AI laboratories, acquired by Google for a relatively modest £400 million in 2014—as a significant misstep. AI nationalism is chiefly reflected in the escalating rhetoric of an artificial intelligence arms race, portraying AI development as a zero-sum game where the winner gains significant economic, political, and military advantages. This mindset, as highlighted in a 2017 Pentagon report, warns that sharing AI technology could erode technological supremacy and enhance rivals' capabilities. The winner-takes-all mentality of AI nationalism poses risks including unsafe AI development, increased geopolitical tension, and potential military aggression (such as cyberattacks or targeting AI professionals). Several countries, including Canada, France, and India, have formulated national strategies to advance their positions in AI. In the United States, a leading player in the global AI arena, trade policies have been enacted to restrict China's access to critical microchips, reflecting a strategic effort to maintain a technological edge. The United States’ National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) frames AI development as a critical aspect of a broader technology competition crucial for national success. It emphasizes the need to outpace China in AI to maintain strategic advantage, reflecting AI nationalism by linking geopolitical power directly to advancements in AI. France has seen notable governmental support for local AI startups, particularly those specializing in language technologies that cater to French and other non-English languages. In Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is investing billions in AI research and development. The country has actively collaborated with major technology firms such as Amazon, IBM, and Microsoft to establish itself as a prominent AI hub. == Historical and cultural context == AI nationalism is seen as deeply connected to historical racism and imperialism. It is viewed not merely as a technological competition but as a contest over racial and civilizational superiority. Historically, technological achievements were often used to justify colonialism and racial hierarchies, with Western societies perceiving their advancements as evidence of superiority. In the context of AI, this historical context continues to shape views on intelligence and development. Some argue that AI nationalism reinforces the idea of fundamental civilizational divides, especially between the Western world and China. This perspective often frames China's progress in AI as a direct challenge to Western values, presenting the AI competition as a struggle over values. AI nationalism is said to draw from long-standing anti-Asian stereotypes, such as the "Yellow Peril," which portray Asian nations as threats to Western civilization. This viewpoint links Asian technological advances with dehumanization and artificiality, reflecting persistent anxieties about China's growing role in the global tech landscape. == Implications == AI nationalism is seen as a component of a broader trend towards the fragmentation of the internet, where digital services are increasingly influenced by local regulations and national interests. This shift is creating a new technological landscape in which the impact of artificial intelligence on individuals' lives can vary significantly depending on their geographic location. J. Paul Goode argues that AI nationalism may exacerbate existing societal divisions by promoting the development of systems that embed cultural biases, thereby privileging certain groups while disadvantaging others.
Random neural network
The Random Neural Network (RNN) is a mathematical representation of an interconnected network of neurons or cells which exchange spiking signals. It was invented by Erol Gelenbe and is linked to the G-network model of queueing networks which Erol Gelenbe also invented, and with his Gene Regulatory Network models. In this model, each neuronal cell state is represented by an integer whose value rises when the cell receives an excitatory spike and drops when it receives an inhibitory spike. The spikes can originate outside the network itself, or they can come from other cells in the networks. Cells whose internal excitatory state has a positive value are allowed to send out spikes of either kind to other cells in the network according to specific cell-dependent spiking rates. The model has a mathematical solution in steady-state which provides the joint probability distribution of the network in terms of the individual probabilities that each cell is excited and able to send out spikes. Computing this solution is based on solving a set of non-linear algebraic equations whose parameters are related to the spiking rates of individual cells and their connectivity to other cells, as well as the arrival rates of spikes from outside the network. The RNN is a recurrent model, i.e. a neural network that is allowed to have complex feedback loops. A highly energy-efficient implementation of random neural networks was demonstrated by Krishna Palem et al. using the Probabilistic CMOS or PCMOS technology and was shown to be c. 226–300 times more efficient in terms of Energy-Performance-Product. RNNs are also related to artificial neural networks, which (like the random neural network) have gradient-based learning algorithms. The learning algorithm for an n-node random neural network that includes feedback loops (it is also a recurrent neural network) is of computational complexity O(n^3) (the number of computations is proportional to the cube of n, the number of neurons). The random neural network can also be used with other learning algorithms such as reinforcement learning. The RNN has been shown to be a universal approximator for bounded and continuous functions.
