The Lost Art-Datenbank is an online database published by the German Lost Art Foundation (Deutsches Zentrum Kulturgutverluste. It contains information on cultural objects looted from Jewish collectors or transferred due to Nazi persecution during the Nazi era. Until 2015, it was managed by the Koordinierungsstelle für Kulturgutverluste (Magdeburg Coordination Office). == Creation == Following the Washington Conference of 1998, and the commitments to provide more transparency regarding looted art, Germany launched the Lost Art Database in 2000 order to help Holocaust victims and their families track down artworks that had been looted from them or lost due to Nazi persecution. == Functionality == The Lost Art Database lists art and books and other cultural objects that were lost, seized, stolen or forceably sold during the Nazi era. The database is divided into search requests from victims' families, heirs or institutions and "found" reports from cultural institutions on items with unresolved provenance gaps from the Nazi periods. The section on reports of finds lists objects that are known to have been unlawfully seized or relocated as a result of the war. In addition, reports are published here on cultural objects for which an uncertain or incomplete provenance may indicate a possible unlawful seizure or war-related relocation. The publication of reports in the Lost Art Internet Database is carried out on behalf of and with the consent of the reporting persons and institutions. The responsibility for the content of the reports lies with these legal or natural persons. There have been controversies over which items should be included in the database. Lost Art is based on the Washington Principles adopted in 1998, which Germany has committed itself to implementing (Joint Declaration, 1999). The Lost Art Database is considered a key resource in the search for looted art and the victims of persecution. Every item in the Lost Art Database has an identifier, known as a Lost Art ID. Proveana is the linked research database. == Other lost art databases == Other countries have launched databases to help identify Nazi looted art. Each database has its own area of focus. The German Lost Art Database allows families or heirs to submit information. Other countries have databases that focus on looted artworks that have not been found or artworks that were repatriated to the national authorities after the defeat of the Nazis but were never returned to their original owners. Other databases have been created for stolen antiquities, looted art from colonial era, art stolen from Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, or from museums or collectors.
Digital Michelangelo Project
The Digital Michelangelo Project was a pioneering initiative undertaken during the 1998–1999 academic year to digitize the sculptures and architecture of Michelangelo using advanced laser scanning technology. The project was led by a team of 30 faculty, staff, and students from Stanford University and the University of Washington, with the aim of creating high-resolution 3D models of Michelangelo's works for scholarly, educational, and preservation purposes. == Objectives == The primary goals of the Digital Michelangelo Project were: To apply recent advancements in laser rangefinder technology for digitizing large cultural artifacts. To create detailed digital archives of Michelangelo's sculptures and architectural spaces for future study and analysis. To explore potential educational and curatorial applications for 3D scanned data. === Artworks digitized === The project involved scanning several iconic works by Michelangelo, including: David The Unfinished Slaves (Atlas, Awakening, Bearded, and Youthful) St. Matthew The allegorical statues from the Medici tombs (Night, Day, Dawn, and Dusk) The architectural interiors of the Tribuna del David at the Galleria dell'Accademia and the New Sacristy in the Medici Chapels. == Technology and methodology == === 3D scanning === The project's primary scanner was a laser triangulation rangefinder mounted on a motorized gantry, custom-built by Cyberware Inc. The scanner used a laser sheet to project onto an object, capturing its shape through triangulation. Multiple scans were taken from various angles and combined into a single, detailed 3D mesh. The resolution achieved was fine enough to capture even Michelangelo's chisel marks, with triangles approximately 0.25 mm on each side. In addition to shape data, color data was captured using a spotlight and a secondary camera, enabling the creation of textured 3D models. === Data processing === The project developed a software suite for processing the scanned data. This included: Aligning and merging multiple scans into a seamless 3D model. Filling holes in the geometry caused by inaccessible areas. Correcting color data for lighting inconsistencies and shadowing. Non-photorealistic rendering techniques were also applied, highlighting surface features such as Michelangelo’s chisel marks for enhanced visualization. == Logistical challenges == The scale and complexity of the project presented several challenges: Data size: The dataset for David alone comprised 2 billion polygons and 7,000 color images, occupying 60 GB of storage. Artifact safety: Ensuring the safety of the statues during scanning required extensive crew training, foam-encased equipment, and collision-prevention mechanisms. == Applications and impact == The digitized models have numerous potential applications: Art history: Allowing precise measurements and geometric analysis, such as determining chisel types or evaluating structural balance. Education: Providing new ways to study art, including interactive viewing from unconventional angles and with custom lighting. Museum curation: Enhancing visitor experiences through interactive kiosks and virtual models. The project demonstrated the potential for 3D technology to preserve and disseminate cultural heritage. == Data distribution == The project's models are available through Stanford University for scholarly purposes, under strict licensing due to Italian intellectual property laws. === ScanView === To provide public access to the 3D models while respecting usage restrictions, the project developed ScanView, a client/server rendering system. ScanView allows users to view and interact with high-resolution 3D models without downloading the data. The client component consists of a freely available viewer program and simplified 3D models. Users can navigate these models locally, adjusting position, orientation, lighting, and surface appearance. When a user finalizes a view, the client queries a remote server for a high-resolution rendering of the model, which is sent back to overwrite the simplified version on the user’s screen. A typical query-response cycle takes 1–2 seconds, depending on network conditions. To protect the models from unauthorized reconstruction, the system employs several security measures, including: Encrypting queries Perturbing viewpoint and lighting parameters Adding noise and warping rendered images Compressing images before transmission ScanView operates on Windows-based PCs and provides access to selected models, including David and St. Matthew, as well as other artifacts such as fragments of the Forma Urbis Romae and items from the Stanford 3D Scanning Repository. == Sponsors == The Digital Michelangelo Project was supported by Stanford University, Interval Research Corporation, and the Paul G. Allen Foundation for the Arts.
