Artbreeder, formerly known as Ganbreeder, is a collaborative, machine learning-based art website. Using the models StyleGAN and BigGAN, the website allows users to generate and modify images of faces, landscapes, and paintings, among other categories. == Overview == On Artbreeder, users mainly interact through the remixing - referred to as 'breeding' - of other users' images found in the publicly accessible database of images. The creation of new variations can be done by tweaking sliders on an image's page, known as "genes", which in the "Portraits" model can range from color balance to gender, facial hair, and glasses. Additionally, any image can be "crossbred" with other publicly viewable images from the database, using a slider to control how much of each image should influence the resulting "child". The site also allows for uploading new images, which the model will attempt to convert into the latent space of the network. == Notable usages == The similarly AI-driven text adventure game AI Dungeon uses Artbreeder to generate profile pictures for its users, and The Static Age's Andrew Paley has used Artbreeder to create the visuals for his music videos. Artbreeder has been used to create portraits of characters from popular novels such as Harry Potter and Twilight. They have also been used to add realistic features to ancient portraits. Artbreeder was used to create characters in the sequel to Ben Drowned with the titular villain, an AI-construct itself, created entirely using the website. == Changes to Artbreeder == ArtBreeder underwent an overhaul, introducing several features to enhance the user experience. Among these updates is the integration SD-XL, developed by stability.ai. Additionally, ArtBreeder also added a functionality known as ControlNet, which enables users to create images based on specific poses. With ControlNet, users can incorporate various poses into their AI Artworks. More features that were introduced into Artbreeder, are Pattern, which creates AI Pattern Images, Outpainting or Uncropping was also an added feature to Artbreeder, that allows the user to expand the image beyond the normal dimensions of the image. == Reception == The artwork generated by users of the website has been described as "beautiful" and "surreal," drawing comparisons to "weird, incomprehensible dreams" that "somehow touch the deep, unconscious parts of [the] mind". However, the generated faces were noted as "creepy and 'off'", and still nowhere near the quality attained by actual digital artists. Additionally, the site faced criticism for perceived confusing aspects of the AI's behavior. Jonathan Bartlett of Mind Matters News noted that "As is always the case with AI, sometimes the [gene] knobs don't work as expected and sometimes the results are... strange," while conceding that Artbreeder was still "probably the start of a new future of made-to-order stock images." Writers from Hyperallergic also took issue with perceived racial biases in the Portraits model, citing a comment from a user who faced difficulty from the neural network while attempting to darken the skin of a portrait to match a source image.
Geofence warrant
A geofence warrant or a reverse location warrant is a search warrant issued by a court to allow law enforcement to search a database to find all active mobile devices within a particular geo-fence area. Courts have granted law enforcement geo-fence warrants to obtain information from databases such as Google's Sensorvault, which collects users' historical geolocation data. Geo-fence warrants are a part of a category of warrants known as reverse search warrants. == History == Geofence warrants were first used in 2016. Google reported that it had received 982 such warrants in 2018, 8,396 in 2019, and 11,554 in 2020. A 2021 transparency report showed that 25% of data requests from law enforcement to Google were geo-fence data requests. Google is the most common recipient of geo-fence warrants and the main provider of such data, although companies including Apple, Snapchat, Lyft, and Uber have also received such warrants. == Legality == === United States === Some lawyers and privacy experts believe reverse search warrants are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires any search warrants be specific to what and to whom they apply. The Fourth Amendment specifies that warrants may only be issued "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Some lawyers, legal scholars, and privacy experts have likened reverse search warrants to general warrants, which were made illegal by the Fourth Amendment. Groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation have opposed geo-fence warrants in amicus briefs filed in motions to quash such orders to disclose geo-fence data. In 2024, a panel of the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals considered data acquired from Google’s Sensorvault not to be a search, but non-private business records when users opt-in to Google’s location history. However, upon a rehearing en banc, the Court vacated that decision. In April 2025, the full Court affirmed the judgment solely on the 'good faith' exception, leaving the underlying constitutional question of whether geofence warrants constitute a search unsettled in the Circuit. However, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that geofence warrants are "categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment." The split in Circuits prompted the United States Supreme Court to agree to hear Chatrie v. United States in January 2026.
