The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance are a set of principles intended to guide open data projects in engaging Indigenous Peoples rights and interests. CARE was created in 2019 by the International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group, a group that is a part of the Research Data Alliance. It outlines collective rights related to open data in the context of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous data sovereignty. CARE is an acronym which stands for Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics. The CARE Principles are 'people and purpose-oriented, reflecting the crucial role of data in advancing Indigenous innovation and self-determination', and intended as a complement to the data-oriented perspective of other standards such as FAIR data (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable). The CARE principles have been embedded into the Beta version of Standardised Data on Initiatives (STARDIT). CARE principles were the basis of a submission to the UN's Global Digital Compact.
Kernel embedding of distributions
In machine learning, the kernel embedding of distributions (also called the kernel mean or mean map) comprises a class of nonparametric methods in which a probability distribution is represented as an element of a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS). A generalization of the individual data-point feature mapping done in classical kernel methods, the embedding of distributions into infinite-dimensional feature spaces can preserve all of the statistical features of arbitrary distributions, while allowing one to compare and manipulate distributions using Hilbert space operations such as inner products, distances, projections, linear transformations, and spectral analysis. This learning framework is very general and can be applied to distributions over any space Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } on which a sensible kernel function (measuring similarity between elements of Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } ) may be defined. For example, various kernels have been proposed for learning from data which are: vectors in R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} , discrete classes/categories, strings, graphs/networks, images, time series, manifolds, dynamical systems, and other structured objects. The theory behind kernel embeddings of distributions has been primarily developed by Alex Smola, Le Song, Arthur Gretton, and Bernhard Schölkopf. A review of recent works on kernel embedding of distributions can be found in. The analysis of distributions is fundamental in machine learning and statistics, and many algorithms in these fields rely on information theoretic approaches such as entropy, mutual information, or Kullback–Leibler divergence. However, to estimate these quantities, one must first either perform density estimation, or employ sophisticated space-partitioning/bias-correction strategies which are typically infeasible for high-dimensional data. Commonly, methods for modeling complex distributions rely on parametric assumptions that may be unfounded or computationally challenging (e.g. Gaussian mixture models), while nonparametric methods like kernel density estimation (Note: the smoothing kernels in this context have a different interpretation than the kernels discussed here) or characteristic function representation (via the Fourier transform of the distribution) break down in high-dimensional settings. Methods based on the kernel embedding of distributions sidestep these problems and also possess the following advantages: Data may be modeled without restrictive assumptions about the form of the distributions and relationships between variables Intermediate density estimation is not needed Practitioners may specify the properties of a distribution most relevant for their problem (incorporating prior knowledge via choice of the kernel) If a characteristic kernel is used, then the embedding can uniquely preserve all information about a distribution, while thanks to the kernel trick, computations on the potentially infinite-dimensional RKHS can be implemented in practice as simple Gram matrix operations Dimensionality-independent rates of convergence for the empirical kernel mean (estimated using samples from the distribution) to the kernel embedding of the true underlying distribution can be proven. Learning algorithms based on this framework exhibit good generalization ability and finite sample convergence, while often being simpler and more effective than information theoretic methods Thus, learning via the kernel embedding of distributions offers a principled drop-in replacement for information theoretic approaches and is a framework which not only subsumes many popular methods in machine learning and statistics as special cases, but also can lead to entirely new learning algorithms. == Definitions == Let X {\displaystyle X} denote a random variable with domain Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } and distribution P {\displaystyle P} . Given a symmetric, positive-definite kernel k : Ω × Ω → R {\displaystyle k:\Omega \times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb {R} } the Moore–Aronszajn theorem asserts the existence of a unique RKHS H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} on Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } (a Hilbert space of functions f : Ω → R {\displaystyle f:\Omega \to \mathbb {R} } equipped with an inner product ⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ H {\displaystyle \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle _{\mathcal {H}}} and a norm ‖ ⋅ ‖ H {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{\mathcal {H}}} ) for which k {\displaystyle k} is a reproducing kernel, i.e., in which the element k ( x , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle k(x,\cdot )} satisfies the reproducing property ⟨ f , k ( x , ⋅ ) ⟩ H = f ( x ) ∀ f ∈ H , ∀ x ∈ Ω . {\displaystyle \langle f,k(x,\cdot )\rangle _{\mathcal {H}}=f(x)\qquad \forall f\in {\mathcal {H}},\quad \forall x\in \Omega .