Maghi King
Margaret (Maghi) Daniel King is a retired British computational linguist known for her work on evaluating the quality of machine translation. She is an honorary professor in the Department of Translation Technology of the University of Geneva in Switzerland, and the former director of the Dalle Molle Institute for Semantic and Cognitive Studies at the University of Geneva. == Education and career == King read classics, Ancient History and Philosophy (Greats) at the University of Oxford, worked as a computer programmer, and became a lecturer in the Department of Computation at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. She moved to the Dalle Molle Institute for Semantic and Cognitive Studies (ISSCO) in 1974. In 1976, ISSCO became part of the University of Geneva, and she continued there, becoming ISSCO's director in 1978. She remained director until her retirement in 2006. == Recognition == King is a Fellow of the European Association for Artificial Intelligence (formerly ECCAI), elected in 1999.
Margin (machine learning)
In machine learning, the margin of a single data point is defined to be the distance from the data point to a decision boundary. Note that there are many distances and decision boundaries that may be appropriate for certain datasets and goals. A margin classifier is a classification model that utilizes the margin of each example to learn such classification. There are theoretical justifications (based on the VC dimension) as to why maximizing the margin (under some suitable constraints) may be beneficial for machine learning and statistical inference algorithms. For a given dataset, there may be many hyperplanes that could classify it. One reasonable choice as the best hyperplane is the one that represents the largest separation, or margin, between the classes. Hence, one should choose the hyperplane such that the distance from it to the nearest data point on each side is maximized. If such a hyperplane exists, it is known as the maximum-margin hyperplane, and the linear classifier it defines is known as a maximum margin classifier (or, equivalently, the perceptron of optimal stability).
Sumio Watanabe
Sumio Watanabe (渡辺 澄夫, Watanabe Sumio; born 1959) is a Japanese mathematician and engineer working in probability theory, applied algebraic geometry and Bayesian statistics. He is currently a professor at Tokyo Institute of Technology in the Department of Computational Intelligence and Systems Science. He is the author of the text, Algebraic Geometry and Statistical Learning Theory, which proposes a generalization of Fisher's regular statistical theory to singular statistical models. == Books == Mathematical Theory of Bayesian Statistics, CRC Press, 2018, ISBN 9781482238068 Algebraic Geometry and Statistical Learning Theory, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Intrinsic dimension
In mathematics, the intrinsic dimension of a subset can be thought of as the minimal number of variables needed to represent the subset. The concept has widespread applications in geometry, dynamical systems, signal processing, statistics, and other fields. Due to its widespread applications and vague conceptualization, there are many different ways to define it rigorously. Consequently, the same set might have different intrinsic dimensions according to different definitions. The intrinsic dimension can be used as a lower bound of what dimension it is possible to compress a data set into through dimension reduction, but it can also be used as a measure of the complexity of the data set or signal. For a data set or signal of N variables, its intrinsic dimension M satisfies 0 ≤ M ≤ N, although estimators may yield higher values. == Exact dimension == === Differential === In differential geometry, given a differentiable manifold N and a submanifold M, the intrinsic dimension of M is its dimension. Suppose N has n dimensions and M has m dimensions, then that means around any point in M, there exists a local coordinate system ( x 1 , … , x m , x m + 1 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},\dots ,x_{m},x_{m+1},\dots ,x_{n})} of N, such that the manifold M is simply the subset of N defined by x m + 1 = 0 , … , x n = 0 {\displaystyle x_{m+1}=0,\dots ,x_{n}=0} . === Metric === Given a mere metric space, we can still define its intrinsic dimension. The most general case is the Hausdorff dimension, though for metric spaces occurring in practice, the box-counting dimension and the packing dimension often are identical to the Hausdorff dimension. Let X , d {\textstyle X,d} be a metric space and A ⊂ X {\textstyle A\subset X} be totally bounded. Define the covering number N ( A , ε ) = min { k : A ⊂ ⋃ i = 1 k B ( x i , ε ) } . {\displaystyle N(A,\varepsilon )=\min \left\{k:A\subset \bigcup _{i=1}^{k}B\left(x_{i},\varepsilon \right)\right\}.