Social recruiting (social hiring or social media recruitment) is recruiting candidates by using social platforms as talent databases or for advertising. Social recruiting uses social media profiles, blogs, and other Internet sites to find information on candidates. It also uses social media to advertise jobs either through HR vendors or through crowdsourcing where job seekers and others share job openings within their online social networks. Social recruiting's effectiveness and return on investment have been difficult to determine, since applicants do not usually apply through the social channels which first attracted them. In May 2013, Maximum Employment Marketing Group released the Social Recruitment Monitor, which ranks the reach, engagement, and interactivity of employers' social recruiting efforts around the world. == Social recruitment software == The social recruitment software market (a form of e-recruitment) is often included in the wider talent management software sector. Bersin & Associates valued the wider talent management market at over $2bn in 2007. Social recruitment increasingly sits at an intersection of a number of fast-moving areas including social networking, recruitment and now cloud computing. Additionally, mobile recruiting has become another hot topic, especially with the rise in tablet and smartphone usage. In 2012, there was a rise of tech companies using social recruiting applications to find and screen applicants. As more companies saw value in filling jobs by putting them on the social platforms where millions of people spend at least 37 minutes daily, there developed a much larger focus on social recruiting among the talent acquisition community. By mid-2013, many major enterprise companies such as Pepsi, Gap, AIG, and Oracle had begun effectively utilizing social recruiting software, making it clear that large corporations were open to automating or streamlining (and ultimately investing in) their social recruiting processes.
Singularity studies
Singularity studies is an interdisciplinary academic field which examines the idea of technological singularity — the hypothesised point at which artificial intelligence may surpass human intelligence, might be attained by artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, and other technologies and sciences, and its social impacts. In this academic field, the study and research are conducted across a broad array of terrains such as information science, robotics, social informatics, economics, philosophy, and ethics. The primary aim of singularity studies is to gain an integrative understanding of the transformation of social systems occurring in tandem with the explosive evolution of AI and also the changes to be effected by such transformation in the view of humans, ethics, and legal systems. == History == An academic work on technological singurality has appeared in computer science, philosophy, sociology, and law since the early 1990s. Early discussions of an intelligence explosion were popularised by science-fiction writer Vernor Vinge in 1993 and later systematised by futurist Ray Kurzweil. Since the 2010s, universities such as Oxford, Stanford, and Keio have established dedicated programmes, while peer-reviewed journals have begun to publish scenario analyses and policy studies. Ongoing debates question the predictive value of singularity scenarios and warn against a deterministic view of technology. == Characteristics of research == Singularity studies extends beyond mere future predictions and offer an intellectual foundation for proactively designing and creating a desirable future. Principal research themes in this realm include: Ethics of AI; Social implications of technologies; Possibility of harmonious coexistence of humans and AI; Communication with AI; and Redesign of social systems. == Technologists and academics == Vernor Vinge: Propounded the concept of singularity in 1993, making a massive impact on the academic and science-fiction spheres. Ray Kurzweil: Predicted the advent around 2045 of the technological singularity in his 2005 book The Singularity Is Near. Nick Bostrom: Offered philosophical reflections on superintelligence and the risks posed by AI. He is the founding director of the now-dissolved Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford. === Japan === Kento Sasano: A social informatician, AI educator, and inventor. He is the president of the Japan Society of Singularity Studies. == Challenges and outlook == Singularity studies is still evolving as an academic field, and quite a few challenges remain unresolved in regard to the systematization of their theories, research methods, and educational curricula. That said, in this day and age of accelerating technological and societal shifts, interdisciplinary approaches have gained in importance and are drawing much attention in the arenas of scholarly research, intercorporate collaboration, and policy planning.