Synaptic transistor
A synaptic transistor is an electrical device that can learn in ways similar to a neural synapse. It optimizes its own properties for the functions it has carried out in the past. The device mimics the behavior of the property of neurons called spike-timing-dependent plasticity, or STDP. == Structure == Its structure is similar to that of a field effect transistor, where an ionic liquid takes the place of the gate insulating layer between the gate electrode and the conducting channel. That channel is composed of samarium nickelate (SmNiO3, or SNO) rather than the field effect transistor's doped silicon. == Function == A synaptic transistor has a traditional immediate response whose amount of current that passes between the source and drain contacts varies with voltage applied to the gate electrode. It also produces a much slower learned response such that the conductivity of the SNO layer varies in response to the transistor's STDP history, essentially by shuttling oxygen ions between the SNO and the ionic liquid. The analog of strengthening a synapse is to increase the SNO's conductivity, which essentially increases gain. Similarly, weakening a synapse is analogous to decreasing the SNO's conductivity, lowering the gain. The input and output of the synaptic transistor are continuous analog values, rather than digital on-off signals. While the physical structure of the device has the potential to learn from history, it contains no way to bias the transistor to control the memory effect. An external supervisory circuit converts the time delay between input and output into a voltage applied to the ionic liquid that either drives ions into the SNO or removes them. A network of such devices can learn particular responses to "sensory inputs", with those responses being learned through experience rather than explicitly programmed.
Fitness function
A fitness function is a particular type of objective or cost function that is used to summarize, as a single figure of merit, how close a given candidate solution is to achieving the set aims. It is an important component of evolutionary algorithms (EA), such as genetic programming, evolution strategies or genetic algorithms. An EA is a metaheuristic that reproduces the basic principles of biological evolution as a computer algorithm in order to solve challenging optimization or planning tasks, at least approximately. For this purpose, many candidate solutions are generated, which are evaluated using a fitness function in order to guide the evolutionary development towards the desired goal. Similar quality functions are also used in other metaheuristics, such as ant colony optimization or particle swarm optimization. In the field of EAs, each candidate solution, also called an individual, is commonly represented as a string of numbers (referred to as a chromosome). After each round of testing or simulation the idea is to delete the n worst individuals, and to breed n new ones from the best solutions. Each individual must therefore to be assigned a quality number indicating how close it has come to the overall specification, and this is generated by applying the fitness function to the test or simulation results obtained from that candidate solution. Two main classes of fitness functions exist: one where the fitness function does not change, as in optimizing a fixed function or testing with a fixed set of test cases; and one where the fitness function is mutable, as in niche differentiation or co-evolving the set of test cases. Another way of looking at fitness functions is in terms of a fitness landscape, which shows the fitness for each possible chromosome. In the following, it is assumed that the fitness is determined based on an evaluation that remains unchanged during an optimization run. A fitness function does not necessarily have to be able to calculate an absolute value, as it is sometimes sufficient to compare candidates in order to select the better one. A relative indication of fitness (candidate a is better than b) is sufficient in some cases, such as tournament selection or Pareto optimization. == Requirements of evaluation and fitness function == The quality of the evaluation and calculation of a fitness function is fundamental to the success of an EA optimisation. It implements Darwin's principle of "survival of the fittest". Without fitness-based selection mechanisms for mate selection and offspring acceptance, EA search would be blind and hardly distinguishable from the Monte Carlo method. When setting up a fitness function, one must always be aware that it is about more than just describing the desired target state. Rather, the evolutionary search on the way to the optimum should