} The metric entropy is H ( A , ε ) = log N ( A , ε ) {\textstyle H(A,\varepsilon )=\log N(A,\varepsilon )} (any log base). The upper and lower metric entropy dimensions are dim ¯ E A = lim sup ε ↓ 0 H ( A , ε ) log ( 1 / ε ) , dim _ E A = lim inf ε ↓ 0 H ( A , ε ) log ( 1 / ε ) . {\displaystyle {\overline {\dim }}_{E}A=\limsup _{\varepsilon \downarrow 0}{\frac {H(A,\varepsilon )}{\log(1/\varepsilon )}},\quad {\underline {\dim }}_{E}A=\liminf _{\varepsilon \downarrow 0}{\frac {H(A,\varepsilon )}{\log(1/\varepsilon )}}.} If they are equal, then dim E A {\textstyle \operatorname {dim} _{E}A} is that common value, called the metric entropy dimension. The entropy dimensions are usually used in information theory, and especially coding theory, since entropy is involved in its definition. === Topological === If X {\displaystyle X} is merely a topological space, then we can still define its intrinsic dimension, using the topological dimension or Lebesgue covering dimension. An open cover of a topological space X is a family of open sets Uα such that their union is the whole space, ∪ α {\displaystyle \cup _{\alpha }} Uα = X. The order or ply of an open cover A {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {A}}} = {Uα} is the smallest number m (if it exists) for which each point of the space belongs to at most m open sets in the cover: in other words Uα1 ∩ ⋅⋅⋅ ∩ Uαm+1 = ∅ {\displaystyle \emptyset } for α1, ..., αm+1 distinct. A refinement of an open cover A {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {A}}} = {Uα} is another open cover B {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {B}}} = {Vβ}, such that each Vβ is contained in some Uα. The covering dimension of a topological space X is defined to be the minimum value of n such that every finite open cover A {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {A}}} of X has an open refinement B {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {B}}} with order n + 1. The refinement B {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {B}}} can always be chosen to be finite. Thus, if n is finite, Vβ1 ∩ ⋅⋅⋅ ∩ Vβn+2 = ∅ {\displaystyle \emptyset } for β1, ..., βn+2 distinct. If no such minimal n exists, the space is said to have infinite covering dimension. == Introductory example == Let f ( x 1 , x 2 ) {\textstyle f(x_{1},x_{2})} be a two-variable function (or signal) which is of the form f ( x 1 , x 2 ) = g ( x 1 ) {\textstyle f(x_{1},x_{2})=g(x_{1})} for some one-variable function g which is not constant. This means that f varies, in accordance to g, with the first variable or along the first coordinate. On the other hand, f is constant with respect to the second variable or along the second coordinate. It is only necessary to know the value of one, namely the first, variable in order to determine the value of f. Hence, it is a two-variable function but its intrinsic dimension is one. A slightly more complicated example is f ( x 1 , x 2 ) = g ( x 1 + x 2 ) {\textstyle f(x_{1},x_{2})=g(x_{1}+x_{2})} . f is still intrinsic one-dimensional, which can be seen by making a variable transformation y 1 = x 1 + x 2 {\textstyle y_{1}=x_{1}+x_{2}} and y 2 = x 1 − x 2 {\textstyle y_{2}=x_{1}-x_{2}} which gives f ( y 1 + y 2 2 , y 1 − y 2 2 ) = g ( y 1 ) {\textstyle f\left({\frac {y_{1}+y_{2}}{2}},{\frac {y_{1}-y_{2}}{2}}\right)=g\left(y_{1}\right)} . Since the variation in f can be described by the single variable y1 its intrinsic dimension is one. For the case that f is constant, its intrinsic dimension is zero since no variable is needed to describe variation. For the general case, when the intrinsic dimension of the two-variable function f is neither zero or one, it is two. In the literature, functions which are of intrinsic dimension zero, one, or two are sometimes referred to as i0D, i1D or i2D, respectively. == Signal processing == In signal processing of multidimensional signals, the intrinsic