Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a North Carolina statute that prohibited registered sex offenders from using social media websites was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of speech. In 2010, Lester Gerard Packingham, a registered sex offender, posted on Facebook under a pseudonym to comment favorably on a recent traffic court experience. Police then identified Packingham and charged him with violating North Carolina's law. Packingham moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the state's law violated the First Amendment. The trial court dismissed this motion and ultimately convicted Packingham. A state appellate court initially reversed the trial court, holding that the law did violate the First Amendment, but the North Carolina Supreme Court, the state's highest court, disagreed and reinstated the conviction. In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the North Carolina Supreme Court's judgment. In the majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that social media—defined broadly to include Facebook, Amazon.com, The Washington Post, and WebMD, among many others—is a "protected space" under the First Amendment for lawful speech. The Court offered that North Carolina could protect children through less restrictive means, such as prohibiting "conduct that often presages a sexual crime, like contacting a minor or using a website to gather information about a minor". == Background == === North Carolina statute === In 2008, the state of North Carolina passed a law that made it a felony for a registered sex offender "to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages". The law defined a "commercial social networking Web site" using four criteria. Specifically, the website must: be "operated by a person who derives revenue from membership fees, advertising, or other sources related to the operation of the Web site". facilitate "the social introduction between two or more persons for the purposes of friendship, meeting other persons, or information exchanges". allow "users to create Web pages or personal profiles that contain information such as the name or nickname of the user, photographs placed on the personal Web page by the user, other personal information about the user, and links to other personal Web pages on the commercial social networking Web site of friends or associates of the user that may be accessed by other users or visitors to the Web site". provide "users or visitors... mechanisms to communicate with other users, such as a message board, chat room, electronic mail, or instant messenger". The law exempted websites that "Provid[e] only one of the following discrete services: photo-sharing, electronic mail, instant messenger, or chat room or message board platform", as well as websites that have as their primary purpose "the facilitation of commercial transactions involving goods or services between [their] members or visitors". === Facts of the case === In 2002, Lester Gerard Packingham was convicted of taking "indecent liberties with a child", a felony that required him to register as a sex offender. A North Carolina court sentenced him to 10–12 months in prison with 24 months of supervised release. He was given no other special instructions on his behavior outside of prison other than to "remain away from" the minor. In 2010, after a state court dismissed a traffic ticket against Packingham, he submitted a post on Facebook under the name "J. R. Gerrard", stating: "Man God is Good! How about I got so much favor they dismissed the ticket before court even started? No fine, no court cost, no nothing spent. . . . . .Praise be to GOD, WOW! Thanks JESUS!" The Durham Police Department identified Packingham as the author of the post after cross-checking the time of the post with recently dismissed traffic tickets, and a grand jury indicted him for violating the North Carolina statute. === Lower court proceedings === Initially, Packingham moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that it violated the First Amendment. A North Carolina Superior Court judge denied this motion, and he was convicted of violating the North Carolina social media law. Packingham appealed his conviction to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's decision in 2013. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court of appeals determined that North Carolina's law violated the First Amendment because it was too broad, applying to all registered sex offenders regardless of whether the offender had committed a crime involving a minor or whether the offender was a continuing threat to minors. The appeals court also stated that the law had been defined broadly enough to prohibit a registered sex offender from conducting a wide array of Internet activity, such as "conducting a 'Google' search, purchasing items on Amazon.com, or accessing a plethora of Web sites unrelated to online communication with minors". In 2015, the North Carolina Supreme Court, the state's highest court, reversed the court of appeals, holding that the law was "constitutional in all respects". The North Carolina Supreme Court found that the statute was a "limitation on conduct" and did not impede any free speech. The state had a vested interest in “forestalling the illicit lurking and contact of minors” by registered sex offenders and potential future victims, and upheld Packingham's conviction. == Supreme Court ruling == Packingham filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. The federal government also filed a brief recommending that the Supreme Court grant certiorari, arguing that the North Carolina Supreme Court incorrectly decided the case in favor of the state. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in October 2016. Amicus briefs in support of Packingham were filed by the libertarian Cato Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union. The North Carolina Supreme Court filed a brief supporting its prior decision, urging the importance of protecting minors from being stalked online. === Oral argument === The oral argument took place in February 2017. Packingham’s lawyer, David T. Goldberg, argued that the law banned “vast swaths of First Amendment activity”, went too far in restricting which Internet sites could be accessed, and forbade use of the Internet in general. The law targeted speech on some of the platforms that Americans use most often, Goldberg noted, and that under the law Packingham could not even use Twitter to read the myriad messages discussing his own case. He further noted that the law imposes punishment without regard to whether the offender actually did anything wrong. North Carolina’s senior deputy Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, argued for the state, and claimed that communication through social media sites is a “crucial channel”. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Montgomery to provide evidence as to the claim that by giving Packingham Internet privileges, he would commit another crime. Justice Stephen Breyer added that “It seems to be well-settled law that the state can’t (bar usage) unless there is a 'clear and present danger'." === Opinion of the Court === In June 2017 the Supreme Court delivered a judgment in favor of Packingham, unanimously voting to reverse the state court's ruling. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the decision, joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan. Kennedy explained the decision: "A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more." He continued that "By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge." Citing Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition as a precedent, Kennedy also wrote: "It is well established that, as a general rule, the Government 'may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech'." === Concurring opinion === Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by John Roberts and Clarence Thomas. While Alito agreed that the state statute at issue violated the First Amendment, he noted that there are reasonable scenarios for which legal bans for sex offenders can be placed, such as for sites targeted at teenagers. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the decision of the case. == Impact == Packingham v. North Carolina was one of the first U.S. Supreme Court cases to ana
Tesla Dojo
Tesla Dojo is a series of supercomputers designed and built by Tesla for computer vision video processing and recognition. It was used for training Tesla's machine learning models to improve its Full Self-Driving (FSD) advanced driver-assistance system. It went into production in July 2023. Dojo's goal was to efficiently process millions of terabytes of video data captured from real-life driving situations from Tesla's 4+ million cars. This goal led to a considerably different architecture than conventional supercomputer designs. In August 2025, Bloomberg News reported that the Dojo project had been disbanded, though it was restarted in January 2026. == History == Tesla operates several massively parallel computing clusters for developing its Autopilot advanced driver assistance system. Its primary unnamed cluster using 5,760 Nvidia A100 graphics processing units (GPUs) was touted by Andrej Karpathy in 2021 at the fourth International Joint Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CCVPR 2021) to be "roughly the number five supercomputer in the world" at approximately 81.6 petaflops, based on scaling the performance of the Nvidia Selene supercomputer, which uses similar components. However, the performance of the primary Tesla GPU cluster has been disputed, as it was not clear if this was measured using single-precision or double-precision floating point numbers (FP32 or FP64). Tesla also operates a second 4,032 GPU