Right to explanation
In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo
Enterprise cognitive system
Enterprise cognitive systems (ECS) are part of a broader shift in computing, from a programmatic to a probabilistic approach, called cognitive computing. An Enterprise Cognitive System makes a new class of complex decision support problems computable, where the business context is ambiguous, multi-faceted, and fast-evolving, and what to do in such a situation is usually assessed today by the business user. An ECS is designed to synthesize a business context and link it to the desired outcome. It recommends evidence-based actions to help the end-user achieve the desired outcome. It does so by finding past situations similar to the current situation, and extracting the repeated actions that best influence the desired outcome. While general-purpose cognitive systems can be used for different outputs, prescriptive, suggestive, instructive, or simply entertaining, an enterprise cognitive system is focused on action, not insight, to help in assessing what to do in a complex situation. == Key characteristics == ECS have to be: Adaptive: They must learn as information changes, and as goals and requirements evolve. They must resolve ambiguity and tolerate unpredictability. They must be engineered to feed on dynamic data in real time, or near real time. In the Enterprise, near-real time learning from data requires an agile information federation approach to ingest incremental data updates as they occur, and an unsupervised learning approach to ensure that new best practice is leveraged across the organization in a timely manner. Interactive: They must interact easily with users so that those users can define their needs comfortably. They may also interact with other processors, devices, and Cloud services, as well as with people. In the Enterprise, interactions are controlled via existing workflows and UIs. Therefore, embedding best practices directly into these existing interfaces, in the context of a specific step, is critical to ensure maximum end-user adoption. Iterative and stateful: They must aid in defining a problem by asking questions or finding additional source input if a problem statement is ambiguous or incomplete. They must “remember” previous interactions in a process and return information that is suitable for the specific application at that point in time. In the Enterprise, business context is often structured by a business process, and therefore sufficiently data-rich to make relevant recommendations without significant iterations from the end-user. A stateful memory of overall interactions across communication channels is critical for understanding of context, as a static profile will not capture intent and outcome potential the way behavior does. Contextual: They must understand, identify, and extract contextual elements such as meaning, syntax, time, location, appropriate domain, regulations, user's profile, process, task and goal. They may draw on multiple sources of information, including both structured and unstructured digital information, as well as sensory inputs (visual, gestural, auditory, or sensor-provided). In the Enterprise, Context is fragmented and must be aggregated across data types, sources, and locations. In most business environments, such data is captured in existing enterprise information systems, and the effort is linked to quickly source and unify such information. It is rare to have to directly process sensor, audio or visual data in real-time as direct input into the enterprise cognitive system. Instead, these data types are captured by Enterprise Applications and pre-processed into a binary or text format prior to consumption by the System. == Business applications powered by an ECS == Bottlenose – trends and brands monitoring Cybereason – security threat monitoring Dataminr – social media monitoring
Instance (computer science)
In computer science, an instance or token (from metalogic and metamathematics) is a specific occurrence of a software element that is based on a type definition. When created, an occurrence is said to have been instantiated, and both the creation process and the result of creation are called instantiation. == Examples == Chat AI instance In chat-based AI systems, an assistant can be invoked across many independent conversation sessions (often called a thread), each with its own message history. A specific execution of the assistant over that session may be represented as a run (an execution on a thread). Class instance In object-oriented programming, an object created from a class type. Each instance of a class shares the class-defined structure and behavior but has its own identity and state. Procedural instance In some contexts (including Simula), each procedure call can be viewed as an instance of that procedure—an activation with its own parameters and local variables. Computer instance In cloud computing and virtualization, an instance commonly refers to a provisioned virtual machine or virtual server with an allocated combination of compute, memory, network, and storage resources. Polygonal model In computer graphics, a model may be instanced so it can be drawn multiple times with different transforms and parameters, improving performance by reusing shared geometry data. Program instance In a POSIX-oriented operating system, a running process is an instance of a program. It can be instantiated via system calls such as fork() and exec(). Each executing process is an instance of a program it has been instantiated from.