} One may alternatively consider x ↦ k ( x , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle x\mapsto k(x,\cdot )} as an implicit feature mapping φ : Ω → H {\displaystyle \varphi :\Omega \rightarrow {\mathcal {H}}} (which is therefore also called the feature space), so that k ( x , x ′ ) = ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⟩ H {\displaystyle k(x,x')=\langle \varphi (x),\varphi (x')\rangle _{\mathcal {H}}} can be viewed as a measure of similarity between points x , x ′ ∈ Ω . {\displaystyle x,x'\in \Omega .} While the similarity measure is linear in the feature space, it may be highly nonlinear in the original space depending on the choice of kernel. === Kernel embedding === The kernel embedding of the distribution P {\displaystyle P} in H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} (also called the kernel mean or mean map) is given by: μ X := E [ k ( X , ⋅ ) ] = E [ φ ( X ) ] = ∫ Ω φ ( x ) d P ( x ) {\displaystyle \mu _{X}:=\mathbb {E} [k(X,\cdot )]=\mathbb {E} [\varphi (X)]=\int _{\Omega }\varphi (x)\ \mathrm {d} P(x)} If P {\displaystyle P} allows a square integrable density p {\displaystyle p} , then μ X = E k p {\displaystyle \mu _{X}={\mathcal {E}}_{k}p} , where E k {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}_{k}} is the Hilbert–Schmidt integral operator. A kernel is characteristic if the mean embedding μ : { family of distributions over Ω } → H {\displaystyle \mu :\{{\text{family of distributions over }}\Omega \}\to {\mathcal {H}}} is injective. Each distribution can thus be uniquely represented in the RKHS and all statistical features of distributions are preserved by the kernel embedding if a characteristic kernel is used. === Empirical kernel embedding === Given n {\displaystyle n} training examples { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} drawn independently and identically distributed (i.i.d.) from P , {\displaystyle P,} the kernel embedding of P {\displaystyle P} can be empirically estimated as μ ^ X = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n φ ( x i ) {\displaystyle {\widehat {\mu }}_{X}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\varphi (x_{i})} === Joint distribution embedding === If Y {\displaystyle Y} denotes another random variable (for simplicity, assume the co-domain of Y {\displaystyle Y} is also Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } with the same kernel k {\displaystyle k} which satisfies ⟨ φ ( x ) ⊗ φ ( y ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⊗ φ ( y ′ ) ⟩ = k ( x , x ′ ) k ( y , y ′ ) {\displaystyle \langle \varphi (x)\otimes \varphi (y),\varphi (x')\otimes \varphi (y')\rangle =k(x,x')k(y,y')} ), then the joint distribution P ( x , y ) ) {\displaystyle P(x,y))} can be mapped into a tensor product feature space H ⊗ H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}\otimes {\mathcal {H}}} via C X Y = E [ φ ( X ) ⊗ φ ( Y ) ] = ∫ Ω × Ω φ ( x ) ⊗ φ ( y ) d P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}_{XY}=\mathbb {E} [\varphi (X)\otimes \varphi (Y)]=\int _{\Omega \times \Omega }\varphi (x)\otimes \varphi (y)\ \mathrm {d} P(x,y)} By the equivalence between a tensor and a linear map, this joint embedding may be interpreted as an uncentered cross-covariance operator C X Y : H → H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}_{XY}:{\mathcal {H}}\to {\mathcal {H}}} from which the cross-covariance of functions f , g ∈ H {\displaystyle f,g\in {\mathcal {H}}} can be computed as Cov ( f ( X ) , g ( Y ) ) := E [ f ( X ) g ( Y ) ] − E [ f ( X ) ] E [ g ( Y ) ] = ⟨ f , C X Y g ⟩ H = ⟨ f ⊗ g , C X Y ⟩ H ⊗ H {\displaystyle \operatorname {Cov} (f(X),g(Y)):=\mathbb {E} [f(X)g(Y)]-\mathbb {E} [f(X)]\mathbb {E} [g(Y)]=\langle f,{\mathcal {C}}_{XY}g\rangle _{\mathcal {H}}=\langle f\otimes g,{\mathcal {C}}_{XY}\rangle _{{\mathcal {H}}\otimes {\mathcal {H}}}} Given n {\displaystyle n} pairs of training examples { ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) } {\displaystyle \{(x_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\}} drawn i.i.d. from P {\displaystyle P} , we can also empirically estimate the joint distribution kernel embedding via C ^ X Y = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n φ ( x i ) ⊗ φ ( y i ) {\displaystyle {\widehat {\mathcal {C}}}_{XY}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\varphi (x_{i})\otimes \varphi (y_{i})} === Conditional distribution embedding === Given a conditional distribution P ( y ∣ x ) , {\displaystyle P(y\mid x),} one can define the corresponding RKHS embedding as μ Y ∣ x = E [ φ ( Y ) ∣ X ] = ∫ Ω φ ( y ) d P ( y ∣ x ) {\displaystyle \mu _{Y\mid x}=\mathbb {E} [\varphi (Y)\mid X]=\int _{\Omega
Aapo Hyvärinen
Aapo Johannes Hyvärinen (born 1970 in Helsinki) is a Finnish professor of computer science at the University of Helsinki and known for his research in independent component analysis. == Education and career == Hyvärinen was born in Helsinki and studied mathematics at the University of Helsinki and received his Doctor of Technology in information science in 1997 at the Helsinki University of Technology under the supervision of Erkki Oja. His doctoral thesis, titled "Independent component analysis: A neural network approach", introduced the FastICA algorithm. Since then, Hyvärinen has conducted research especially in relation to the independent component analysis, as well as score matching (also known as Hyvärinen scoring rule). In November 2007, he was appointed as a professor at the University of Helsinki. Hyvärinen has been a member of the Finnish Academy of Sciences since 2016. From August 2016 to March 2019, he held a professorship in machine learning at the Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit of the University College London.