Data validation and reconciliation
Industrial process data validation and reconciliation, or more briefly, process data reconciliation (PDR), is a technology that uses process information and mathematical methods in order to automatically ensure data validation and reconciliation by correcting measurements in industrial processes. The use of PDR allows for extracting accurate and reliable information about the state of industry processes from raw measurement data and produces a single consistent set of data representing the most likely process operation. == Models, data and measurement errors == Industrial processes, for example chemical or thermodynamic processes in chemical plants, refineries, oil or gas production sites, or power plants, are often represented by two fundamental means: Models that express the general structure of the processes, Data that reflects the state of the processes at a given point in time. Models can have different levels of detail, for example one can incorporate simple mass or compound conservation balances, or more advanced thermodynamic models including energy conservation laws. Mathematically the model can be expressed by a nonlinear system of equations F ( y ) = 0 {\displaystyle F(y)=0\,} in the variables y = ( y 1 , … , y n ) {\displaystyle y=(y_{1},\ldots ,y_{n})} , which incorporates all the above-mentioned system constraints (for example the mass or heat balances around a unit). A variable could be the temperature or the pressure at a certain place in the plant. === Error types === Data originates typically from measurements taken at different places throughout the industrial site, for example temperature, pressure, volumetric flow rate measurements etc. To understand the basic principles of PDR, it is important to first recognize that plant measurements are never 100% correct, i.e. raw measurement y {\displaystyle y\,} is not a solution of the nonlinear system F ( y ) = 0 {\displaystyle F(y)=0\,\!} . When using measurements without correction to generate plant balances, it is common to have incoherencies. Measurement errors can be categorized into two basic types: random errors due to intrinsic sensor accuracy and systematic errors (or gross errors) due to sensor calibration or faulty data transmission. Random errors means that the measurement y {\displaystyle y\,\!} is a random variable with mean y ∗ {\displaystyle y^{}\,\!} , where y ∗ {\displaystyle y^{}\,\!} is the true value that is typically not known. A systematic error on the other hand is characterized by a measurement y {\displaystyle y\,\!} which is a random variable with mean y ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {y}}\,\!} , which is not equal to the true value y ∗ {\displaystyle y^{}\,} . For ease in deriving and implementing an optimal estimation solution, and based on arguments that errors are the sum of many factors (so that the Central limit theorem has some effect), data reconciliation assumes these errors are normally distributed. Other sources of errors when calculating plant balances include process faults such as leaks, unmodeled heat losses, incorrect physical properties or other physical parameters used in equations, and incorrect structure such as unmodeled bypass lines. Other errors include unmodeled plant dynamics such as holdup changes, and other instabilities in plant operations that violate steady state (algebraic) models. Additional dynamic errors arise when measurements and samples are not taken at the same time, especially lab analyses. The normal practice of using time averages for the data input partly reduces the dynamic problems. However, that does not completely resolve timing inconsistencies for infrequently-sampled data like lab analyses. This use of average values, like a moving average, acts as a low-pass filter, so high frequency noise is mostly eliminated. The result is that, in practice, data reconciliation is mainly making adjustments to correct systematic errors like biases. === Necessity of removing measurement errors === ISA-95 is the international standard for the integration of enterprise and control systems It asserts that: Data reconciliation is a serious issue for enterprise-control integration. The data have to be valid to be useful for the enterprise system. The data must often be determined from physical measurements that have associated error factors. This must usually be converted into exact values for the enterprise system. This conversion may require manual, or intelligent reconciliation of the converted values [...]. Systems must be set up to ensure that accurate data are sent to production and from production. Inadvertent operator or clerical errors may result in too much production, too little production, the wrong production, incorrect inventory, or missing inventory. == History == PDR has become more and more important due to industrial processes that are becoming more and more complex. PDR started in the early 1960s with applications aiming at closing material balances in production processes where raw measurements were available for all variables. At the same time the problem of gross error identification and elimination has been presented. In the late 1960s and 1970s unmeasured variables were taken into account in the data reconciliation process., PDR also became more mature by considering general nonlinear equation