also be supported as much as possible (see also section on auxiliary objectives), if and insofar as this is not already done by the fitness function alone. If the fitness function is designed badly, the algorithm will either converge on an inappropriate solution, or will have difficulty converging at all. Definition of the fitness function is not straightforward in many cases and often is performed iteratively if the fittest solutions produced by an EA is not what is desired. Interactive genetic algorithms address this difficulty by outsourcing evaluation to external agents which are normally humans. == Computational efficiency == The fitness function should not only closely align with the designer's goal, but also be computationally efficient. Execution speed is crucial, as a typical evolutionary algorithm must be iterated many times in order to produce a usable result for a non-trivial problem. Fitness approximation may be appropriate, especially in the following cases: Fitness computation time of a single solution is extremely high Precise model for fitness computation is missing The fitness function is uncertain or noisy. Alternatively or also in addition to the fitness approximation, the fitness calculations can also be distributed to a parallel computer in order to reduce the execution times. Depending on the population model of the EA used, both the EA itself and the fitness calculations of all offspring of one generation can be executed in parallel. == Multi-objective optimization == Practical applications usually aim at optimizing multiple and at least partially conflicting objectives. Two fundamentally different approaches are often used for this purpose, Pareto optimization and optimization based on fitness calculated using the weighted sum. === Weighted sum and penalty functions === When optimizing with the weighted sum, the single values of the O {\displaystyle O} objectives are first normalized so that they can be compared. This can be done with the help of costs or by specifying target values and determining the current value as the degree of fulfillment. Costs or degrees of fulfillment can then be compared with each other and, if required, can also be mapped to a uniform fitness scale. Without loss of generality, fitness is assumed to represent a value to be maximized. Each objective o i {\displaystyle o_{i}} is assigned a weight w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} in the form of a percentage value so that the overall raw fitness f r a w {\displaystyle f_{raw}} can be calculated as a weighted sum: f r a w = ∑ i = 1 O o i ⋅ w i w i t h ∑ i = 1 O w i = 1 {\displaystyle f_{raw}=\sum _{i=1}^{O}{o_{i}\cdot w_{i}}\quad {\mathsf {with}}\quad \sum _{i=1}^{O}{w_{i}}=1} A violation of R {\displaystyle R} restrictions r j {\displaystyle r_{j}} can be included in the fitness determined in this way in the form of penalty functions. For this purpose, a function p f j ( r j ) {\displaystyle pf_{j}(r_{j})} can be defined for each restriction which returns a value between 0 {\displaystyle 0} and 1 {\displaystyle 1} depending on the degree of violation, with the result being 1 {\displaystyle 1} if there is no violation. The previously determined raw fitness is multiplied by the penalty function(s) and the result is then the final fitness f f i n a l {\displaystyle f_{final}} : f f i n a l = f r a w ⋅ ∏ j = 1 R p f j ( r j ) = ∑ i = 1 O ( o i ⋅ w i ) ⋅ ∏ j = 1 R p f j ( r j ) {\displaystyle f_{final}=f_{raw}\cdot \prod _{j=1}^{R}{pf_{j}(r_{j})}=\sum _{i=1}^{O}{(o_{i}\cdot w_{i})}\cdot \prod _{j=1}^{R}{pf_{j}(r_{j})}} This approach is simple and has the advantage of being able to combine any number of objectives and restrictions. The disadvantage is that different objectives can compensate each other and that the weights have to be defined before the optimization. This means that the compromise lines must be defined before optimization, which is why optimization with the weighted sum is also referred to as the a priori method. In addition, certain solutions may not be obtained, see the section on the comparison of both types of optimization. === Pareto optimization === A solution is called Pareto-optimal if the improvement of one objective is only possible with a deterioration of at least one other objective. The set of all Pareto-optimal solutions, also called Pareto set, represents the set of all optimal compromises between the objectives. The figure below on the right shows an example of the Pareto set of two objectives f 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}} and f 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}} to be maximized. The elements of the set form the Pareto front (green line). From this set, a human