The Israeli cybersecurity industry is a rapidly growing sector within Israel's technology and innovation ecosystem. Israel is internationally recognized as a powerhouse in the cybersecurity domain, with numerous cybersecurity startups, established companies, research institutions, and government initiatives. Tel Aviv itself is being ranked 7th in annual list of best global tech ecosystems, as reported by the Jerusalem Post. == History == The roots of Israel's cybersecurity industry can be traced back to the country's strong focus on national security and intelligence. The establishment of elite military units such as Unit 8200, the Israeli Intelligence Corps unit responsible for signals intelligence and code decryption, played a significant role in the development of cybersecurity expertise in the country. Many former members of Unit 8200 have gone on to establish successful cybersecurity companies or join existing organizations, bringing their unique skill sets and experience to the private sector. == Market overview == As of 2024, Israel housed more than 450 cybersecurity startups and companies. In 2023, the value of exits by Israeli tech companies reached $7.5 billion. Israel's cybersecurity industry is characterized by a high concentration of startups develop new technologies in areas such as network security, endpoint protection, data security, cloud security, and threat intelligence. In recent years, the sector has attracted significant investment from both local and international venture capital firms, as well as major technology companies such as Microsoft, Google, and IBM. Several Israeli cybersecurity companies have gained global recognition and success, with some being acquired by major corporations or conducting successful initial public offerings (IPOs). === Key Israeli cybersecurity companies === Some key Israeli cybersecurity companies include: Check Point Software Technologies CyberArk Cato Networks Radware Wiz === Financial activity === Israel’s cybersecurity sector has seen significant financial activity. As of 2023, mergers and acquisitions in the cybersecurity sector totaled $2.8 billion. In the first quarter of 2024, the sector secured $846 million in private funding. == Background == The military experience helped much. Israel's mandatory military service, combined with the expertise developed within elite units such as Unit 8200, has fostered a strong talent pool with practical experience in cybersecurity. Israel's thriving startup ecosystem, often referred to as the "Startup Nation," has fostered an environment of innovation and collaboration that has contributed to the growth of the cybersecurity industry. Israeli cybersecurity companies often collaborate with international partners, both in the private and public sectors, to share knowledge and develop joint solutions. === Government Initiatives and Support === The government also supported well through various initiatives, such as the Israel National Cyber Directorate (INCD), which works to strengthen cybersecurity defenses and promote the development of the sector. === Academic institutions === Israeli universities and research centers are involved in cybersecurity research and education, contributing to the development of new technologies and training the next generation of cybersecurity professionals. Academic Tech transfer offices in Israel also facilitate the commercialization of cybersecurity technologies. Some academic institutions with cybersecurity laboratories include: Tel Aviv University Technion Ben-Gurion University
Oculus Medium
Oculus Medium is a digital sculpting software that works with virtual reality headsets and 6DoF motion controllers. It is used to create and paint digital sculptures. Medium works only on Oculus Rift. It was released on December 5, 2016, following with a major update in 2018 introducing new features and a revamped UI. On December 9, 2019, Oculus Medium was acquired by Adobe and re-named to "Medium by Adobe".