systems coming from thermodynamic models., , Quasi steady state dynamics for filtering and simultaneous parameter estimation over time were introduced in 1977 by Stanley and Mah. Dynamic PDR was formulated as a nonlinear optimization problem by Liebman et al. in 1992. == Data reconciliation == Data reconciliation is a technique that targets at correcting measurement errors that are due to measurement noise, i.e. random errors. From a statistical point of view the main assumption is that no systematic errors exist in the set of measurements, since they may bias the reconciliation results and reduce the robustness of the reconciliation. Given n {\displaystyle n} measurements y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} , data reconciliation can mathematically be expressed as an optimization problem of the following form: min x , y ∗ ∑ i = 1 n ( y i ∗ − y i σ i ) 2 subject to F ( x , y ∗ ) = 0 y min ≤ y ∗ ≤ y max x min ≤ x ≤ x max , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\min _{x,y^{}}&\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\frac {y_{i}^{}-y_{i}}{\sigma _{i}}}\right)^{2}\\{\text{subject to }}&F(x,y^{})=0\\&y_{\min }\leq y^{}\leq y_{\max }\\&x_{\min }\leq x\leq x_{\max },\end{aligned}}\,\!} where y i ∗ {\displaystyle y_{i}^{}\,\!} is the reconciled value of the i {\displaystyle i} -th measurement ( i = 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=1,\ldots ,n\,\!} ), y i {\displaystyle y_{i}\,\!} is the measured value of the i {\displaystyle i} -th measurement ( i = 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=1,\ldots ,n\,\!} ), x j {\displaystyle x_{j}\,\!} is the j {\displaystyle j} -th unmeasured variable ( j = 1 , … , m {\displaystyle j=1,\ldots ,m\,\!} ), and σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}\,\!} is the standard deviation of the i {\displaystyle i} -th measurement ( i = 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=1,\ldots ,n\,\!} ), F ( x , y ∗ ) = 0 {\displaystyle F(x,y^{})=0\,\!} are the p {\displaystyle p\,\!} process equality constraints and x min , x max , y min , y max {\displaystyle x_{\min },x_{\max },y_{\min },y_{\max }\,\!} are the bounds on the measured and unmeasured variables. The term ( y i ∗ − y i σ i ) 2 {\displaystyle \left({\frac {y_{i}^{}-y_{i}}{\sigma _{i}}}\right)^{2}\,\!} is called the penalty of measurement i. The objective function is the sum of the penalties, which will be denoted in the following by f ( y ∗ ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( y i ∗ − y i σ i ) 2 {\displaystyle f(y^{})=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\frac {y_{i}^{}-y_{i}}{\sigma _{i}}}\right)^{2}} . In other words, one wants to minimize the overall correction (measured in the least squares term) that is needed in order to satisfy the system constraints. Additionally, each least squares term is weighted by the standard deviation of the corresponding measurement. The standard deviation is related to the accuracy of the measurement. For example, at a 95% confidence level, the standard deviation is about half the accuracy. === Redundancy === Data reconciliation relies strongly on the concept of redundancy to correct the measurements as little as possible in order to satisfy the process constraints. Here, redundancy is defined differently from redundancy in information theory. Instead, redundancy arises from combining sensor data with the model (algebraic constraints), sometimes more specifically called "spatial redundancy", "analytical redundancy", or "topological redundancy". Redundancy can be due to sensor redundancy, where sensors are duplicated in order to have more than one measurement of the same quantity. Redundancy also arises when a single variable can be estimated in several independent ways from separate sets of measurements at a given time or time averaging period, using the algebraic constraints. Redundancy is linked to the concept
Verifiable secret sharing
In cryptography, a secret sharing scheme is verifiable if auxiliary information is included that allows players to verify their shares as consistent. More formally, verifiable secret sharing ensures that even if the dealer is malicious there is a well-defined secret that the players can later reconstruct. (In standard secret sharing, the dealer is assumed to be honest.) The concept of verifiable secret sharing (VSS) was first introduced in 1985 by Benny Chor, Shafi Goldwasser, Silvio Micali and Baruch Awerbuch. In a VSS protocol a distinguished player who wants to share the secret is referred to as the dealer. The protocol consists of two phases: a sharing phase and a reconstruction phase. Sharing: Initially the dealer holds secret as input and each player holds an independent random input. The sharing phase may consist of several rounds. At each round each player can privately send messages to other players and can also broadcast a message. Each message sent or broadcast by a player is determined by its input, its random input and messages received from other players in previous rounds. Reconstruction: In this phase each player provides its entire view from the sharing phase and a reconstruction function is applied and is taken as the protocol's output. An alternative definition given by Oded Goldreich defines VSS as a secure multi-party protocol for computing the randomized functionality corresponding