Markov chain central limit theorem
In the mathematical theory of random processes, the Markov chain central limit theorem has a conclusion somewhat similar in form to that of the classic central limit theorem (CLT) of probability theory, but the quantity in the role taken by the variance in the classic CLT has a more complicated definition. See also the general form of Bienaymé's identity. == Statement == Suppose that: the sequence X 1 , X 2 , X 3 , … {\textstyle X_{1},X_{2},X_{3},\ldots } of random elements of some set is a Markov chain that has a stationary probability distribution; and the initial distribution of the process, i.e. the distribution of X 1 {\textstyle X_{1}} , is the stationary distribution, so that X 1 , X 2 , X 3 , … {\textstyle X_{1},X_{2},X_{3},\ldots } are identically distributed. In the classic central limit theorem these random variables would be assumed to be independent, but here we have only the weaker assumption that the process has the Markov property; and g {\textstyle g} is some (measurable) real-valued function for which var ( g ( X 1 ) ) < + ∞ . {\textstyle \operatorname {var} (g(X_{1}))<+\infty .} Now let μ = E ( g ( X 1 ) ) , μ ^ n = 1 n ∑ k = 1 n g ( X k ) σ 2 := lim n → ∞ var ( n μ ^ n ) = lim n → ∞ n var ( μ ^ n ) = var ( g ( X 1 ) ) + 2 ∑ k = 1 ∞ cov ( g ( X 1 ) , g ( X 1 + k ) ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\mu &=\operatorname {E} (g(X_{1})),\\{\widehat {\mu }}_{n}&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{k=1}^{n}g(X_{k})\\\sigma ^{2}&:=\lim _{n\to \infty }\operatorname {var} ({\sqrt {n}}{\widehat {\mu }}_{n})=\lim _{n\to \infty }n\operatorname {var} ({\widehat {\mu }}_{n})=\operatorname {var} (g(X_{1}))+2\sum _{k=1}^{\infty }\operatorname {cov} (g(X_{1}),g(X_{1+k})).\end{aligned}}} Then as n → ∞ , {\textstyle n\to \infty ,} we have n ( μ ^ n − μ ) → D Normal ( 0 , σ 2 ) , {\displaystyle {\sqrt {n}}({\hat {\mu }}_{n}-\mu )\ {\xrightarrow {\mathcal {D}}}\ {\text{Normal}}(0,\sigma ^{2}),} where the decorated arrow indicates convergence in distribution. == Monte Carlo Setting == The Markov chain central limit theorem can be guaranteed for functionals of general state space Markov chains under certain conditions. In particular, this can be done with a focus on Monte Carlo settings. An example of the application in a MCMC (Markov Chain Monte Carlo) setting is the following: Consider a simple hard spheres model on a grid. Suppose X = { 1 , … , n 1 } × { 1 , … , n 2 } ⊆ Z 2 {\displaystyle X=\{1,\ldots ,n_{1}\}\times \{1,\ldots ,n_{2}\}\subseteq Z^{2}} . A proper configuration on X {\displaystyle X} consists of coloring each point either black or white in such a way that no two adjacent points are white. Let χ {\displaystyle \chi } denote the set of all proper configurations on X {\displaystyle X} , N χ ( n 1 , n 2 ) {\displaystyle N_{\chi }(n_{1},n_{2})} be the total number of proper configurations and π be the uniform distribution on χ {\displaystyle \chi } so that each proper configuration is equally likely. Suppose our goal is to calculate the typical number of white points in a proper configuration; that is, if W ( x ) {\displaystyle W(x)} is the number of white points in x ∈ χ {\displaystyle x\in \chi } then we want the value of E π W = ∑ x ∈ χ W ( x ) N χ ( n 1 , n 2 ) {\displaystyle E_{\pi }W=\sum _{x\in \chi }{\frac {W(x)}{N_{\chi }{\bigl (}n_{1},n_{2}{\bigr )}}}} If n 1 {\displaystyle n_{1}} and n 2 {\displaystyle n_{2}} are even moderately large then we will have to resort to an approximation to E π W {\displaystyle E_{\pi }W} . Consider the following Markov chain on χ {\displaystyle \chi } . Fix p ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle p\in (0,1)} and set X 1 = x 1 {\displaystyle X_{1}=x_{1}} where x 1 ∈ χ {\displaystyle x_{1}\in \chi } is an arbitrary proper configuration. Randomly choose a point ( x , y ) ∈ X {\displaystyle (x,y)\in X} and independently draw U ∼ U n i f o r m ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle U\sim \mathrm {Uniform} (0,1)} . If u ≤ p {\displaystyle u\leq p} and all of the adjacent points are black then color ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} white leaving all other points alone. Otherwise, color ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} black and leave all other points alone. Call the resulting configuration X 1 {\displaystyle X_{1}} . Continuing in this fashion yields a Harris ergodic Markov chain { X 1 , X 2 , X 3 , … } {\displaystyle \{X_{1},X_{2},X_{3},\ldots \}} having π {\displaystyle \pi } as its invariant distribution. It is now a simple matter to estimate E π W {\displaystyle E_{\pi }W} with w n ¯ = ∑ i = 1 n W ( X i ) / n {\displaystyle {\overline {w_{n}}}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}W(X_{i})/n} . Also, since χ {\displaystyle \chi } is finite (albeit potentially large) it is well known that X {\displaystyle X} will converge exponentially fast to π {\displaystyle \pi } which implies that a CLT holds for w n ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {w_{n}}}} . == Implications == Not taking into account the additional terms in the variance which stem from correlations (e.g. serial correlations in markov chain monte carlo simulations) can result in the problem of pseudoreplication when computing e.g. the confidence intervals for the sample mean.