cluster for training and a third 1,752 GPU cluster for automatic labeling of objects. The primary unnamed Tesla GPU cluster has been used for processing one million video clips, each ten seconds long, taken from Tesla Autopilot cameras operating in Tesla cars in the real world, running at 36 frames per second. Collectively, these video clips contained six billion object labels, with depth and velocity data; the total size of the data set was 1.5 petabytes. This data set was used for training a neural network intended to help Autopilot computers in Tesla cars understand roads. By August 2022, Tesla had upgraded the primary GPU cluster to 7,360 GPUs. Dojo was first mentioned by Elon Musk in April 2019 during Tesla's "Autonomy Investor Day". In August 2020, Musk stated it was "about a year away" due to power and thermal issues. Dojo was officially announced at Tesla's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Day on August 19, 2021. Tesla revealed details of the D1 chip and its plans for "Project Dojo", a datacenter that would house 3,000 D1 chips; the first "Training Tile" had been completed and delivered the week before. In October 2021, Tesla released a "Dojo Technology" whitepaper describing the Configurable Float8 (CFloat8) and Configurable Float16 (CFloat16) floating point formats and arithmetic operations as an extension of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) standard 754. At the follow-up AI Day in September 2022, Tesla announced it had built several System Trays and one Cabinet. During a test, the company stated that Project Dojo drew 2.3 megawatts (MW) of power before tripping a local San Jose, California power substation. At the time, Tesla was assembling one Training Tile per day. In August 2023, Tesla powered on Dojo for production use as well as a new training cluster configured with 10,000 Nvidia H100 GPUs. In January 2024, Musk described Dojo as "a long shot worth taking because the payoff is potentially very high. But it's not something that is a high probability." In June 2024, Musk explained that ongoing construction work at Gigafactory Texas is for a computing cluster claiming that it is planned to comprise an even mix of "Tesla AI" and Nvidia/other hardware with a total thermal design power of at first 130 MW and eventually exceeding 500 MW. In August 2025, Bloomberg News reported that the Dojo project was disbanded, though Musk announced it would be restarted in January 2026 with a new chip iteration. == Technical architecture == The fundamental unit of the Dojo supercomputer is the D1 chip, designed by a team at Tesla led by ex-AMD CPU designer Ganesh Venkataramanan, including Emil Talpes, Debjit Das Sarma, Douglas Williams, Bill Chang, and Rajiv Kurian. The D1 chip is manufactured by the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) using 7 nanometer (nm) semiconductor nodes, has 50 billion transistors and a large die size of 645 mm2 (1.0 square inch). Updating at Artificial Intelligence (AI) Day in 2022, Tesla announced that Dojo would scale by deploying multiple ExaPODs, in which there would be: 10 Cabinets per ExaPOD (1,062,000 cores, 3,000 D1 chips) 2 System Trays per Cabinet (106,200 cores, 300 D1 chips) 6 Training Tiles per System Tray (53,100 cores, along with host interface hardware) 25 D1 chips per Training Tile (8,850 cores) 354 computing cores per D1 chip According to Venkataramanan, Tesla's senior director of Autopilot hardware, Dojo will have more than an exaflop (a million teraflops) of computing power. For comparison, according to Nvidia, in August 2021, the (pre-Dojo) Tesla AI-training center used 720 nodes, each with eight Nvidia A100 Tensor Core GPUs for 5,760 GPUs in total, providing up to 1.8 exaflops of performance. === D1 chip === Each node (computing core) of the D1 processing chip is a general purpose 64-bit CPU with a superscalar core. It supports internal instruction-level parallelism, and includes simultaneous multithreading (SMT). It doesn't support virtual memory and uses limited memory protection mechanisms. Dojo software/applications manage chip resources. The D1 instruction set supports both 64-bit scalar and 64-byte single instruction, multiple data (SIMD) vector instructions. The integer unit mixes reduced instruction set computer (RISC-V) and custom instructions, supporting 8, 16, 32, or 64 bit integers. The custom vector math unit is optimized for machine learning kernels and supports multiple data formats, with a mix of precisions and numerical ranges, many of which are compiler composable. Up to 16 vector formats can be used simultaneously. ==== Node ==== Each D1 node uses a 32-byte fetch window holding up to eight instructions. These instructions are fed to an eight-wide decoder which supports two threads per cycle, followed by a four-wide, four-way SMT scalar scheduler that has two integer units, two address units, and one register file per thread. Vector