decision maker must subsequently select the desired compromise solution. Constraints are included in Pareto optimization in that solutions without constraint violations are per se better than those with violations. If two solutions to be compared each have constraint violations, the respective extent of the violations decides. It was recognized early on that EAs with their simultaneously considered solution set are well suited to finding solutions in one run that cover the Pareto front sufficiently well. They are therefore well suited as a-posteriori methods for multi-objective optimization, in which the final decision is made by a human decision maker after optimization and determination of the Pareto front. Besides the SPEA2, the NSGA-II and NSGA-III have established themselves as standard methods. The advantage of Pareto optimization is that, in contrast to the weighted sum, it provides all alternatives that are equivalent in terms of the objectives as an overall solution. The disadvantage is that a visualization of the alternatives becomes problematic or even impossible from four objectives on. Furthermore, the effort increases exponentially with the number of objectives. If there are more than three or four objectives, some have to be combined using the weighted sum or other aggregation methods. === Comparison of both types of assessment === With the help of the weighted sum, the total Pareto front can be obtained by a suitable choice of weights, provided that it is convex
MovieRide FX
MovieRide FX is a patented automated special visual effects video compositing engine used in the MovieRide FX mobile application for Android (requires Android 2.3 or later) and iOS (compatible with iPhone 4 and up, iPad, and iPod Touch (new generation), requires iOS 7 or later). MovieRide FX allows the user to personalize a "Hollywood-style" movie clip by inserting themself into the clip as the "actor". == Features == The MovieRide FX app uses the relevant mobile device's camera to record a video of the user and insert it into a pre-packaged "Hollywood style" movie clip. The "actor" is extracted from their recorded video clip through various known effects such as masking, keying, and motion tracking. The "actor" is then inserted into one of the pre-packaged movie clips created by the MovieRide FX visual effects artists. This is done through an automated process requiring little or no artistic or technical skill from the user. The custom movie clips pre-packaged with MovieRide FX offer the user a variety of movie scenarios. Additional clips based on popular television and movie themes are continually being developed and are available on a freemium basis. == Sharing == Once the user's footage has automatically been composited into a movie clip and rendered as an .mp4 file, it can be shared via social media, such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, and by e-mail. == History == === 2012 === MovieRide FX was created by Grant Waterston and Johann Mynhardt, who started development in 2012. === 2013 === The beta version was released on Google Play in July 2013. In August 2013 MovieRide FX was a New Media Award winner in the "New Media" category of the Accolade International Awards in Los Angeles. In October 2013 MovieRide FX was awarded exhibitor space in the ‘start-up village’ at the Apps-World Expo in London. === 2014 === MovieRide FX reached the 100 000 – 500 000 downloads category on the Google Play Store in June 2014. The official Android version was launched in July 2014. iOS version released in August 2014. MovieRide FX was selected as one of the "Top 150" startups at the Pioneer Festival in Vienna in September 2014. In November 2014 MovieRide FX was shortlisted for the Appster Awards in the "Best Entertainment App" and "Most Innovative App" categories and was awarded exhibitor space at the ‘start-up village’ at the Apps-World Expo in London. Patent applications were filed in South Africa, the EU and USA in April 2014. === 2015 === In September 2015 MovieRide FX was shortlisted for "Best Software innovation" at The Technology Expo Awards in London. === 2016 === In April 2016 MovieRide FX was nominated for a National Science and Technology Forum (NSTF) award for 'Research leading to Innovation by a corporate organization' In August 2016 Movie Ride FX won two Gold Awards at the 2016 Mobile Marketing Awards (MMA Smarties SA). These two Gold awards were for the 'Innovation' and 'Best in Show’ categories. In December 2016 FlicJam Inc. was formed in the US to access the larger global market. EU patent application was published in March 2016. === 2017 === South African patent was granted in February 2017. === 2018 === US patent was granted in March 2018.