AI Voice Assistants: Free vs Paid (2026)
Shopping for the best AI voice assistant? An AI voice assistant is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI voice assistant slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.
View model
A view model or viewpoints framework in systems engineering, software engineering, and enterprise engineering is a framework which defines a coherent set of views to be used in the construction of a system architecture, software architecture, or enterprise architecture. A view is a representation of the whole system from the perspective of a related set of concerns. Since the early 1990s there have been a number of efforts to prescribe approaches for describing and analyzing system architectures. A result of these efforts have been to define a set of views (or viewpoints). They are sometimes referred to as architecture frameworks or enterprise architecture frameworks, but are usually called "view models". Usually a view is a work product that presents specific architecture data for a given system. However, the same term is sometimes used to refer to a view definition, including the particular viewpoint and the corresponding guidance that defines each concrete view. The term view model is related to view definitions. == Overview == The purpose of views and viewpoints is to enable humans to comprehend very complex systems, to organize the elements of the problem and the solution around domains of expertise and to separate concerns. In the engineering of physically intensive systems, viewpoints often correspond to capabilities and responsibilities within the engineering organization. Most complex system specifications are so extensive that no single individual can fully comprehend all aspects of the specifications. Furthermore, we all have different interests in a given system and different reasons for examining the system's specifications. A business executive will ask different questions of a system make-up than would a system implementer. The concept of viewpoints framework, therefore, is to provide separate viewpoints into the specification of a given complex system in order to facilitate communication with the stakeholders. Each viewpoint satisfies an audience with interest in a particular set of aspects of the system. Each viewpoint may use a specific viewpoint language that optimizes the vocabulary and presentation for the audience of that viewpoint. Viewpoint modeling has become an effective approach for dealing with the inherent complexity of large distributed systems. Architecture description practices, as described in IEEE Std 1471-2000, utilize multiple views to address several areas of concerns, each one focusing on a specific aspect of the system. Examples of architecture frameworks using multiple views include Kruchten's "4+1" view model, the Zachman Framework, TOGAF, DoDAF, and RM-ODP. == History == In the 1970s, methods began to appear in software engineering for modeling with multiple views. Douglas T. Ross and K.E. Schoman in 1977 introduce the constructs context, viewpoint, and vantage point to organize the modeling process in systems requirements definition. According to Ross and Schoman, a viewpoint "makes clear what aspects are considered relevant to achieving ... the overall purpose [of the model]" and determines How do we look at [a subject being modelled]? As examples of viewpoints, the paper offers: Technical, Operational and Economic viewpoints. In 1992, Anthony Finkelstein and others published a very important paper on viewpoints. In that work: "A viewpoint can be thought of as a combination of the idea of an “actor”, “knowledge source”, “role” or “agent” in the development process and the idea of a “view” or “perspective” which an actor maintains." An important idea in this paper was to distinguish "a representation style, the scheme and notation by which the viewpoint expresses what it can see" and "a specification, the statements expressed in the viewpoint's style describing particular domains". Subsequent work, such as IEEE 1471, preserved this distinction by utilizing two separate terms: viewpoint and view, respectively. Since the early 1990s there have been a number of efforts to codify approaches for describing and analyzing system architectures. These are often termed architecture frameworks or sometimes viewpoint sets. Many of these have been funded by the United States Department of Defense, but some have sprung from international or national efforts in ISO or the IEEE. Among these, the IEEE Recommended