PerfKitBenchmarker
PerfKit Benchmarker is an open source benchmarking tool used to measure and compare cloud offerings. PerfKit Benchmarker is licensed under the Apache 2 license terms. PerfKit Benchmarker is a community effort involving over 500 participants including researchers, academic institutions and companies together with the originator, Google. == General == PerfKit Benchmarker (PKB) is a community effort to deliver a repeatable, consistent, and open way of measuring Cloud Performance. It supports a growing list of cloud providers including: Alibaba Cloud, Amazon Web Services, CloudStack, DigitalOcean, Google Cloud Platform, Kubernetes, Microsoft Azure, OpenStack, Rackspace, IBM Bluemix (Softlayer). In addition to Cloud Providers to supports container orchestration including Kubernetes [1] and Mesos [2] and local "static" workstations and clusters of computers [3]. The goal is to create an open source living benchmark [framework] that represents how Cloud developers are building applications, evaluating Cloud alternatives, learning how to architect applications for each cloud. Living because it will change and morph quickly as developers change. PerfKit Benchmarker measures the end to end time to provision resources in the cloud, in addition to reporting on the most standard metrics of peak performance, e.g.: latency, throughput, time-to-complete, IOPS. PerfKit Benchmarker reduces the complexity in running benchmarks on supported cloud providers by unified and simple commands. It's designed to operate via vendor provided command line tools. PerfKit Benchmarker contains a canonical set of public benchmarks. All benchmarks are running with default/initial state and configuration (Not tuned to in favor of any providers). This provides a way to benchmark across cloud platforms, while getting a transparent view of application throughput, latency, variance, and overhead. == History == PerfKit Benchmarker (PKB) was started by Anthony F. Voellm, Alain Hamel, and Eric Hankland at Google in 2014. Once an initial "alpha" was in place Anthony F. Voellm and Ivan Santa Maria Filho built a community including ARM, Broadcom, Canonical, CenturyLink, Cisco, CloudHarmony, CloudSpectator, EcoCloud@EPFL, Intel, Mellanox, Microsoft, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Rackspace, Red Hat, Tradeworx Inc., and Thesys Technologies LLC. This community worked together behind the scenes in a private GitHub project to create an open way to measure cloud performance. This community released the first public "beta" was released on February 11, 2015, and announced in a blog post at which point the GitHub project was open to everyone. After almost a year and with large adaption (600+ participants on GitHub) the V1.0.0 was released along with a detailed architectural design on December 10, 2015. == Benchmarks == A list of available benchmarks from PerfKitBenchmarker: (The latest set of benchmarks can be found at GitHub readme file.) == Industry participants == Since Google open sourced the PerfKitBenchmarker, it became a community effort from over 30 leading researchers, academic schools and industry companies. Those organizations include: ARM, Broadcom, Canonical, CenturyLink, Cisco, CloudHarmony, Cloud Spectator, EcoCloud@EPFL, Intel, Mellanox, Microsoft, Qualcomm Technologies, Rackspace, Red Hat, and Thesys Technologies. In addition, Stanford and MIT are leading quarterly discussions on default benchmarks and settings proposed by the community. EcoCloud@EPFL is integrating CloudSuite into PerfKit Benchmarker. == Example runs == On Google Cloud Platform On AWS On Azure On Rackspace On a local machine
Multimodal representation learning