instructions are passed further down the pipeline to a dedicated vector scheduler with two-way SMT, which feeds either a 64-byte SIMD unit or four 8×8×4 matrix multiplication units. The network on-chip (NOC) router links cores into a two-dimensional mesh network. It can send one packet in and one packet out in all four directions to/from each neighbor node, along with one 64-byte read and one 64-byte write to local SRAM per clock cycle. Hardware native operations transfer data, semaphores and barrier constraints across memories and CPUs. System-wide double data rate 4 (DDR4) synchronous dynamic random-access memory (SDRAM) memory works like bulk storage. ==== Memory ==== Each core has a 1.25 megabytes (MB) of SRAM main memory. Load and store speeds reach 400 gigabytes (GB) per second and 270 GB/sec, respectively. The chip has explicit core-to-core data transfer instructions. Each SRAM has a unique list parser that feeds a pair of decoders and a gather engine that feeds the vector register file, which together can directly transfer information across nodes. ==== Die ==== Twelve nodes (cores) are grouped into a local block. Nodes are arranged in an 18×20 array on a single die, of which 354 cores are available for applications. The die runs at 2 gigahertz (GHz) and totals 440 MB of SRAM (360 cores × 1.25 MB/core). It reaches 376 teraflops using 16-bit brain floating point (BF16) numbers or using configurable 8-bit floating point (CFloat8) numbers, which is a Tesla proposal, and 22 teraflops at FP32. Each die comprises 576 bi-directional serializer/deserializer (SerDes) channels along the perimeter to link to other dies, and moves 8 TB/sec across all four die edges. Each D1 chip has a thermal design power of approximately 400 watts. === Training Tile === The water-cooled Training Tile packages 25 D1 chips into a 5×5 array. Each tile supports 36 TB/sec of aggregate bandwidth via 40 input/output (I/O) chips - half the bandwidth of the chip mesh network. Each tile supports 10 TB/sec of on-tile bandwidth. Each tile has 11 GB of SRAM memory (25 D1 chips × 360 cores/D1 × 1.25 MB/core). Each tile achieves 9 petaflops at BF16/CFloat8 precision (25 D1 chips × 376 TFLOP/D1). Each tile consumes 15 kilowatts; 288 amperes at 52 volts. === System Tray === Six tiles are aggregated into a System Tray, which is integrated with a host interface. Each host interface includes 512 x86 cores, providing a Linux-based user environment. Previously, the Dojo System Tray was known as the Training Matrix, which includes six Training Tiles, 20 Dojo Interface Processor cards across four host servers, and Ethernet-l
Dispersive flies optimisation
Dispersive flies optimisation (DFO) is a bare-bones swarm intelligence algorithm which is inspired by the swarming behaviour of flies hovering over food sources. DFO is a simple optimiser which works by iteratively trying to improve a candidate solution with regard to a numerical measure that is calculated by a fitness function. Each member of the population, a fly or an agent, holds a candidate solution whose suitability can be evaluated by their fitness value. Optimisation problems are often formulated as either minimisation or maximisation problems. DFO was introduced with the intention of analysing a simplified swarm intelligence algorithm with the fewest tunable parameters and components. In the first work on DFO, this algorithm was compared against a few other existing swarm intelligence techniques using error, efficiency and diversity measures. It is shown that despite the simplicity of the algorithm, which only uses agents’ position vectors at time t to generate the position vectors for time t + 1, it exhibits a competitive performance. Since its inception, DFO has been used in a variety of applications including medical imaging and image analysis as well as data mining and machine learning. == Algorithm == DFO bears many similarities with other existing continuous, population-based optimisers (e.g. particle swarm optimization and differential evolution). In that, the swarming behaviour of the individuals consists of two tightly connected mechanisms, one is the formation of the swarm and the other is its breaking or weakening. DFO works by facilitating the information exchange between the members of the population (the swarming flies). Each fly x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } represents a position in a d-dimensional search space: x = ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x d ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} =(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{d})} , and the fitness of each fly is calculated by the fitness function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )} , which takes into account the flies' d dimensions: f ( x ) = f ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x d ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )=f(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{d})} . The pseudocode below represents one iteration of the algorithm: for i = 1 : N flies x i . fitness = f ( x i ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x_{i}} .