to some (non-verifiable) secret sharing scheme. This definition is stronger than that of the other definitions and is very convenient to use in the context of general secure multi-party computation. Verifiable secret sharing is important for secure multiparty computation. Multiparty computation is typically accomplished by making secret shares of the inputs, and manipulating the shares to compute some function. To handle "active" adversaries (that is, adversaries that corrupt nodes and then make them deviate from the protocol), the secret sharing scheme needs to be verifiable to prevent the deviating nodes from throwing off the protocol. == Feldman's scheme == A commonly used example of a simple VSS scheme is the protocol by Paul Feldman, which is based on Shamir's secret sharing scheme combined with any encryption scheme which satisfies a specific homomorphic property (that is not necessarily satisfied by all homomorphic encryption schemes). The following description gives the general idea, but is not secure as written. (Note, in particular, that the published value gs leaks information about the dealer's secret s.) First, a cyclic group G of prime order q, along with a generator g of G, is chosen publicly as a system parameter. The group G must be chosen such that computing discrete logarithms is hard in this group. (Typically, one takes an order-q subgroup of (Z/pZ)×, where q is a prime dividing p − 1.) The dealer then computes (and keeps secret) a random polynomial P of degree t with coefficients in Zq, such that P(0) = s, where s is the secret. Each of the n share holders will receive a value P(1), ..., P(n) modulo q. Any t + 1 share holders can recover the secret s by using polynomial interpolation modulo q, but any set of at most t share holders cannot. (In fact, at this point any set of at most t share holders has no information about s.) So far, this is exactly Shamir's scheme. To make these shares verifiable, the dealer distributes commitments to the coefficients of P modulo q. If P(x) = s + a1x + ... + atxt, then the commitments that must be given are: c0 = gs, c1 = ga1, ... ct = gat. Once these are given, any party can verify their share. For instance, to verify that v = P(i) modulo q, party i can check that g v = c 0 c 1 i c 2 i 2 ⋯ c t i t = ∏ j = 0 t c j i j = ∏ j = 0 t g a j i j = g ∑ j = 0 t a j i j = g P ( i ) {\displaystyle g^{v}=c_{0}c_{1}^{i}c_{2}^{i^{2}}\cdots c_{t}^{i^{t}}=\prod _{j=0}^{t}c_{j}^{i^{j}}=\prod _{j=0}^{t}g^{a_{j}i^{j}}=g^{\sum _{j=0}^{t}a_{j}i^{j}}=g^{P(i)}} . This scheme is, at best, secure against computationally bounded adversaries, namely the intractability of computing discrete logarithms. Pedersen proposed later a scheme where no information about the secret is revealed even with a dealer with unlimited computing power. == Baghery's hash-based scheme == A recent line of research has proposed a unified framework, for building practical VSS schemes that do not necessarily require homomorphic commitments —a key requirement in traditional constructions such as Feldman's and Pedersen's schemes. The framework allows instantiations with different commitment schemes, including post-quantum secure options such as hash-based commitments. This offers a flexible and efficient approach to build VSS schemes, in which the verifiability of shares is decoupled from the need for homomorphic commitments, which are often tied to assumptions like the Discrete Logarithm (DL) problem, known to be insecure against quantum adversaries. One instantiation of the new framework uses hash-based commitments and a random oracle to construct a hash-based VSS scheme based on Shamir's secret sharing. === Protocol Overview === Sharing Phase: Given a secure hash-based commitment scheme C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} and a hash function H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} (modeled as a random oracle), to share a secret value s {\displaystyle s} among n {\displaystyle n} parties with threshold t {\displaystyle t} , the dealer acts as follows: Following Shamir sharing, the dealer samples a random degree- t {\displaystyle t} polynomial P ( X ) {\displaystyle P(X)} over a filed or ring, with P ( 0 ) = s {\displaystyle P(0)=s} . Each of the n {\displaystyle n} parties will receive a value v i = P ( i ) {\displaystyle v_{i}=P(i)} modulo q {\displaystyle q} as a share. To prove the validity of the shares, the dealer acts as follows: Samples another random degree- t {\displaystyle t} polynomial R ( X ) {\displaystyle R(X)} and n {\displaystyle n} random values γ 1 , … , γ n {\displaystyle \gamma _{1},\dots ,\gamma _{n}} from the same filed or ring. Computes a set of commitments c i = C ( P ( i ) , R ( i ) , γ i ) {\displaystyle c_{i}={\mathcal {C}}(P(i),R(i),\gamma _{i})} for i = 1 , 2 , … , n {\displaystyle i=1,2,\dots ,n} . Note that, the additional randomness γ i {\displaystyle \gamma _{i}} is used when the secret s {\displaystyle s} does not have sufficient entropy, but it can be omitted when sharing a uniformly random secret. Each of the n {\displaystyle n} parties will also receive a value γ i {\displaystyle \gamma _{i}} modulo q {\displaystyle q} as a share. Calculates a challenge value d {\displaystyle d} via a hash function d = H ( c 1 , … , c n ) {\displaystyle d={\mathcal {H}}(c_{1},\dots ,c_{n})} and then computes a polynomial Z ( X ) = R ( X ) + d ⋅ P ( X ) {\displaystyle Z(X)=R(X)+d\cdot P(X)} . Broadcasts the commitments c 1 , … , c n {\displaystyle c_{1},\dots ,c_{n}} along with Z ( X ) {\displaystyle Z(X)} as the proof and privately sends ( v i , γ i ) {\displaystyle (v_{i},\gamma _{i})} as the individual share to party i {\displaystyle i} . Verification Phase: Given an individual share ( v i , γ i ) {\displaystyle (v_{i},\gamma _{i})} and a proof ( c 1 , … , c n , Z ( X ) ) {\displaystyle (c_{1},\dots ,c_{n},Z(X))} , party i {\displaystyle i} verifies the correctness of it as below: Checks that Z ( X ) {\displaystyle Z(X)} is a valid (up to) degree- t {\displaystyle t} polynomial. Recomputes the challenge value d = H ( c 1 , … , c n ) {\displaystyle d={\mathcal {H}}(c_{1},\dots ,c_{n})} , and verifies the commitment equation c i = C ( v i , Z ( i ) − d v i , γ i ) {\displaystyle c_{i}={\mathcal {C}}(v_{i},Z(i)-dv_{i},\gamma _{i})} . If the verification fails, similar to Feldman’s and Pedersen’s schemes, the party raises a complaint. If too many complaints (more than t {\displaystyle t} ) are raised, the dealer is disqualified. In case of a complaint, the dealer can publicly reveal the disputed share to allow global verification. Honest parties can then collectively agree to either continue or disqualify the dealer. This scheme supports the sharing of both low-entropy and high-entropy secrets. Moreover, since it relies solely on secure hash functions for commitments and on a (quantum) random oracle, it plausibly achieves security even against quantum adversaries. Additionally, by using only lightweight cryptographic primitives, the scheme is considerably more efficient in practice compared to traditional VSS constructions based on number-theoretic assumptions. == Benaloh's scheme == Once n shares are distributed to their holders, each holder should be able to verify that all shares are collectively t-consistent (i.e., any subset t of n shares will yield the same, correct, polynomial without exposing the secret). In Shamir's secret sharing scheme the shares s 1 , s 2 , . . . , s n {\displaystyle s_{1},s_{2},...,s_{n}} are t-consistent if and only if the interpolation of the points ( 1 , s 1 ) , ( 2 , s 2 ) , . . . , (
Codebook
A codebook is a type of document used for gathering and storing cryptography codes. Originally, codebooks were often literally books, but today "codebook" is a byword for the complete record of a series of codes, regardless of physical format. == Cryptography == In cryptography, a codebook is a document used for implementing a code. A codebook contains a lookup table for coding and decoding; each word or phrase has one or more strings which replace it. To decipher messages written in code, corresponding copies of the codebook must be available at either end. The distribution and physical security of codebooks presents a special difficulty in the use of codes compared to the secret information used in ciphers, the key, which is typically much shorter. The United States National Security Agency documents sometimes use codebook to refer to block ciphers; compare their use of combiner-type algorithm to refer to stream ciphers. Codebooks come in two forms, one-part or two-part: In one-part codes, the plaintext words and phrases and the corresponding code words are in the same alphabetical order. They are organized similar to a standard dictionary. Such codes are half the size of two-part codes but are more vulnerable since an attacker who recovers some code word meanings can often infer the meaning of nearby code words. One-part codes may be used simply to shorten messages for transmission or have their security enhanced with superencryption methods, such as adding a secret number to numeric code words. In two-part codes, one part is for converting plaintext to ciphertext, the other for the opposite purpose. They are usually organized similarly to a language translation dictionary, with plaintext words (in the first part) and ciphertext words (in the second part) presented like dictionary headwords. The earliest known use of a codebook system was by Gabriele de Lavinde in 1379 working for the Antipope Clement VII. Two-part codebooks go back as least as far as Antoine Rossignol in the 1800s. From the 15th century until the middle of the 19th century, nomenclators (named after nomenclator) were the most used cryptographic method. Codebooks with superencryption were the most used cryptographic method of World War I. The JN-25 code used in World War II used a codebook of 30,000 code groups superencrypted with 30,000 random additives. The book used in a book cipher or the book used in a running key cipher can be any book shared by sender and receiver and is different from a cryptographic codebook. == Social sciences == In social sciences, a codebook is a document containing a list of the codes used in a set of data to refer to variables and their values, for example locations, occupations, or clinical diagnoses. == Data compression == Codebooks were also used in 19th- and 20th-century commercial codes for the non-cryptographic purpose of data compression. Codebooks are used in relation to precoding and beamforming in mobile networks such as 5G and LTE. The usage is standardized by 3GPP, for example in the document TS 38.331, NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specification.