Bootstrap aggregating
Bootstrap aggregating, also called bagging (from bootstrap aggregating) or bootstrapping, is a machine learning (ML) ensemble meta-algorithm designed to improve the stability and accuracy of ML classification and regression algorithms. It also reduces variance and overfitting. Although it is usually applied to decision tree methods, it can be used with any type of method. Bagging is a special case of the ensemble averaging approach. == Description of the technique == Given a standard training set D {\displaystyle D} of size n {\displaystyle n} , bagging generates m {\displaystyle m} new training sets D i {\displaystyle D_{i}} , each of size n ′ {\displaystyle n'} , by sampling from D {\displaystyle D} uniformly and with replacement. By sampling with replacement, some observations may be repeated in each D i {\displaystyle D_{i}} . If n ′ = n {\displaystyle n'=n} , then for large n {\displaystyle n} the set D i {\displaystyle D_{i}} is expected to have the fraction (1 - 1/e) (~63.2%) of the unique samples of D {\displaystyle D} , the rest being duplicates. This kind of sample is known as a bootstrap sample. Sampling with replacement ensures each bootstrap is independent from its peers, as it does not depend on previous chosen samples when sampling. Then, m {\displaystyle m} models are fitted using the above bootstrap samples and combined by averaging the output (for regression) or voting (for classification). Bagging leads to "improvements for unstable procedures", which include, for example, artificial neural networks, classification and regression trees, and subset selection in linear regression. Bagging was shown to improve preimage learning. On the other hand, it can mildly degrade the performance of stable methods such as k-nearest neighbors. == Process of the algorithm == === Key Terms === There are three types of datasets in bootstrap aggregating. These are the original, bootstrap, and out-of-bag datasets. Each section below will explain how each dataset is made except for the original dataset. The original dataset is whatever information is given. === Creating the bootstrap dataset === The bootstrap dataset is made by randomly picking objects from the original dataset. Also, it must be the same size as the original dataset. However, the difference is that the bootstrap dataset can have duplicate objects. Here is a simple example to demonstrate how it works along with the illustration below: Suppose the original dataset is a group of 12 people. Their names are Emily, Jessie, George, Constantine, Lexi, Theodore, John, James, Rachel, Anthony, Ellie, and Jamal. By randomly picking a group of names, let us say our bootstrap dataset had James, Ellie, Constantine, Lexi, John, Constantine, Theodore, Constantine, Anthony, Lexi, Constantine, and Theodore. In this case, the bootstrap sample contained four duplicates for Constantine, and two duplicates for Lexi, and Theodore. === Creating the out-of-bag dataset === The out-of-bag dataset represents the remaining people who were not in the bootstrap dataset. It can be calculated by taking the difference between the original and the bootstrap datasets. In this case, the remaining samples who were not selected are Emily, Jessie, George, Rachel, and Jamal. Keep in mind that since both datasets are sets, when taking the difference the duplicate names are ignored in the bootstrap dataset. The illustration below shows how the math is done: === Application === Creating the bootstrap and out-of-bag datasets is crucial since it is used to test the accuracy of ensemble learning algorithms like random forest. For example, a model that produces 50 trees using the bootstrap/out-of-bag datasets will have a better accuracy than if it produced 10 trees. Since the algorithm generates multiple trees and therefore multiple datasets the chance that an object is left out of the bootstrap dataset is low. The next few sections talk about how the random forest algorithm works in more detail. === Creation of Decision Trees === The next step of the algorithm involves the generation of decision trees from the bootstrapped dataset. To achieve this, the process examines each gene/feature and determines for how many samples the feature's presence or absence yields a positive or negative result. This information is then used to compute a confusion matrix, which lists the true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives of the feature when used as a classifier. These features are then ranked according to various classification metrics based on their confusion matrices. Some common metrics include estimate of positive correctness (calculated by subtracting false positives from true positives), measure of "goodness", and information gain. These features are then used to partition the samples into two sets: those that possess the top feature, and those that do not. The diagram below shows a decision tree of depth two being used to classify data. For example, a data point that exhibits Feature 1, but not Feature 2, will be given a "No". Another point that does not exhibit Feature 1, but does exhibit Feature 3, will be given a "Yes". This process is repeated recursively for successive levels of the tree until the desired depth is reached. At the very bottom of the tree, samples