Turing's Wager is a philosophical argument that claims it is impossible to infer or deduce a detailed mathematical model of the human brain within a reasonable timescale, and thus impossible in any practical sense. The argument was first given in 1950 by the computational theorist Alan Turing in his paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence, published in Mind (Turing 1950, p. 453). The argument asserts that determining any mathematical model of a computer (its source code or any isomorphic equivalent such as a Turing machine or virtual simulation) is not possible in a reasonable timeframe. As a consequence, determining a mathematical model of the human brain (which is, by its nature, more complicated) must also be impossible within that timeframe. == Effect of modern technology on the wager == It has been argued that modern neuroimaging techniques will allow researchers to create accurate simulations of the human mind within the 21st century (Kurzweil 2012; Markram 2012, Fildes 2009), thereby overcoming the wager. Others have argued that such claims are unjustified (Thwaites et al. 2017). == Relationship between Turing's Wager and the Turing Test == The Turing Test attempts to define when a machine might be said to possess human intelligence, while Turing's Wager is an argument aiming to demonstrate that characterising the brain mathematically will take over a thousand years. While building an artificial intelligence and mapping the human brain are both difficult endeavours, the former is actually a sub-problem of the latter (Thwaites et al. 2017).
Evolutionary robotics
Evolutionary robotics is an embodied approach to Artificial Intelligence (AI) in which robots are automatically designed using Darwinian principles of natural selection. The design of a robot, or a subsystem of a robot such as a neural controller, is optimized against a behavioral goal (e.g. run as fast as possible). Usually, designs are evaluated in simulations as fabricating thousands or millions of designs and testing them in the real world is prohibitively expensive in terms of time, money, and safety. An evolutionary robotics experiment starts with a population of randomly generated robot designs. The worst performing designs are discarded and replaced with mutations and/or combinations of the better designs. This evolutionary algorithm continues until a prespecified amount of time elapses or some target performance metric is surpassed. Evolutionary robotics methods are particularly useful for engineering machines that must operate in environments in which humans have limited intuition (nanoscale, space, etc.). Evolved simulated robots can also be used as scientific tools to generate new hypotheses in biology and cognitive science, and to test old hypothesis that require experiments that have proven difficult or impossible to carry out in reality. == History == In the early 1990s, two separate European groups demonstrated different approaches to the evolution of robot control systems. Dario Floreano and Francesco Mondada at EPFL evolved controllers for the Khepera robot. Adrian Thompson, Nick Jakobi, Dave Cliff, Inman Harvey, and Phil Husbands evolved controllers for a Gantry robot at the University of Sussex. However the body of these robots was presupposed before evolution. The first simulations of evolved robots were reported by Karl Sims and Jeffrey Ventrella of the MIT Media Lab, also in the early 1990s. However these so-called virtual creatures never left their simulated worlds. The first evolved robots to be built in reality were 3D-printed by Hod Lipson and Jordan Pollack at Brandeis University at the turn of the 21st century.
Stress majorization
Stress majorization is an optimization strategy used in multidimensional scaling (MDS) where, for a set of n {\displaystyle n} m {\displaystyle m} -dimensional data items, a configuration X {\displaystyle X} of n {\displaystyle n} points in r {\displaystyle r} ( ≪ m ) {\displaystyle (\ll m)} -dimensional space is sought that minimizes the so-called stress function σ ( X ) {\displaystyle \sigma (X)} . Usually r {\displaystyle r} is 2 {\displaystyle 2} or 3 {\displaystyle 3} , i.e. the ( n × r ) {\displaystyle (n\times r)} matrix X {\displaystyle X} lists points in 2 − {\displaystyle 2-} or 3 − {\displaystyle 3-} dimensional Euclidean space so that the result may be visualised (i.e. an MDS plot). The function σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is a cost or loss function that measures the squared differences between ideal ( m {\displaystyle m} -dimensional) distances and actual distances in r-dimensional space. It is defined as: σ ( X ) = ∑ i < j ≤ n w i j ( d i j ( X ) − δ i j ) 2 {\displaystyle \sigma (X)=\sum _{i In statistics the mean