Hyperparameter optimization
In machine learning, hyperparameter optimization or tuning is the problem of choosing a set of optimal hyperparameters for a learning algorithm. A hyperparameter is a parameter whose value is used to control the learning process, which must be configured before the process starts. Hyperparameter optimization determines the set of hyperparameters that yields an optimal model which minimizes a predefined loss function on a given data set. The objective function takes a set of hyperparameters and returns the associated loss. Cross-validation is often used to estimate this generalization performance, and therefore choose the set of values for hyperparameters that maximize it. == Approaches == === Grid search === The traditional method for hyperparameter optimization has been grid search, or a parameter sweep, which is simply an exhaustive searching through a manually specified subset of the hyperparameter space of a learning algorithm. A grid search algorithm must be guided by some performance metric, typically measured by cross-validation on the training set or evaluation on a hold-out validation set. Since the parameter space of a machine learner may include real-valued or unbounded value spaces for certain parameters, manually set bounds and discretization may be necessary before applying grid search. For example, a typical soft-margin SVM classifier equipped with an RBF kernel has at least two hyperparameters that need to be tuned for good performance on unseen data: a regularization constant C and a kernel hyperparameter γ. Both parameters are continuous, so to perform grid search, one selects a finite set of "reasonable" values for each, say C ∈ { 10 , 100 , 1000 } {\displaystyle C\in \{10,100,1000\}} γ ∈ { 0.1 , 0.2 , 0.5 , 1.0 } {\displaystyle \gamma \in \{0.1,0.2,0.5,1.0\}} Grid search then trains an SVM with each pair (C, γ) in the Cartesian product of these two sets and evaluates their performance on a held-out validation set (or by internal cross-validation on the training set, in which case multiple SVMs are trained per pair). Finally, the grid search algorithm outputs the settings that achieved the highest score in the validation procedure. Grid search suffers from the curse of dimensionality, but is often embarrassingly parallel because the hyperparameter settings it evaluates are typically independent of each other. === Random search === Random Search replaces the exhaustive enumeration of all combinations by selecting them randomly. This can be simply applied to the discrete setting described above, but also generalizes to continuous and mixed spaces. A benefit over grid search is that random search can explore many more values than grid search could for continuous hyperparameters. It can outperform Grid search, especially when only a small number of hyperparameters affects the final performance of the machine learning algorithm. In this case, the optimization problem is said to have a low intrinsic dimensionality. Random Search is also embarrassingly parallel, and additionally allows the inclusion of prior knowledge by specifying the distribution from which to sample. Despite its simplicity, random search remains one of the important base-lines against which to compare the performance of new hyperparameter optimization methods. === Bayesian optimization === Bayesian optimization is a global optimization method for noisy black-box functions. Applied to hyperparameter optimization, Bayesian optimization builds a probabilistic model of the function mapping from hyperparameter values to the objective evaluated on a validation set. By iteratively evaluating a promising hyperparameter configuration based on the current model, and then updating it, Bayesian optimization aims to gather observations revealing as much information as possible about this function and, in particular, the location of the optimum. It tries to balance exploration (hyperparameters for which the outcome is most uncertain) and exploitation (hyperparameters expected close to the optimum). In practice, Bayesian optimization has been shown to obtain better results in fewer evaluations compared to grid search and random search, due to the ability to reason about the quality of experiments before they are run. === Gradient-based optimization === For specific learning algorithms, it is possible to compute the gradient with respect to hyperparameters and then optimize the hyperparameters using gradient descent. The first usage of these techniques was focused on neural networks. Since then, these methods have been extended to other models such as support vector machines or logistic regression. A different approach in order to obtain a gradient with respect to hyperparameters consists in differentiating the steps of an iterative optimization algorithm using automatic differentiation. A more recent work along this direction uses the implicit function theorem to calculate hypergradients and proposes a stable approximation of the inverse Hessian. The method scales to millions of hyperparameters and requires constant memory. In a different approach, a hypernetwork is trained to approximate the best response function. One of the advantages of this method is that it can handle discrete hyperparameters as well. Self-tuning networks offer a memory efficient version of this approach by choosing a compact representation for the hypernetwork. More recently, Δ-STN has improved this method further by a slight reparameterization of the hypernetwork which speeds up training. Δ-STN also yields a better approximation of the best-response Jacobian by linearizing the network in the weights, hence removing unnecessary nonlinear effects of large changes in the weights. Apart from hypernetwork approaches, gradient-based methods can be used to optimize discrete hyperparameters also by adopting a continuous relaxation of the parameters. Such methods have been extensively used for the optimization of architecture hyperparameters in neural architecture