that test positive for the final feature are generally classified as positive, while those that lack the feature are classified as negative. These trees are then used as predictors to classify new data. === Random Forests === The next part of the algorithm involves introducing yet another element of variability amongst the bootstrapped trees. In addition to each tree only examining a bootstrapped set of samples, only a small but consistent number of unique features are considered when ranking them as classifiers. This means that each tree only knows about the data pertaining to a small constant number of features, and a variable number of samples that is less than or equal to that of the original dataset. Consequently, the trees are more likely to return a wider array of answers, derived from more diverse knowledge. This results in a random forest, which possesses numerous benefits over a single decision tree generated without randomness. In a random forest, each tree "votes" on whether or not to classify a sample as positive based on its features. The sample is then classified based on majority vote. An example of this is given in the diagram below, where the four trees in a random forest vote on whether or not a patient with mutations A, B, F, and G has cancer. Since three out of four trees vote yes, the patient is then classified as cancer positive. Because of their properties, random forests are considered one of the most accurate data mining algorithms, are less likely to overfit their data, and run quickly and efficiently even for large datasets. They are primarily useful for classification as opposed to regression, which attempts to draw observed connections between statistical variables in a dataset. This makes random forests particularly useful in such fields as banking, healthcare, the stock market, and e-commerce where it is important to be able to predict future results based on past data. One of their applications would be as a useful tool for predicting cancer based on genetic factors, as seen in the above example. There are several important factors to consider when designing a random forest. If the trees in the random forests are too deep, overfitting can still occur due to over-specificity. If the forest is too large, the algorithm may become less efficient due to an increased runtime. Random forests also do not generally perform well when given sparse data with little variability. However, they still have numerous advantages over similar data classification algorithms such as neural networks, as they are much easier to interpret and generally require less data for training. As an integral component of random forests, bootstrap aggregating is very important to classification algorithms, and provides a critical element of variability that allows for increased accuracy when analyzing new data, as discussed below. == Improving Random Forests and Bagging == While the techniques described above utilize random forests and bagging (otherwise known as bootstrapping), there are certain techniques that can be used in order to improve their execution and voting time, their prediction accuracy, and their overall performance. The following are key steps in creating an efficient random forest: Specify the maximum depth of trees: Instead of allowing the random forest to continue until all nodes are pure, it is better to cut it off at a certain point in order to further decrease chances of overfitting. Prune the dataset: Using an extremely large dataset may create results that are less indicative of the data provided than a smaller set that more accurately represents what is being focused on. Continue pruning the data at each
Generalized blockmodeling of binary networks
Generalized blockmodeling of binary networks (also relational blockmodeling) is an approach of generalized blockmodeling, analysing the binary network(s). As most network analyses deal with binary networks, this approach is also considered as the fundamental approach of blockmodeling. This is especially noted, as the set of ideal blocks, when used for interpretation of blockmodels, have binary link patterns, which precludes them to be compared with valued empirical blocks. When analysing the binary networks, the criterion function is measuring block inconsistencies, while also reporting the possible errors. The ideal block in binary blockmodeling has only three types of conditions: "a certain cell must be (at least) 1, a certain cell must be 0 and the f {\displaystyle f} over each row (or column) must be at least 1". It is also used as a basis for developing the generalized blockmodeling of valued networks.
Consensus clustering