Multimodal representation learning is a subfield of representation learning focused on integrating and interpreting information from different modalities, such as text, images, audio, or video, by projecting them into a shared latent space. This allows for semantically similar content across modalities to be mapped to nearby points within that space, facilitating a unified understanding of diverse data types. By automatically learning meaningful features from each modality and capturing their inter-modal relationships, multimodal representation learning enables a unified representation that enhances performance in cross-media analysis tasks such as video classification, event detection, and sentiment analysis. It also supports cross-modal retrieval and translation, including image captioning, video description, and text-to-image synthesis. == Motivation == The primary motivations for multimodal representation learning arise from the inherent nature of real-world data and the limitations of unimodal approaches. Since multimodal data offers complementary and supplementary information about an object or event from different perspectives, it is more informative than relying on a single modality. A key motivation is to narrow the heterogeneity gap that exists between different modalities by projecting their features into a shared semantic subspace. This allows semantically similar content across modalities to be represented by similar vectors, facilitating the understanding of relationships and correlations between them. Multimodal representation learning aims to leverage the unique information provided by each modality to achieve a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of concepts. These unified representations are crucial for improving performance in various cross-media analysis tasks such as video classification, event detection, and sentiment analysis. They also enable cross-modal retrieval, allowing users to search and retrieve content across different modalities. Additionally, it facilitates cross-modal translation, where information can be converted from one modality to another, as seen in applications like image captioning and text-to-image synthesis. The abundance of ubiquitous multimodal data in real-world applications, including understudied areas like healthcare, finance, and human-computer interaction (HCI), further motivates the development of effective multimodal representation learning techniques. == Approaches and methods == === Canonical-correlation analysis based methods === Canonical-correlation analysis (CCA) was first introduced in 1936 by Harold Hotelling and is a fundamental approach for multimodal learning. CCA aims to find linear relationships between two sets of variables. Given two data matrices X ∈ R n × p {\displaystyle X\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times p}} and Y ∈ R n × q {\displaystyle Y\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times q}} representing different modalities, CCA finds projection vectors w x ∈ R p {\displaystyle w_{x}\in \mathbb {R} ^{p}} and w y ∈ R q {\displaystyle w_{y}\in \mathbb {R} ^{q}} that maximizes the correlation between the projected variables: ρ = max w x , w y w x ⊤ Σ x y w y w x ⊤ Σ x x w x w y ⊤ Σ y y w y {\displaystyle \rho =\max _{w_{x},w_{y}}{\frac {w_{x}^{\top }\Sigma _{xy}w_{y}}{{\sqrt {w_{x}^{\top }\Sigma _{xx}w_{x}}}{\sqrt {w_{y}^{\top }\Sigma _{yy}w_{y}}}}}} such that Σ x x {\displaystyle \Sigma _{xx}} and Σ y y {\displaystyle \Sigma _{yy}} are the within-modality covariance matrices, and Σ x y {\displaystyle \Sigma _{xy}} is the between-modality covariance matrix. However, standard CCA is limited by its linearity, which led to the development of nonlinear extensions, such as kernel CCA and deep CCA. ==== Kernel CCA ==== Kernel canonical correlation analysis (KCCA) extends traditional CCA to capture nonlinear relationships between modalities by implicitly mapping the data into high dimensional feature spaces using kernel functions. Given kernel functions K x {\displaystyle K_{x}} and K y {\displaystyle K_{y}} with corresponding Gram matrices K x ∈ R n × n {\displaystyle K_{x}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times n}} and K y ∈ R n × n {\displaystyle K_{y}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times n}} , KCCA seeks coefficients α {\displaystyle \alpha } and β {\displaystyle \beta } that maximize: ρ = max α , β α ⊤ K x K y β α ⊤ K x 2 α β ⊤ K y 2 β {\displaystyle \rho =\max _{\alpha ,\beta }{\frac {\alpha ^{\top }K_{x}Ky\beta }{{\sqrt {\alpha ^{\top }K_{x}^{2}\alpha }}{\sqrt {\beta ^{\top }K_{y}^{2}\beta }}}}} To prevent overfitting, regularization terms are typically added, resulting in: ρ = max α , β α T K x K y β α T ( K x 2 + λ x K x ) α β T ( K y 2 + λ y K y ) β {\displaystyle \rho =\max _{\alpha ,\beta }{\frac {\alpha ^{T}K_{x}K_{y}\beta }{{\sqrt {\alpha ^{T}\left(K_{x}^{2}+\lambda _{x}K_{x}\right)\alpha }}{\sqrt {\;\beta ^{T}\left(K_{y}^{2}+\lambda _{y}K_{y}\right)\beta }}}}} where λ x {\displaystyle \lambda _{x}} and λ y {\displaystyle \lambda _{y}} are regularization parameters. KCCA has proven effective for tasks such as cross-modal retrieval and semantic analysis, though it faces computational challenges with large datasets due to its O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} memory requirement for sorting kernel matrices. KCCA was proposed independently by several researchers. ==== Deep CCA ==== Deep canonical correlation analysis (DCCA), introduced in 2013, employs neural networks to learn nonlinear transformations for maximizing the correlation between modalities. DCCA uses separate neural networks f x {\displaystyle f_{x}} and f y {\displaystyle f_{y}} for each modality to transform the original data before applying CCA: max W x , W y , θ x , θ y corr ( f x ( X ; θ x ) , f y ( Y ; θ y ) ) {\displaystyle \max _{W_{x},W_{y},\theta _{x},\theta _{y}}\operatorname {corr} \left(f_{x}(X;\theta _{x}),f_{y}(Y;\theta _{y})\right)} where θ x {\displaystyle \theta _{x}} and θ y {\displaystyle \theta _{y}} represent the parameters of the neural networks, and W x {\displaystyle W_{x}} and W y {\displaystyle W_{y}} are the CCA projection matrices. The correlation objective is computed as: corr ( H x , H y ) = tr ( T − 1 / 2 H x T H y S − 1 / 2 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {corr} (H_{x},H_{y})=\operatorname {tr} \left(T^{-1/2}H_{x}^{T}H_{y}S^{-1/2}\right)} where H x = f x ( X ) {\displaystyle H_{x}=f_{x}(X)} and H y = f y ( Y ) {\displaystyle H_{y}=f_{y}(Y)} are the network outputs, T = H x T H x + r x I {\displaystyle T=H_{x}^{T}H_{x}+r_{x}I} , S = H y T H y + r y I {\displaystyle S=H_{y}^{T}H_{y}+r_{y}I} and r x , r y {\displaystyle r_{x},r_{y}} are the regularization parameters. DCCA overcomes the limitations of linear CCA and kernel CCA by learning complex nonlinear relationships while maintaining computational efficiency for large datasets through mini-batch optimization. === Graph-based methods === Graph-based approaches for multimodal representation learning leverage graph structure to model relationships between entities across different modalities. These methods typically represent each modality as a graph and then learn embedding that preserve cross-modal similarities, enabling more effective joint representation of heterogeneous data. One such method is cross-modal graph neural networks (CMGNNs) that extend traditional graph neural networks (GNNs) to handle data from multiple modalities by constructing graphs that capture both intra-modal and inter-modal relationships. These networks model interactions across modalities by representing them as nodes and their relationships as edges. Other graph-based methods include Probabilistic Graphical Models (PGMs) such as deep belief networks (DBN) and deep Boltzmann machines (DBM). These models can learn a joint representation across modalities, for instance, a multimodal DBN achieves this by adding a shared restricted Boltzmann Machine (RBM) hidden layer on top of modality-specific DBNs. Additionally, the structure of data in some domains like Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), such as the view hierarchy of app screens, can potentially be modeled using graph-like structures. The field of graph representation learning is also relevant, with ongoing progress in developing evaluation benchmarks. === Diffusion maps === Another set of methods relevant to multimodal representation learning are based on diffusion maps and their extensions to handle multiple modalities. ==== Multi-view diffusion maps ==== Multi-view diffusion maps address the challenge of achieving multi-view dimensionality reduction by effectively utilizing the availability of multiple views to extract a coherent low-dimensional representation of the data. The core idea is to exploit both the intrinsic relations within each view and the mutual relations between the different views, defining a cross-view model where a random walk process implicitly hops between objects in different views. A multi-view kernel matrix is constructed by combining these relations, defining a cross-view diffusion process and associ