Linear discriminant analysis
Linear discriminant analysis (LDA), normal discriminant analysis (NDA), canonical variates analysis (CVA), or discriminant function analysis is a generalization of Fisher's linear discriminant, a method used in statistics and other fields, to find a linear combination of features that characterizes or separates two or more classes of objects or events. The resulting combination may be used as a linear classifier, or, more commonly, for dimensionality reduction before later classification. LDA is closely related to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression analysis, which also attempt to express one dependent variable as a linear combination of other features or measurements. However, ANOVA uses categorical independent variables and a continuous dependent variable, whereas discriminant analysis has continuous independent variables and a categorical dependent variable (i.e. the class label). Logistic regression and probit regression are more similar to LDA than ANOVA is, as they also explain a categorical variable by the values of continuous independent variables. These other methods are preferable in applications where it is not reasonable to assume that the independent variables have a normal distribution, which is a fundamental assumption of the LDA method. LDA is also closely related to principal component analysis (PCA) and factor analysis in that they both look for linear combinations of variables which best explain the data. LDA explicitly attempts to model the difference between the classes of data. PCA, in contrast, does not take into account any difference in class, and factor analysis builds the feature combinations based on similarities rather than differences. Discriminant analysis is also different from factor analysis in that it is not an interdependence technique: a distinction between independent variables and dependent variables (also called criterion variables) must be made. LDA works when the measurements made on independent variables for each observation are continuous quantities. When dealing with categorical independent variables, the equivalent technique is discriminant correspondence analysis. Discriminant analysis is used when groups are known a priori (unlike in cluster analysis). Each case must have a score on one or more quantitative predictor measures, and a score on a group measure. In simple terms, discriminant function analysis is classification - the act of distributing things into groups, classes or categories of the same type. == History == The original dichotomous discriminant analysis was developed by Sir Ronald Fisher in 1936. It is different from an ANOVA or MANOVA, which is used to predict one (ANOVA) or multiple (MANOVA) continuous dependent variables by one or more independent categorical variables. Discriminant function analysis is useful in determining whether a set of variables is effective in predicting category membership. == LDA for two classes == Consider a set of observations x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} (also called features, attributes, variables or measurements) for each sample of an object or event with known class y {\displaystyle y} . This set of samples is called the training set in a supervised learning context. The classification problem is then to find a good predictor for the class y {\displaystyle y} of any sample of the same distribution (not necessarily from the training set) given only an observation x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} . LDA approaches the problem by assuming that the conditional probability density functions p ( x → | y = 0 ) {\displaystyle p({\vec {x}}|y=0)} and p ( x → | y = 1 ) {\displaystyle p({\vec {x}}|y=1)} are both the normal distribution with mean and covariance parameters ( μ → 0 , Σ 0 ) {\displaystyle \left({\vec {\mu }}_{0},\Sigma _{0}\right)} and ( μ → 1 , Σ 1 ) {\displaystyle \left({\vec {\mu }}_{1},\Sigma _{1}\right)} , respectively. Under this assumption, the Bayes-optimal solution is to predict points as being from the second class if the log of the likelihood ratios is bigger than some threshold T, so that: 1 2 ( x → − μ → 0 ) T Σ 0 − 1 ( x → − μ → 0 ) + 1 2 ln | Σ 0 | − 1 2 ( x → − μ → 1 ) T Σ 1 − 1 ( x → − μ → 1 ) − 1 2 ln | Σ 1 | > T {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{0})^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{0}^{-1}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{0})+{\frac {1}{2}}\ln |\Sigma _{0}|-{\frac {1}{2}}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{1})^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{1}^{-1}({\vec {x}}-{\vec {\mu }}_{1})-{\frac {1}{2}}\ln |\Sigma _{1}|\ >\ T} Without any further assumptions, the resulting