dimension of the signal describes how many variables are needed to generate a good approximation of the signal. For an N-variable function f, the set of variables can be represented as an N-dimensional vector x: f = f ( x ) where x = ( x 1 , … , x N ) {\textstyle f=f\left(\mathbf {x} \right){\text{ where }}\mathbf {x} =\left(x_{1},\dots ,x_{N}\right)} . If for some M-variable function g and M × N matrix A it is the case that for all x; f ( x ) = g ( A x ) , {\textstyle f(\mathbf {x} )=g(\mathbf {Ax} ),} M is the smallest number for which the above relation between f and g can be found, then the intrinsic dimension of f is M. The intrinsic dimension is a characterization of f, it is not an unambiguous characterization of g nor of A. That is, if the above relation is satisfied for some f, g, and A, it must also be satisfied for the same f and g′ and A′ given by g ′ ( y ) = g ( B y ) {\textstyle g'\left(\mathbf {y} \right)=g\left(\mathbf {By} \right)} and A ′ = B − 1 A {\textstyle \mathbf {A'} =\mathbf {B} ^{-1}\mathbf {A} } where B is a non-singular M × M matrix, since f ( x ) = g ′ ( A ′ x ) = g ( B A ′ x ) = g ( A x ) {\textstyle f\left(\mathbf {x} \right)=g'\left(\mathbf {A'x} \right)=g\left(\mathbf {BA'x} \right)=g\left(\mathbf {Ax} \right)} . == The Fourier transform of signals of low intrinsic dimension == An N variable function which has intrinsic dimension M < N has a characteristic Fourier transform. Intuitively, since this type of function is constant along one or several dimensions its Fourier transform must appear like an impulse (the Fourier transform of a constant) along the same dimension in the frequency domain. === A simple example === Let f be a two-variable function which is i1D. This means that there exists a normalized vector n ∈ R 2 {\textstyle \mathbf {n} \in \mathbb {R} ^{2}} and a one-variable function g such that f ( x ) = g ( n T x ) {\textstyle f(\mathbf {x} )=g(\mathbf {n} ^{\operatorname {T} }\mathbf {x} )} for all x ∈ R 2 {\textstyle \mathbf {x} \in \mathbb {R} ^{2}} . If F is the Fourier transform of f (both are two-variable functions) it must be the case that F ( u ) = G ( n T u ) ⋅ δ ( m T u ) {\textstyle F\left(\mathbf {u} \right)=G\left(\mathbf {n} ^{\mathrm {T} }\mathbf {u} \right)\cdot \delta \left(\mathbf {m} ^{\mathrm {T} }\mathbf {u} \right)} . Here G is the Fourier transform of g (both are one-variable functions), δ is the Dirac impulse function and m is a normalized vector in R 2 {\textstyle \mathbb {R} ^{2}} perpendicular to n. This means that F vanishes everywhere except on a line which passes through the origin of the frequency domain and is parallel to m. Along this line F varies according to G. === The general case === Let f be an N-variable function which has intrinsic dimension M, that is, there exists an M-variable function g and M × N matrix A such that f ( x ) = g ( A x ) ∀ x {\textstyle f(\mathbf {x} )=g(\mathbf {Ax} )\quad \forall \mathbf {x} } . Its Fourier transform F can then be described as follows: F vanishes everywhere except for a subspace of dimension M The subspace M is spanned by the rows of the matrix A In the subspace, F varies according to G the Fourier transform of g == Generalizations == The type of intrinsic dimension described above assume
Regularization perspectives on support vector machines
Within mathematical analysis, Regularization perspectives on support-vector machines provide a way of interpreting support-vector machines (SVMs) in the context of other regularization-based machine-learning algorithms. SVM algorithms categorize binary data, with the goal of fitting the training set data in a way that minimizes the average of the hinge-loss function and L2 norm of the learned weights. This strategy avoids overfitting via Tikhonov regularization and in the L2 norm sense and also corresponds to minimizing the bias and variance of our estimator of the weights. Estimators with lower Mean squared error predict better or generalize better when given unseen data. Specifically, Tikhonov regularization algorithms produce a decision boundary that minimizes the average training-set error and constrain the Decision boundary not to be excessively complicated or overfit the training data via a L2 norm of the weights term. The training and test-set errors can be measured without bias and in a fair way using accuracy, precision, Auc-Roc, precision-recall, and