{\text{fitness}}=f(\mathbf {x} _{i})} end for i x s {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{s}} = arg min [ f ( x i ) ] , i ∈ { 1 , … , N } {\textstyle [f(\mathbf {x} _{i})],\;i\in \{1,\ldots ,N\}} for i = 1 : N and i ≠ s {\displaystyle i\neq s} for d = 1 : D dimensions if U ( 0 , 1 ) < Δ {\displaystyle U(0,1)<\Delta } x i d t + 1 = U ( x min , d , x max , d ) {\displaystyle x_{id}^{t+1}=U(x_{\min ,d},x_{\max ,d})} else x i d t + 1 = x i n d t + U ( 0 , 1 ) ( x s d t − x i d t ) {\displaystyle x_{id}^{t+1}=x_{i_{nd}}^{t}+U(0,1)(x_{sd}^{t}-x_{id}^{t})} end if end for d end for i In the algorithm above, x i d t + 1 {\displaystyle x_{id}^{t+1}} represents fly i {\displaystyle i} at dimension d {\displaystyle d} and time t + 1 {\displaystyle t+1} ; x i n d t {\displaystyle x_{i_{nd}}^{t}} presents x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} 's best neighbouring fly in ring topology (left or right, using flies indexes), at dimension d {\displaystyle d} and time t {\displaystyle t} ; and x s d t {\displaystyle x_{sd}^{t}} is the swarm's best fly. Using this update equation, the swarm's population update depends on each fly's best neighbour (which is used as the focus μ {\displaystyle \mu } , and the difference between the current fly and the best in swarm represents the spread of movement, σ {\displaystyle \sigma } ). Other than the population size N {\displaystyle N} , the only tunable parameter is the disturbance threshold Δ {\displaystyle \Delta } , which controls the dimension-wise restart in each fly vector. This mechanism is proposed to control the diversity of the swarm. Other notable minimalist swarm algorithm is Bare bones particle swarms (BB-PSO), which is based on particle swarm optimisation, along with bare bones differential evolution (BBDE) which is a hybrid of the bare bones particle swarm optimiser and differential evolution, aiming to reduce the number of parameters. Alhakbani in her PhD thesis covers many aspects of the algorithms including several DFO applications in feature selection as well as parameter tuning. == Applications == Some of the recent applications of DFO are listed below: Optimising support vector machine kernel to classify imbalanced data Quantifying symmetrical complexity in computational aesthetics Analysing computational autopoiesis and computational creativity Identifying calcifications in medical images Building non-identical organic structures for game's space development Deep Neuroevolution: Training Deep Neural Networks for False Alarm Detection in Intensive Care Units Identification of animation key points from 2D-medialness maps
Autoencoder
An autoencoder is a type of artificial neural network used to learn efficient codings of unlabeled data (unsupervised learning). An autoencoder learns two functions: an encoding function that transforms the input data, and a decoding function that recreates the input data from the encoded representation. The autoencoder learns an efficient representation (encoding) for a set of data, typically for dimensionality reduction, to generate lower-dimensional embeddings for subsequent use by other machine learning algorithms. Variants exist which aim to make the learned representations assume useful properties. Examples are regularized autoencoders (sparse, denoising and contractive autoencoders), which are effective in learning representations for subsequent classification tasks, and variational autoencoders, which can be used as generative models. Autoencoders are applied to many problems, including facial recognition, feature detection, anomaly detection, and learning the meaning of words. In terms of data synthesis, autoencoders can also be used to randomly generate new data that is similar to the input (training) data. == Mathematical principles == === Definition === An autoencoder is defined by the following components: Two sets: the space of encoded messages Z {\displaystyle {\mathcal {Z}}} ; the space of decoded messages X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} . Typically X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} and Z {\displaystyle {\mathcal {Z}}} are Euclidean spaces, that is, X = R m , Z = R n {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}=\mathbb {R} ^{m},{\mathcal {Z}}=\mathbb {R} ^{n}} with m > n . {\displaystyle m>n.