classifier is referred to as quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA). LDA instead makes the additional simplifying homoscedasticity assumption (i.e. that the class covariances are identical, so Σ 0 = Σ 1 = Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma _{0}=\Sigma _{1}=\Sigma } ) and that the covariances have full rank. In this case, several terms cancel: x → T Σ 0 − 1 x → = x → T Σ 1 − 1 x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{0}^{-1}{\vec {x}}={\vec {x}}^{\mathrm {T} }\Sigma _{1}^{-1}{\vec {x}}} x → T Σ i − 1 μ → i = μ → i T Σ i − 1 x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}^{\mathrm {T} }{\Sigma _{i}}^{-1}{\vec {\mu }}_{i}={{\vec {\mu }}_{i}}^{\mathrm {T} }{\Sigma _{i}}^{-1}{\vec {x}}} because both sides are scalar and transpose to each other ( Σ i {\displaystyle \Sigma _{i}} is Hermitian) and the above decision criterion becomes a threshold on the dot product w → T x → > c {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}^{\mathrm {T} }{\vec {x}}>c} for some threshold constant c, where w → = Σ − 1 ( μ → 1 − μ → 0 ) {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}=\Sigma ^{-1}({\vec {\mu }}_{1}-{\vec {\mu }}_{0})} c = 1 2 w → T ( μ → 1 + μ → 0 ) {\displaystyle c={\frac {1}{2}}\,{\vec {w}}^{\mathrm {T} }({\vec {\mu }}_{1}+{\vec {\mu }}_{0})} This means that the criterion of an input x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} being in a class y {\displaystyle y} is purely a function of this linear combination of the known observations. It is often useful to see this conclusion in geometrical terms: the criterion of an input x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} being in a class y {\displaystyle y} is purely a function of projection of multidimensional-space point x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} onto vector w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} (thus, we only consider its direction). In other words, the observation belongs to y {\displaystyle y} if corresponding x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} is located on a certain side of a hyperplane perpendicular to w → {\displaystyle {\vec {w}}} . The location of the plane is defined by the threshold c {\displaystyle c} . == Assumptions == The assumptions of discriminant analysis are the same as those for MANOVA. The analysis is quite sensitive to outliers and the size of the smallest group must be larger than the number of predictor variables. Multivariate normality: Independent variables are normal for each level of the grouping variable. Homogeneity of variance/covariance (homoscedasticity): Variances among group variables are the same across levels of predictors. Can be tested with Box's M statistic. It has been suggested, however, that linear discriminant analysis be used when covariances are equal, and that quadratic discriminant analysis may be used when covariances are not equal. Independence: Participants are assumed to be randomly sampled, and a participant's score on one variable is assumed to be independent of scores on that variable for all other participants. It has been suggested that discriminant analysis is relatively robust to slight violations of these assumptions, and it has also been shown that discriminant analysis may still be reliable when using dichotomous variables (where multivariate normality is often violated). == Discriminant functions == Discriminant analysis works by creating one or more linear combinations of predictors, creating a new latent variable for each function. These functions are called discriminant functions. The number of functions possible is either N g − 1 {\displaystyle N_{g}-1} where N g {\displaystyle N_{g}} = number of groups, or p {\displaystyle p} (the number of predictors), whichever is smaller. The first function created maximizes the differences between groups on that function. The second function maximizes differences on that function, but also must not be correlated with the previous function. This continues with subsequent functions with the requirement that the new function not be correlated with any of the previous functions. Given group j {\displaystyle j} , with R j {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} _{j}} sets of sample space, there is a discriminant rule such that if x ∈ R j {\displaystyle x\in \mathbb {R} _{j}} , then x ∈ j {\displaystyle x\in j} . Discriminant analysis then, finds “good” regions of R j {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} _{j}} to minimize classification error, therefore leading to a high percent correct classified in the classification table. Each function is given a discriminant score to determine how well it predicts group placement. Structure Corr