other metrics. Regularization perspectives on support-vector machines interpret SVM as a special case of Tikhonov regularization, specifically Tikhonov regularization with the hinge loss for a loss function. This provides a theoretical framework with which to analyze SVM algorithms and compare them to other algorithms with the same goals: to generalize without overfitting. SVM was first proposed in 1995 by Corinna Cortes and Vladimir Vapnik, and framed geometrically as a method for finding hyperplanes that can separate multidimensional data into two categories. This traditional geometric interpretation of SVMs provides useful intuition about how SVMs work, but is difficult to relate to other machine-learning techniques for avoiding overfitting, like regularization, early stopping, sparsity and Bayesian inference. However, once it was discovered that SVM is also a special case of Tikhonov regularization, regularization perspectives on SVM provided the theory necessary to fit SVM within a broader class of algorithms. This has enabled detailed comparisons between SVM and other forms of Tikhonov regularization, and theoretical grounding for why it is beneficial to use SVM's loss function, the hinge loss. == Theoretical background == In the statistical learning theory framework, an algorithm is a strategy for choosing a function f : X → Y {\displaystyle f\colon \mathbf {X} \to \mathbf {Y} } given a training set S = { ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) } {\displaystyle S=\{(x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\}} of inputs x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and their labels y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} (the labels are usually ± 1 {\displaystyle \pm 1} ). Regularization strategies avoid overfitting by choosing a function that fits the data, but is not too complex. Specifically: f = argmin f ∈ H { 1 n ∑ i = 1 n V ( y i , f ( x i ) ) + λ ‖ f ‖ H 2 } , {\displaystyle f={\underset {f\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\{{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}V(y_{i},f(x_{i}))+\lambda \|f\|_{\mathcal {H}}^{2}\right\},} where H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is a hypothesis space of functions, V : Y × Y → R {\displaystyle V\colon \mathbf {Y} \times \mathbf {Y} \to \mathbb {R} } is the loss function, ‖ ⋅ ‖ H {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{\mathcal {H}}} is a norm on the hypothesis space of functions, and λ ∈ R {\displaystyle \lambda \in \mathbb {R} } is the regularization parameter. When H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space, there exists a kernel function K : X × X → R {\displaystyle K\colon \mathbf {X} \times \mathbf {X} \to \mathbb {R} } that can be written as an n × n {\displaystyle n\times n} symmetric positive-definite matrix K {\displaystyle \mathbf {K} } . By the representer theorem, f ( x i ) = ∑ j = 1 n c j K i j , and ‖ f ‖ H 2 = ⟨ f , f ⟩ H = ∑ i = 1 n ∑ j = 1 n c i c j K ( x i , x j ) = c T K c . {\displaystyle f(x_{i})=\sum _{j=1}^{n}c_{j}\mathbf {K} _{ij},{\text{ and }}\|f\|_{\mathcal {H}}^{2}=\langle f,f\rangle _{\mathcal {H}}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\sum _{j=1}^{n}c_{i}c_{j}K(x_{i},x_{j})=c^{T}\mathbf {K} c.} == Special properties of the hinge loss == The simplest and most intuitive loss function for categorization is the misclassification loss, or 0–1 loss, which is 0 if f ( x i ) = y i {\displaystyle f(x_{i})=y_{i}} and 1 if f ( x i ) ≠ y i {\displaystyle f(x_{i})\neq y_{i}} , i.e. the Heaviside step function on − y i f ( x i ) {\displaystyle -y_{i}f(x_{i})} . However, this loss function is not convex, which makes the regularization problem very difficult to minimize computationally. Therefore, we look for convex substitutes for the 0–1 loss. The hinge loss, V ( y i , f ( x i ) ) = ( 1 − y f ( x ) ) + {\displaystyle V{\big (}y_{i},f(x_{i}){\big )}={\big (}1-yf(x){\big )}_{+}} , where ( s ) + = max ( s , 0 ) {\displaystyle (s)_{+}=\max(s,0)} , provides such a convex relaxation. In fact, the hinge loss is the tightest convex upper bound to the 0–1 misclassification loss function, and with infinite data returns the Bayes-optimal solution: f b ( x ) = { 1 , p ( 1 ∣ x ) > p ( − 1 ∣ x ) , − 1 , p ( 1 ∣ x ) < p ( − 1 ∣ x ) . {\displaystyle f_{b}(x)={\begin{cases}1,&p(1\mid x)>p(-1\mid x),\\-1,&p(1\mid x)