Practice for Architectural Description of Software-Intensive Systems (IEEE Std 1471-2000) established useful definitions of view, viewpoint, stakeholder and concern and guidelines for documenting a system architecture through the use of multiple views by applying viewpoints to address stakeholder concerns. The advantage of multiple views is that hidden requirements and stakeholder disagreements can be discovered more readily. However, studies show that in practice, the added complexity of reconciling multiple views can undermine this advantage. IEEE 1471 (now ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011, Systems and software engineering — Architecture description) prescribes the contents of architecture descriptions and describes their creation and use under a number of scenarios, including precedented and unprecedented design, evolutionary design, and capture of design of existing systems. In all of these scenarios the overall process is the same: identify stakeholders, elicit concerns, identify a set of viewpoints to be used, and then apply these viewpoint specifications to develop the set of views relevant to the system of interest. Rather than define a particular set of viewpoints, the standard provides uniform mechanisms and requirements for architects and organizations to define their own viewpoints. In 1996 the ISO Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing (RM-ODP) was published to provide a useful framework for describing the architecture and design of large-scale distributed systems. == View model topics == === View === A view of a system is a representation of the system from the perspective of a viewpoint. This viewpoint on a system involves a perspective focusing on specific concerns regarding the system, which suppresses details to provide a simplified model having only those elements related to the concerns of the viewpoint. For example, a security viewpoint focuses on security concerns and a security viewpoint model contains those elements that are related to security from a more general model of a system. A view allows a user to examine a portion of a particular interest area. For example, an Information View may present all functions, organizations, technology, etc. that use a particular piece of information, while the Organizational View may present all functions, technology, and information of concern to a particular organization. In the Zachman Framework views comprise a group of work products whose development requires a particular analytical and technical expertise because they focus on either the “what,” “how,” “who,” “where,” “when,” or “why” of the enterprise. For example, Functional View work products answer the question “how is the mission carried out?” They are most easily developed by experts in functional decomposition using process and activity modeling. They show the enterprise from the point of view of functions. They also may show organizational and information components, but only as they relate to functions. === Viewpoints === In systems engineering, a viewpoint is a partitioning or restriction of concerns in a system. Adoption of a viewpoint is usable so that issues in those aspects can be addressed separately. A good selection of viewpoints also partitions the design of the system into specific areas of expertise. Viewpoints provide the conventions, rules, and languages for constructing, presenting and analysing views. In ISO/IEC 42010:2007 (IEEE-Std-1471-2000) a viewpoint is a specification for an individual view. A view is a representation of a whole system from the perspective of a viewpoint. A view may consist of one or more architectural models. Each such architectural model is developed using the methods established by its associated architectural system, as well as for the system as a whole. === Modeling perspectives === Modeling perspectives is a set of different ways to represent pre-selected aspects of a system. Each perspective has a different focus, conceptualization, dedication and visualization of what the model is representing. In information systems, the traditional way to divide modeling perspectives is to distinguish the structural, functional and behavioral/processual perspectives. This together with rule, object, communication and actor and role perspectives is one way of classifying modeling approaches === Viewpoint model === In any given viewpoint, it is possible to make a model of the system that contains only the objects that are visible from that viewpoint, but also captures all of the objects, relationships and constraints that are present in the system and relevant to that viewpoint. Such a model is said to be a viewpoint model, or a view of the
Is an AI Writing Assistant Worth It in 2026?
In search of the best AI writing assistant? An AI writing assistant is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI writing assistant slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.