} Two parametrized families of functions: the encoder family E ϕ : X → Z {\displaystyle E_{\phi }:{\mathcal {X}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {Z}}} , parametrized by ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } ; the decoder family D θ : Z → X {\displaystyle D_{\theta }:{\mathcal {Z}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {X}}} , parametrized by θ {\displaystyle \theta } .For any x ∈ X {\displaystyle x\in {\mathcal {X}}} , we usually write z = E ϕ ( x ) {\displaystyle z=E_{\phi }(x)} , and refer to it as the code, the latent variable, latent representation, latent vector, etc. Conversely, for any z ∈ Z {\displaystyle z\in {\mathcal {Z}}} , we usually write x ′ = D θ ( z ) {\displaystyle x'=D_{\theta }(z)} , and refer to it as the (decoded) message. Usually, both the encoder and the decoder are defined as multilayer perceptrons (MLPs). For example, a one-layer-MLP encoder E ϕ {\displaystyle E_{\phi }} is: E ϕ ( x ) = σ ( W x + b ) {\displaystyle E_{\phi }(\mathbf {x} )=\sigma (Wx+b)} where σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is an element-wise activation function, W {\displaystyle W} is a "weight" matrix, and b {\displaystyle b} is a "bias" vector. === Training an autoencoder === An autoencoder, by itself, is simply a tuple of two functions. To judge its quality, we need a task. A task is defined by a reference probability distribution μ r e f {\displaystyle \mu _{ref}} over X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} , and a "reconstruction quality" function d : X × X → [ 0 , ∞ ] {\displaystyle d:{\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}\to [0,\infty ]} , such that d ( x , x ′ ) {\displaystyle d(x,x')} measures how much x ′ {\displaystyle x'} differs from x {\displaystyle x} . With those, we can define the loss function for the autoencoder as L ( θ , ϕ ) := E x ∼ μ r e f [ d ( x , D θ ( E ϕ ( x ) ) ) ] {\displaystyle L(\theta ,\phi ):=\mathbb {\mathbb {E} } _{x\sim \mu _{ref}}[d(x,D_{\theta }(E_{\phi }(x)))]} The optimal autoencoder for the given task ( μ r e f , d ) {\displaystyle (\mu _{ref},d)} is then arg min θ , ϕ L ( θ , ϕ ) {\displaystyle \arg \min _{\theta ,\phi }L(\theta ,\phi )} . The search for the optimal autoencoder can be accomplished by any mathematical optimization technique, but usually by gradient descent. This search process is referred to as "training the autoencoder". In most situations, the reference distribution is just the empirical distribution given by a dataset { x 1 , . . . , x N } ⊂ X {\displaystyle \{x_{1},...,x_{N}\}\subset {\mathcal {X}}} , so that μ r e f = 1 N ∑ i = 1 N δ x i {\displaystyle \mu _{ref}={\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\delta _{x_{i}}} where δ x i {\displaystyle \delta _{x_{i}}} is the Dirac measure, the quality function is just L 2 {\displaystyle L^{2}} loss: d ( x , x ′ ) = ‖ x − x ′ ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle d(x,x')=\|x-x'\|_{2}^{2}} , and ‖ ⋅ ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{2}} is the Euclidean norm. Then the problem of searching for the optimal autoencoder is just a least-squares optimization: min θ , ϕ L ( θ , ϕ ) , where L ( θ , ϕ ) = 1 N ∑ i = 1 N ‖ x i − D θ ( E ϕ ( x i ) ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \min _{\theta ,\phi }L(\theta ,\phi ),\qquad {\text{where }}L(\theta ,\phi )={\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\|x_{i}-D_{\theta }(E_{\phi }(x_{i}))\|_{2}^{2}} === Interpretation === An autoencoder has two main parts: an encoder that maps the message to a code, and a decoder that reconstructs the message from the code. An optimal autoencoder would perform as close to perfect reconstruction as possible, with "close to perfect" defined by the reconstruction quality function d {\displaystyle d} . The simplest way to perform the copying task perfectly would be to duplicate the signal. To suppress this behavior, the code space Z {\displaystyle {\mathcal {Z}}} usually has fewer dimensions than the message space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} . Such an autoencoder is called undercomplete. It can be interpreted as compressing the message, or reducing its dimensionality. At the limit of an ideal undercomplete autoencoder, every possible code z {\displaystyle z} in the code space is used to encode a message x {\displaystyle x} that really appears in the distribution μ r e f {\displaystyle \mu _{ref}} , and the decoder is also perfect: D θ ( E ϕ ( x ) ) = x {\displaystyle D_{\theta }(E_{\phi }(x))=x} . This ideal autoencoder can then be used to generate messages indistinguishable from real messages, by feeding its decoder arbitrary code z {\displaystyle z} and obtaining D θ ( z ) {\displaystyle D_{\theta }(z)} , which is a message that really appears in the distribution μ r e f {\displaystyle \mu _{ref}} . If the code space Z {\displaystyle {\mathcal {Z}}} has dimension larger than (overcomplete), or equal to, the message space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} , or the hidden units are given enough capacity, an autoencoder can learn the identity function and become useless. However, experimental results found that overcomplete autoencoders might still learn useful features. In the ideal setting, the code dimension and the model