squared prediction error (MSPE), also known as mean squared error of the predictions, of a smoothing, curve fitting, or regression procedure is the expected value of the squared prediction errors (PE), the square difference between the fitted values implied by the predictive function g ^ {\displaystyle {\widehat {g}}} and the values of the (unobservable) true value g. It is an inverse measure of the explanatory power of g ^ , {\displaystyle {\widehat {g}},} and can be used in the process of cross-validation of an estimated model. Knowledge of g would be required in order to calculate the MSPE exactly; in practice, MSPE is estimated. == Formulation == If the smoothing or fitting procedure has projection matrix (i.e., hat matrix) L, which maps the observed values vector y {\displaystyle y} to predicted values vector y ^ = L y , {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=Ly,} then PE and MSPE are formulated as: P E i = g ( x i ) − g ^ ( x i ) , {\displaystyle \operatorname {PE_{i}} =g(x_{i})-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i}),} MSPE = E [ PE i 2 ] = ∑ i = 1 n PE i 2 / n . {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSPE} =\operatorname {E} \left[\operatorname {PE} _{i}^{2}\right]=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\operatorname {PE} _{i}^{2}/n.} The MSPE can be decomposed into two terms: the squared bias (mean error) of the fitted values and the variance of the fitted values: MSPE = ME 2 + VAR , {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSPE} =\operatorname {ME} ^{2}+\operatorname {VAR} ,} ME = E [ g ^ ( x i ) − g ( x i ) ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {ME} =\operatorname {E} \left[{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})-g(x_{i})\right]} VAR = E [ ( g ^ ( x i ) − E [ g ( x i ) ] ) 2 ] . {\displaystyle \operatorname {VAR} =\operatorname {E} \left[\left({\widehat {g}}(x_{i})-\operatorname {E} \left[{g}(x_{i})\right]\right)^{2}\right].} The quantity SSPE=nMSPE is called sum squared prediction error. The root mean squared prediction error is the square root of MSPE: RMSPE=√MSPE. == Computation of MSPE over out-of-sample data == The mean squared prediction error can be computed exactly in two contexts. First, with a data sample of length n, the data analyst may run the regression over only q of the data points (with q < n), holding back the other n – q data points with the specific purpose of using them to compute the estimated model’s MSPE out of sample (i.e., not using data that were used in the model estimation process). Since the regression process is tailored to the q in-sample points, normally the in-sample MSPE will be smaller than the out-of-sample one computed over the n – q held-back points. If the increase in the MSPE out of sample compared to in sample is relatively slight, that results in the model being viewed favorably. And if two models are to be compared, the one with the lower MSPE over the n – q out-of-sample data points is viewed more favorably, regardless of the models’ relative in-sample performances. The out-of-sample MSPE in this context is exact for the out-of-sample data points that it was computed over, but is merely an estimate of the model’s MSPE for the mostly unobserved population from which the data were drawn. Second, as time goes on more data may become available to the data analyst, and then the MSPE can be computed over these new data. == Estimation of MSPE over the population == When the model has been estimated over all available data with none held back, the MSPE of the model over the entire population of mostly unobserved data can be estimated as follows. For the model y i = g ( x i ) + σ ε i {\displaystyle y_{i}=g(x_{i})+\sigma \varepsilon _{i}} where ε i ∼ N ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{i}\sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,1)} , one may write n ⋅ MSPE ( L ) = g T ( I − L ) T ( I − L ) g + σ 2 tr [ L T L ] . {\displaystyle n\cdot \operatorname {MSPE} (L)=g^{\text{T}}(I-L)^{\text{T}}(I-L)g+\sigma ^{2}\operatorname {tr} \left[L^{\text{T}}L\right].} Using in-sample data values, the first term on the right side is equivalent to ∑ i = 1 n ( E [ g ( x i ) − g ^ ( x i ) ] ) 2 = E [ ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 ] − σ 2 tr [ ( I − L ) T ( I − L ) ] . {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(\operatorname {E} \left[g(x_{i})-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right]\right)^{2}=\operatorname {E} \left[\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}\right]-\sigma ^{2}\operatorname {tr} \left[\left(I-L\right)^{T}\left(I-L\right)\right].