Consensus clustering is a method of aggregating (potentially conflicting) results from multiple clustering algorithms. Also called cluster ensembles or aggregation of clustering (or partitions), it refers to the situation in which a number of different (input) clusterings have been obtained for a particular dataset and it is desired to find a single (consensus) clustering which is a better fit in some sense than the existing clusterings. Consensus clustering is thus the problem of reconciling clustering information about the same data set coming from different sources or from different runs of the same algorithm. When cast as an optimization problem, consensus clustering is known as median partition, and has been shown to be NP-complete, even when the number of input clusterings is three. Consensus clustering for unsupervised learning is analogous to ensemble learning in supervised learning. == Issues with existing clustering techniques == Current clustering techniques do not address all the requirements adequately. Dealing with large number of dimensions and large number of data items can be problematic because of time complexity; Effectiveness of the method depends on the definition of "distance" (for distance-based clustering) If an obvious distance measure doesn't exist, we must "define" it, which is not always easy, especially in multidimensional spaces. The result of the clustering algorithm (that, in many cases, can be arbitrary itself) can be interpreted in different ways. == Justification for using consensus clustering == There are potential shortcomings for all existing clustering techniques. This may cause interpretation of results to become difficult, especially when there is no knowledge about the number of clusters. Clustering methods are also very sensitive to the initial clustering settings, which can cause non-significant data to be amplified in non-reiterative methods. An extremely important issue in cluster analysis is the validation of the clustering results, that is, how to gain confidence about the significance of the clusters provided by the clustering technique (cluster numbers and cluster assignments). Lacking an external objective criterion (the equivalent of a known class label in supervised analysis), this validation becomes somewhat elusive. Iterative descent clustering methods, such as the SOM and k-means clustering circumvent some of the shortcomings of hierarchical clustering by providing for univocally defined clusters and cluster boundaries. Consensus clustering provides a method that represents the consensus across multiple runs of a clustering algorithm, to determine the number of clusters in the data, and to assess the stability of the discovered clusters. The method can also be used to represent the consensus over multiple runs of a clustering algorithm with random restart (such as K-means, model-based Bayesian clustering, SOM, etc.), so as to account for its sensitivity to the initial conditions. It can provide data for a visualization tool to inspect cluster number, membership, and boundaries. However, they lack the intuitive and visual appeal of hierarchical clustering dendrograms, and the number of clusters must be chosen a priori. == The Monti consensus clustering algorithm == The Monti consensus clustering algorithm is one of the most popular consensus clustering algorithms and is used to determine the number of clusters, K {\displaystyle K} . Given a dataset of N {\displaystyle N} total number of points to cluster, this algorithm works by resampling and clustering the data, for each K {\displaystyle K} and a N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} consensus matrix is calculated, where each element represents the fraction of times two samples clustered together. A perfectly stable matrix would consist entirely of zeros and ones, representing all sample pairs always clustering together or not together over all resampling iterations. The relative stability of the consensus matrices can be used to infer the optimal K {\displaystyle K} . More specifically, given a set of points to cluster, D = { e 1 , e 2 , . . . e N } {\displaystyle D=\{e_{1},e_{2},...e_{N}\}} , let D 1 , D 2 , . . . , D H {\displaystyle D^{1},D^{2},...,D^{H}} be the list of H {\displaystyle H} perturbed (resampled) datasets of the original dataset D {\displaystyle D} , and let M h {\displaystyle M^{h}} denote the N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} connectivity matrix resulting from applying a clustering algorithm to the dataset D h {\displaystyle D^{h}} . The entries of M h {\displaystyle M^{h}} are defined as follows: M h ( i , j ) = { 1 , if points i and j belong to the same cluster 0 , otherwise {\displaystyle M^{h}(i,j)={\begin{cases}1,&{\text{if}}{\text{ points i and j belong to the same cluster}}\\0,&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} Let I h {\displaystyle I^{h}} be the N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} identicator matrix where the ( i , j ) {\displaystyle (i,j)} -th entry is equal to 1 if points i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} are in the same perturbed dataset D h {\displaystyle D^{h}} , and 0 otherwise. The indicator matrix is used to keep track of which samples were selected during each resampling iteration for the normalisation step. The consensus matrix C {\displaystyle C} is defined as the normalised sum of all connectivity matrices of all the perturbed datasets and a different one is calculated for every K {\displaystyle K} . C ( i , j ) = ( ∑ h = 1 H M h ( i , j ) ∑ h = 1 H I h ( i , j ) ) {\displaystyle C(i,j)=\left({\frac {\textstyle \sum _{h=1}^{H}M^{h}(i,j)\displaystyle }{\sum _{h=1}^{H}I^{h}(i,j)}}\right)} That is the entry ( i , j ) {\displaystyle (i,j)} in the consensus matrix is the number of times points i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} were clustered together divided by the