capacity could be set on the basis of the complexity of the data distribution to be modeled. A standard way to do so is to add modifications to the basic autoencoder, to be detailed below. == Variations == === Variational autoencoder (VAE) === Variational autoencoders (VAEs) belong to the families of variational Bayesian methods. Despite the architectural similarities with basic autoencoders, VAEs are architected with different goals and have a different mathematical formulation. The latent space is, in this case, composed of a mixture of distributions instead of fixed vectors. Given an input dataset x {\displaystyle x} characterized by an unknown probability function P ( x ) {\displaystyle P(x)} and a multivariate latent encoding vector z {\displaystyle z} , the objective is to model the data as a distribution p θ ( x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)} , with θ {\displaystyle \theta } defined as the set of the network parameters so that p θ ( x ) = ∫ z p θ ( x , z ) d z {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)=\int _{z}p_{\theta }(x,z)dz} . === Sparse autoencoder (SAE) === Inspired by the sparse coding hypothesis in neuroscience, sparse autoencoders (SAE) are variants of autoencoders, such that the codes E ϕ ( x ) {\displaystyle E_{\phi }(x)} for messages tend to be sparse codes, that is, E ϕ ( x ) {\displaystyle E_{\phi }(x)} is close to zero in most entries. Sparse autoencoders may include more (rather than fewer) hidden units than inputs, but only a small number of the hidden units are allowed to be active at the same time. Encouraging sparsity improves performance on classification tasks. There are two main ways to enforce sparsity. One way is to simply clamp all but the highest-k activations of the latent code to zero. This is the k-sparse autoencoder. The k-sparse autoencoder inserts the following "k-sparse function" in the latent layer of a standard autoencoder: f k ( x 1 , . . . , x n ) = ( x 1 b 1 , . . . , x n b n ) {\displaystyle f_{k}(x_{1},...,x_{n})=(x_{1}b_{1},...,x_{n}b_{n})} where b i = 1 {\displaystyle b_{i}=1} if | x i | {\displaystyle |x_{i}|} ranks in the top k, and 0 otherwise. Backpropagating through f k {\displaystyle f_{k}} is simple: set gradient to 0 for b i = 0 {\displaystyle b_{i}=0} entries, and keep gradient for b i = 1 {\displaystyle b_{i}=1} entries. This is essentially a generalized ReLU function. The other way is a relaxed version of the k-
Softplus
In mathematics and machine learning, the softplus function is f ( x ) = ln ( 1 + e x ) . {\displaystyle f(x)=\ln(1+e^{x}).} It is a smooth approximation (in fact, an analytic function) to the ramp function, which is known as the rectifier or ReLU (rectified linear unit) in machine learning. For large negative x {\displaystyle x} it is ln ( 1 + e x ) = ln ( 1 + ϵ ) ⪆ ln 1 = 0 {\displaystyle \ln(1+e^{x})=\ln(1+\epsilon )\gtrapprox \ln 1=0} , so just above 0, while for large positive x {\displaystyle x} it is ln ( 1 + e x ) ⪆ ln ( e x ) = x {\displaystyle \ln(1+e^{x})\gtrapprox \ln(e^{x})=x} , so just above x {\displaystyle x} . The names softplus and SmoothReLU are used in machine learning. The name "softplus" (2000), by analogy with the earlier softmax (1989) is presumably because it is a smooth (soft) approximation of the positive part of x, which is sometimes denoted with a superscript plus, x + := max ( 0 , x ) {\displaystyle x^{+}:=\max(0,x)} . == Alternative forms == This function can be approximated as: ln ( 1 + e x ) ≈ { ln 2 , x = 0 , x 1 − e − x / ln 2 , x ≠ 0 {\displaystyle \ln \left(1+e^{x}\right)\approx {\begin{cases}\ln 2,&x=0,\\[6pt]{\frac {x}{1-e^{-x/\ln 2}}},&x\neq 0\end{cases}}} By making the change of variables x = y ln ( 2 ) {\displaystyle x=y\ln(2)} , this is equivalent to log 2 ( 1 + 2 y ) ≈ { 1 , y = 0 , y 1 − e − y , y ≠ 0. {\displaystyle \log _{2}(1+2^{y})\approx {\begin{cases}1,&y=0,\\[6pt]{\frac {y}{1-e^{-y}}},&y\neq 0.\end{cases}}} A sharpness parameter k {\displaystyle k} may be included: f ( x ) = ln ( 1 + e k x ) k , f ′ ( x ) = e k x 1 + e k x = 1 1 + e − k x . {\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {\ln(1+e^{kx})}{k}},\qquad \qquad f'(x)={\frac {e^{kx}}{1+e^{kx}}}={\frac {1}{1+e^{-kx}}}.} Additionally, the softplus function is equivalent to the log of the sigmoid function in the following way: − ln ( sigmoid ( − x ) ) = − ln ( 1 1 + e x ) = ln ( 1 + e x ) = softplus ( x ) {\displaystyle -\ln({\text{sigmoid}}(-x))=-\ln \left({\frac {1}{1+e^{x}}}\right)=\ln \left(1+e^{x}\right)={\text{softplus}}(x)} == Related functions == The derivative of softplus is the standard logistic function: f ′ ( x ) = e x 1 + e x = 1 1 + e − x {\displaystyle f'(x)={\frac {e^{x}}{1+e^{x}}}={\frac {1}{1+e^{-x}}}} The logistic function or the sigmoid function is a smooth approximation of the rectifier, the Heaviside step function. === LogSumExp === The multivariable generalization of single-variable softplus is the LogSumExp with the first argument set to zero: L S E 0 + ( x 1 , … , x n ) := LSE ( 0 , x 1 , … , x n ) = ln ( 1 + e x 1 + ⋯ + e x n ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {LSE_{0}} ^{+}(x_{1},\dots ,x_{n}):=\operatorname {LSE} (0,x_{1},\dots ,x_{n})=\ln(1+e^{x_{1}}+\cdots +e^{x_{n}}).