search. === Evolutionary optimization === Evolutionary optimization is a methodology for the global optimization of noisy black-box functions. In hyperparameter optimization, evolutionary optimization uses evolutionary algorithms to search the space of hyperparameters for a given algorithm. Evolutionary hyperparameter optimization follows a process inspired by the biological concept of evolution: Create an initial population of random solutions (i.e., randomly generate tuples of hyperparameters, typically 100+) Evaluate the hyperparameter tuples and acquire their fitness function (e.g., 10-fold cross-validation accuracy of the machine learning algorithm with those hyperparameters) Rank the hyperparameter tuples by their relative fitness Replace the worst-performing hyperparameter tuples with new ones generated via crossover and mutation Repeat steps 2-4 until satisfactory algorithm performance is reached or is no longer improving. Evolutionary optimization has been used in hyperparameter optimization for statistical machine learning algorithms, automated machine learning, typical neural network and deep neural network architecture search, as well as training of the weights in deep neural networks. === Population-based === Population Based Training (PBT) learns both hyperparameter values and network weights. Multiple learning processes operate independently, using different hyperparameters. As with evolutionary methods, poorly performing models are iteratively replaced with models that adopt modified hyperparameter values and weights based on the better performers. This replacement model warm starting is the primary differentiator between PBT and other evolutionary methods. PBT thus allows the hyperparameters to evolve and eliminates the need for manual hypertuning. The process makes no assumptions regarding model architecture, loss functions or training procedures. PBT and its variants are adaptive methods: they update hyperparameters during the training of the models. On the contrary, non-adaptive methods have the sub-optimal strategy to assign a constant set of hyperparameters for the whole training. === Early stopping-based === A class of early stopping-based hyperparameter optimization algorithms is purpose-built for large search spaces of continuous and discrete hyperparameters, particularly when the computational cost to evaluate the performance of a set of hyperparameters is high. Irace implements the iterated racing algorithm, that focuses the search around the most promising configurations, using statistical tests to discard the ones that perform poorly. Another early stopping hyperparameter optimization algorithm is successive halving (SHA), which begins as a random search but periodically prunes low-performing models, thereby focusing computational resources on more promising models. Asynchronous successive halving (ASHA) further improves upon SHA's resource utilization profile by removing the need to synchronously evaluate a
Influencer
An influencer is an individual who has the capacity to shape the attitudes, behavior, or decisions of others through authority, knowledge, position, or the nature of the relationship with the audience. The term is used in various fields such as media, business, politics, religion, and communication, referring to influencers such as social media influencers, podcasters, public speakers, religious influencers, writers, and newsletter writers etc who have dedicated followings in various areas. One writer defines influencers as "a range of third parties who exercise influence over the organization and its potential customers." Another writer defines an influencer as a "third party who significantly shapes the customer's purchasing decision but may never be accountable for it." According to another writer, influencers are "well-connected, create an impact, have active minds, and are trendsetters". Just because a person has many followers does not necessarily mean they have much influence over those people. In contemporary usage, the term frequently refers to a social media influencer, (also known as an online influencer or simply influencer) a person who builds a grassroots online presence through engaging content such as photos, videos, and updates. This is done by using direct audience interaction to establish authenticity, expertise, and appeal, and by standing apart from traditional celebrities by growing their platform through social media rather than pre-existing fame. The modern referent of the term is commonly a paid role in which a business entity pays for the social media influence-for-hire activity to promote its products and services, known as influencer marketing. A 1% increase in spending on influencer marketing can lead to a 0.5% increase in audience engagement. As such, an influencer effectively acts as a modern salesperson or a marketer. Types of influencers include fashion influencer, travel influencer, and virtual influencer, and they involve content creators and streamers. Some influencers are associated primarily with specific social media apps such as TikTok, Instagram, or Pinterest; many influencers are also considered internet celebrities. As of 2023, Instagram is the social media platform businesses spend the most advertising money towards marketing with influencers. However, influencers can have an impact on any social media network. == History == === Origins === The word influencer in its general sense of a person or thing that exerts influence, is attested in historical sources at least since the 17th century. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives 1664 as the earliest example of usage and cites a sentence from Henry More's A Modest Enquiry into the Mystery of Iniquity: "The head and influencer of the whole Church". The origins of online influencing can be traced back to the emergence of digital blogs and platforms in the early 2000s. Nevertheless, recent studies demonstrate that Instagram, an application with more than one billion users, harbors the majority of the influencer demographic. These individuals are sometimes referred to as "Instagrammers" or "Instafamous". A crucial aspect of influencing is their association with sponsors. The 2015 debut of Vamp, a company that links influencers with sponsorships, transformed the landscape of influencing. There is much debate about whether social media influencers can be considered celebrities, as their path to fame is often less traditional and arguably easier. Melody Nouri addressed the differences between the two types in her article "The Power of Influence: Traditional Celebrities vs Social Media Influencer". Nouri asserts that social media platforms have a greater negative impact on young, impressionable audiences in comparison with traditional media such as magazines, billboards, advertisements, and tabloids featuring celebrities. Online, it is thought to be simpler to manipulate an image and lifestyle in such a way that viewers are more susceptible to believing it. One theory considers the former American First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt (1884–1962) to be the "original media influencer." While she achieved celebrity in her role as First Lady, she built a global personal brand as a wise, informative, trustworthy American woman. Her voice was her own, unrestricted by political advisors and powerful men, and with it, Roosevelt exerted unprecedented social and cultural influence in radio, print, public speaking, film, and television until she died. In one notable example, it may have been Roosevelt's television support of John F. Kennedy which nudged his "hairline victory" during the 1960 Presidential campaign. In another example, David Ogilvy paid Roosevelt more than a quarter of a million dollars in today's currency to make a TV commercial for Good Luck margarine (1959), in which Roosevelt also managed to mention world hunger. As a content creator, she wrote My Day, a popular daily newspaper column that ran nationwide for twenty-six years. Like a social media post, My Day covered all aspects of her life, and in it Roosevelt often recommended movies, books, and products that she admired. Roosevelt also had a hand in designing all three of her public affairs television shows. Unlike contemporary influencers, she was less motivated by a pay-to-play situation than by a desire to educate and inspire; but she did use her influence to benefit the entertainment industry careers of her children, and she welcomed the revenue that her influence bought, most of which was donated to charity. === 2000s === The early 2000s showed corporate endeavors to leverage the internet for influence, with some companies participating in forums for promotions or providing bloggers with complimentary products in return for favorable reviews. A few of these practices were viewed as unethical for taking advantage of the labor of young individuals without providing remuneration. In 2004, The Blogstar Network was established by Ted Murphy of MindComet. Bloggers were encouraged to join an email list and receive remunerated offers from corporations in exchange for creating specific posts. For instance, bloggers were compensated for writing reviews of fast-food meals on their blogs. Blogstar is widely regarded as the first influencer marketing network. Murphy succeeded Blogstar with PayPerPost, which was introduced in 2006. This platform compensated significant posters on prominent forums and social media platforms for every post made about a corporate product. Payment rates were determined by the influencer's status. Though very popular, PayPerPost, received a great deal of criticism as these influencers were not required to disclose their involvement with PayPerPost as traditional journalism would have. With the success of PayPerPost, the public became aware that there was a drive for corporate interests to influence what some people were posting to these sites. The platform also incentivized other firms to establish comparable programs. Despite concerns, marketing networks with influencers continued to grow throughout the 2000s and into the 2010s. The influencer marketing industry was worth as much as $8 billion in 2019, according to estimates from Business Insider Intelligence, which are based on Mediakix data. Evan Asano, the Former CEO and founder of the agency Mediakix, previously spoke with Business Insider and said he believed influencer marketing on Instagram would continue to grow despite likes being hidden. === 2010s === By the 2010s, the term "influencer" described digital content creators with a large following, distinctive brand persona, and a patterned relationship with commercial sponsors. By this period, influencer marketing had become a widely researched field globally, with systematic reviews drawing on hundreds of studies that documented the growing role of authenticity, audience engagement, and parasocial relationships in shaping how consumers responded to influencer content across different markets. During this period, influencer culture also developed through distinct channels outside Western markets. In South Korea, the global spread of Korean pop culture, also called K-Pop, through platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter gave rise to what scholars have called 'Hallyu 2.0' or the 'New Korean Wave', where fans throughout Southeast Asia, North America, Latin America, and Europe shared, subtitled, and redistributed Korean music and film content on a large scale. This helped Korean entertainers to build substantial followings internationally. Consumers often mistakenly view celebrities as reliable, leading to trust and confidence in the products being promoted. A 2001 study from Rutgers University discovered that individuals were using "internet forums as influential sources of consumer information." The study proposes that consumers preferred internet forums and social media when making purchasing decisions over conventional advertising and print sources. An in