total number of times they were selected together. The matrix is symmetric and each element is defined within the range [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} . A consensus matrix is calculated for each K {\displaystyle K} to be tested, and the stability of each matrix, that is how far the matrix is towards a matrix of perfect stability (just zeros and ones) is used to determine the optimal K {\displaystyle K} . One way of quantifying the stability of the K {\displaystyle K} th consensus matrix is examining its CDF curve (see below). == Over-interpretation potential of the Monti consensus clustering algorithm == Monti consensus clustering can be a powerful tool for identifying clusters, but it needs to be applied with caution as shown by Şenbabaoğlu et al. It has been shown that the Monti consensus clustering algorithm is able to claim apparent stability of chance partitioning of null datasets drawn from a unimodal distribution, and thus has the potential to lead to over-interpretation of cluster stability in a real study. If clusters are not well separated, consensus clustering could lead one to conclude apparent structure when there is none, or declare cluster stability when it is subtle. Identifying false positive clusters is a common problem throughout cluster research, and has been addressed by methods such as SigClust and the GAP-statistic. However, these methods rely on certain assumptions for the null model that may not always be appropriate. Şenbabaoğlu et al demonstrated the original delta K metric to decide K {\displaystyle K} in the Monti algorithm performed poorly, and proposed a new superior metric for measuring the stability of consensus matrices using their CDF curves. In the CDF curve of a consensus matrix, the lower left portion represents sample pairs rarely clustered together, the upper right portion represents those almost always clustered together, whereas the middle segment represent those with ambiguous assignments in different clustering runs. The proportion of ambiguous clustering (PAC) score measure quantifies this middle segment; and is defined as the fraction of sample pairs with consensus indices falling in the interval (u1, u2) ∈ [0, 1] where u1 is a value close to 0 and u2 is a value close to 1 (for instance u1=0.1 and u2=0.9). A low value of PAC indicates a flat middle segment, and a low rate of discordant assignments across permuted clustering runs. One can therefore infer the optimal number of clusters by the K {\displaystyle K} value having the lowest PAC. == Related work == Clustering ensemble (Strehl and Ghosh): They considered various formulations for the problem, most of which reduce the problem to a hyper-graph partitioning problem. In one of their formulations they considered the same graph as in the correlation clustering problem. The solution they proposed is to compute the best k-partition of the graph, which does not take into account the penalty for merging two nodes that are far apart. Clustering aggregation (Fern and Brodley): They applied the clustering aggregation idea to a collection of soft clusterings they obtained by random projections. They used an agglomerative algorithm
MyPertamina
MyPertamina is a digital financial service platform from Pertamina that integrated with the apps LinkAja. This application is used for non-cash fuel oil payments at Pertamina's public fueling stations. == History == Originally, MyPertamina were merchandise outlets of Pertamina products. It was launched on December 21, 2016, with 3 outlets in Jakarta. MyPertamina sells clothes, hats, and other products with Pertamina products brands. One month later (January 2017), Pertamina and Bank Mandiri entered into a partnership to launch the Mandiri Credit Card Pertamina Mastercard product, so that consumers can make payments when users fill up fuel at Pertamina gas stations. In August 2017, MyPertamina app and electronic card were launched through MyPertamina Loyalty program at Gaikindo Indonesia International Auto Show 2017. The card can be used on EDC machines for non-cash payments. Initial balances are in its own app, that can be top up by ATMs and online banking.
Count sketch
Count sketch is a type of dimensionality reduction that is particularly efficient in statistics, machine learning and algorithms. It was invented by Moses Charikar, Kevin Chen and Martin Farach-Colton in an effort to speed up the AMS Sketch by Alon, Matias and Szegedy for approximating the frequency moments of streams (these calculations require counting of the number of occurrences for the distinct elements of the stream). The sketch is nearly identical to the Feature hashing algorithm by John Moody, but differs in its use of hash functions with low dependence, which makes it more practical. In order to still have a high probability of success, the median trick is used to aggregate multiple count sketches, rather than the mean. These properties allow use for explicit kernel methods, bilinear pooling in neural networks and is a cornerstone in many numerical linear algebra algorithms. == Intuitive explanation == The inventors of this data structure offer the following iterative explanation of its operation: at the simplest level, the output of a single hash function s mapping stream elements q into {+1, -1} is feeding a single up/down counter C. After a single pass over the data, the frequency n ( q ) {\displaystyle n(q)} of a stream element q can be approximated, although extremely poorly, by the expected value E [ C ⋅ s ( q ) ] {\displaystyle {\mathbf {E}}[C\cdot s(q)]} ; a straightforward way to improve the variance of the previous estimate is to use an array of different hash functions s i {\displaystyle s_{i}} , each connected to its own counter C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} . For each i, the E [ C i ⋅ s i ( q ) ] = n ( q ) {\displaystyle {\mathbf {E}}[C_{i}\cdot s_{i}(q)]=n(q)} still holds, so averaging across the i range will tighten the approximation; the previous construct still has a major deficiency: if a lower-frequency-but-still-important output element a exhibits a hash collision with a high-frequency element even for one of the s i {\displaystyle s_{i}} hashes, n ( a ) {\displaystyle n(a)} estimate can be significantly affected. Avoiding this requires reducing the frequency of collision counter updates between any two distinct elements. This is achieved by replacing each C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} in the previous construct with an array of m counters (making the counter set into a two-dimensional matrix C i , j {\displaystyle C_{i,j}} ), with index j of a particular counter to be incremented/decremented selected via another set of hash functions h i {\displaystyle h_{i}} that map element q into the range {1..m}. Since E [ C i , h i ( q ) ⋅ s i ( q ) ] = n ( q ) {\displaystyle {\mathbf {E}}[C_{i,h_{i}(q)}\cdot s_{i}(q)]=n(q)} , averaging across all values of i will work. == Mathematical definition == 1. For constants w {\displaystyle w} and t {\displaystyle t} (to be defined later) independently choose d = 2 t + 1 {\displaystyle d=2t+1} random hash functions h 1 , … , h d {\displaystyle h_{1},\dots ,h_{d}} and s 1 , … , s d {\displaystyle s_{1},\dots ,s_{d}} such that h i : [ n ] → [ w ] {\displaystyle h_{i}:[n]\to [w]} and s i : [ n ] → { ± 1 } {\displaystyle s_{i}:[n]\to \{\pm 1\}} . It is necessary that the hash families from which h i {\displaystyle h_{i}} and s i {\displaystyle s_{i}} are chosen be pairwise independent. 2. For each item q i {\displaystyle q_{i}} in the stream, add s j ( q i ) {\displaystyle s_{j}(q_{i})} to the h j ( q i ) {\displaystyle h_{j}(q_{i})} th bucket of the j {\displaystyle j} th hash. At the end of this process, one has w d {\displaystyle wd} sums ( C i j ) {\displaystyle (C_{ij})} where C i , j = ∑ h i ( k ) = j s i ( k ) . {\displaystyle C_{i,j}=\sum _{h_{i}(k)=j}s_{i}(k).} To estimate the count of q {\displaystyle q} s one computes the following value: r q = median i = 1 d s i ( q ) ⋅ C i , h i ( q ) . {\displaystyle r_{q}={\text{median}}_{i=1}^{d}\,s_{i}(q)\cdot C_{i,h_{i}(q)}.} The values s i ( q ) ⋅ C i , h i ( q ) {\displaystyle s_{i}(q)\cdot C_{i,h_{i}(q)}} are unbiased estimates of how many times q {\displaystyle q} has appeared in the stream. The estimate r q {\displaystyle r_{q}} has variance O ( m i n { m 1 2 / w 2 , m 2 2 / w } ) {\displaystyle O(\mathrm {min} \{m_{1}^{2}/w^{2},m_{2}^{2}/w\})} , where m 1 {\displaystyle m_{1}} is the length of the stream and m 2 2 {\displaystyle m_{2}^{2}} is ∑ q ( ∑ i [ q i = q ] ) 2 {\displaystyle \sum _{q}(\sum _{i}[q_{i}=q])^{2}} . Furthermore, r q {\displaystyle r_{q}} is guaranteed to never be more than 2 m 2 / w {\displaystyle 2m_{2}/{\sqrt {w}}} off from the true value, with probability 1 − e − O ( t ) {\displaystyle 1-e^{-O(t)}} . === Vector formulation === Alternatively Count-Sketch can be seen as a linear mapping with a non-linear reconstruction function. Let M ( i ∈ [ d ] ) ∈ { − 1 , 0 , 1 } w × n {\displaystyle M^{(i\in [d])}\in \{-1,0,1\}^{w\times n}} , be a collection of d = 2 t + 1 {\displaystyle d=2t+1} matrices, defined by M h i ( j ) , j ( i ) = s i ( j ) {\displaystyle M_{h_{i}(j),j}^{(i)}=s_{i}(j)} for j ∈ [ w ] {\displaystyle j\in [w]} and 0 everywhere else. Then a vector v ∈ R n {\displaystyle v\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} is sketched by C ( i ) = M ( i ) v ∈ R w {\displaystyle C^{(i)}=M^{(i)}v\in \mathbb {R} ^{w}} . To reconstruct v {\displaystyle v} we take v j ∗ = median i C j ( i ) s i ( j ) {\displaystyle v_{j}^{}={\text{median}}_{i}C_{j}^{(i)}s_{i}(j)} . This gives the same guarantees as stated above, if we take m 1 = ‖ v ‖ 1 {\displaystyle m_{1}=\|v\|_{1}} and m 2 = ‖ v ‖ 2 {\displaystyle m_{2}=\|v\|_{2}} . == Relation to Tensor sketch == The count sketch projection of the outer product of two vectors is equivalent to the convolution of two component count sketches. The count sketch computes a vector convolution C ( 1 ) x ∗ C ( 2 ) x T {\displaystyle C^{(1)}x\ast C^{(2)}x^{T}} , where C ( 1 ) {\displaystyle C^{(1)}} and C ( 2 ) {\displaystyle C^{(2)}} are independent count sketch matrices. Pham and Pagh show that this equals C ( x ⊗ x T ) {\displaystyle C(x\otimes x^{T})} – a count sketch C {\displaystyle C} of the outer product of vectors, where ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } denotes Kronecker product. The fast Fourier transform can be used to do fast convolution of count sketches. By using the face-splitting product such structures can be computed much faster than normal matrices.