} The LogSumExp function is LSE ( x 1 , … , x n ) = ln ( e x 1 + ⋯ + e x n ) , {\displaystyle \operatorname {LSE} (x_{1},\dots ,x_{n})=\ln(e^{x_{1}}+\cdots +e^{x_{n}}),} and its gradient is the softmax; the softmax with the first argument set to zero is the multivariable generalization of the logistic function. Both LogSumExp and softmax are used in machine learning. === Convex conjugate === The convex conjugate (specifically, the Legendre transformation) of the softplus function is the negative binary entropy function (with base e). This is because (following the definition of the Legendre transformation: the derivatives are inverse functions) the derivative of softplus is the logistic function, whose inverse function is the logit, which is the derivative of negative binary entropy. Softplus can be interpreted as logistic loss (as a positive number), so, by duality, minimizing logistic loss corresponds to maximizing entropy. This justifies the principle of maximum entropy as loss minimization.
Semantic neural network
Semantic neural network (SNN) is based on John von Neumann's neural network [von Neumann, 1966] and Nikolai Amosov M-Network. There are limitations to a link topology for the von Neumann’s network but SNN accept a case without these limitations. Only logical values can be processed, but SNN accept that fuzzy values can be processed too. All neurons into the von Neumann network are synchronized by tacts. For further use of self-synchronizing circuit technique SNN accepts neurons can be self-running or synchronized. In contrast to the von Neumann network there are no limitations for topology of neurons for semantic networks. It leads to the impossibility of relative addressing of neurons as it was done by von Neumann. In this case an absolute readdressing should be used. Every neuron should have a unique identifier that would provide a direct access to another neuron. Of course, neurons interacting by axons-dendrites should have each other's identifiers. An absolute readdressing can be modulated by using neuron specificity as it was realized for biological neural networks. There’s no description for self-reflectiveness and self-modification abilities into the initial description of semantic networks [Dudar Z.V., Shuklin D.E., 2000]. But in [Shuklin D.E. 2004] a conclusion had been drawn about the necessity of introspection and self-modification abilities in the system. For maintenance of these abilities a concept of pointer to neuron is provided. Pointers represent virtual connections between neurons. In this model, bodies and signals transferring through the neurons connections represent a physical body, and virtual connections between neurons are representing an astral body. It is proposed to create models of artificial neuron networks on the basis of virtual machine supporting the opportunity for paranormal effects. SNN is generally used for natural language processing. == Related models == Computational creativity Semantic hashing Semantic Pointer Architecture Sparse distributed memory
Aleph (ILP)
Aleph (A Learning Engine for Proposing Hypotheses) is an inductive logic programming system introduced by Ashwin Srinivasan in 2001. As of 2022 it is still one of the most widely used inductive logic programming systems. It is based on the earlier system Progol. == Learning task == The input to Aleph is background knowledge, specified as a logic program, a language bias in the form of mode declarations, as well as positive and negative examples specified as ground facts. As output it returns a logic program which, together with the background knowledge, entails all of the positive examples and none of the negative examples. == Basic algorithm == Starting with an empty hypothesis, Aleph proceeds as follows: It chooses a positive example to generalise; if none are left, it aborts and outputs the current hypothesis. Then it constructs the bottom clause, that is, the most specific clause that is allowed by the mode declarations and covers the example. It then searches for a generalisation of the bottom clause that scores better on the chosen metric. It then adds the new clause to the hypothesis program and removes all examples that are covered by the new clause. == Search algorithm == Aleph searches for clauses in a top-down manner, using the bottom clause constructed in the preceding step to bound the search from below. It searches the refinement graph in a breadth-first manner, with tunable parameters to bound the maximal clause size and proof depth. It scores each clause using one of 13 different evaluation metrics, as chosen in advance by the user.