} Thus, n ⋅ MSPE ( L ) = E [ ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 ] − σ 2 ( n − tr [ L ] ) . {\displaystyle n\cdot \operatorname {MSPE} (L)=\operatorname {E} \left[\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}\right]-\sigma ^{2}\left(n-\operatorname {tr} \left[L\right]\right).} If σ 2 {\displaystyle \sigma ^{2}} is known or well-estimated by σ ^ 2 {\displaystyle {\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}} , it becomes possible to estimate MSPE by n ⋅ M S P E ^ ( L ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 − σ ^ 2 ( n − tr [ L ] ) . {\displaystyle n\cdot \operatorname {\widehat {MSPE}} (L)=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}-{\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}\left(n-\operatorname {tr} \left[L\right]\right).} Colin Mallows advocated this method in the construction of his model selection statistic Cp, which is a normalized version of the estimated MSPE: C p = ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − g ^ ( x i ) ) 2 σ ^ 2 − n + 2 p . {\displaystyle C_{p}={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\widehat {g}}(x_{i})\right)^{2}}{{\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}}}-n+2p.} where p the number of estimated parameters p and σ ^ 2 {\displaystyle {\widehat {\sigma }}^{2}} is computed from the version of the model that includes all possible regressors. That concludes this proof. The growth function, also called the shatter coefficient or the shattering number, measures the richness of a set family or class of functions. It is especially used in the context of statistical learning theory, where it is used to study properties of statistical learning methods. The term 'growth function' was coined by Vapnik and Chervonenkis in their 1968 paper, where they also proved many of its properties. It is a basic concept in machine learning. == Definitions == === Set-family definition === Let H {\displaystyle H} be a set family (a set of sets) and C {\displaystyle C} a set. Their intersection is defined as the following set-family: H ∩ C := { h ∩ C ∣ h ∈ H } {\displaystyle H\cap C:=\{h\cap C\mid h\in H\}} The intersection-size (also called the index) of H {\displaystyle H} with respect to C {\displaystyle C} is | H ∩ C | {\displaystyle |H\cap C|} . If a set C m {\displaystyle C_{m}} has m {\displaystyle m} elements then the index is at most 2 m {\displaystyle 2^{m}} . If the index is exactly 2m then the set C {\displaystyle C} is said to be shattered by H {\displaystyle H} , because H ∩ C {\displaystyle H\cap C} contains all the subsets of C {\displaystyle C} , i.e.: | H ∩ C | = 2 | C | , {\displaystyle |H\cap C|=2^{|C|},} The growth function measures the size of H ∩ C {\displaystyle H\cap C} as a function of | C | {\displaystyle |C|} . Formally: Growth ( H , m ) := max C : | C | = m | H ∩ C | {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m):=\max _{C:|C|=m}|H\cap C|} === Hypothesis-class definition === Equivalently, let H {\displaystyle H} be a hypothesis-class (a set of binary functions) and C {\displaystyle C} a set with m {\displaystyle m} elements. The restriction of H {\displaystyle H} to C {\displaystyle C} is the set of binary functions on C {\displaystyle C} that can be derived from H {\displaystyle H} : H C := { ( h ( x 1 ) , … , h ( x m ) ) ∣ h ∈ H , x i ∈ C } {\displaystyle H_{C}:=\{(h(x_{1}),\ldots ,h(x_{m}))\mid h\in H,x_{i}\in C\}} The growth function measures the size of H C {\displaystyle H_{C}} as a function of | C | {\displaystyle |C|} : Growth ( H , m ) := max C : | C | = m | H C | {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m):=\max _{C:|C|=m}|H_{C}|} == Examples == 1. The domain is the real line R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } . The set-family H {\displaystyle H} contains all the half-lines (rays) from a given number to positive infinity, i.e., all sets of the form { x > x 0 ∣ x ∈ R } {\displaystyle \{x>x_{0}\mid x\in \mathbb {R} \}} for some x 0 ∈ R {\displaystyle x_{0}\in \mathbb {R} } . For any set C {\displaystyle C} of m {\displaystyle m} real numbers, the intersection H ∩ C {\displaystyle H\cap C} contains m + 1 {\displaystyle m+1} sets: the empty set, the set containing the largest element of C {\displaystyle C} , the set containing the two largest elements of C {\displaystyle C} , and so on. Therefore: Growth ( H , m ) = m + 1 {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)=m+1} . The same is true whether H {\displaystyle H} contains open half-lines, closed half-lines, or both. 2. The domain is the segment [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} . The set-family H {\displaystyle H} contains all the open sets. For any finite set C {\displaystyle C} of m {\displaystyle m} real numbers, the intersection H ∩ C {\displaystyle H\cap C} contains all possible subsets of C {\displaystyle C} . There are 2 m {\displaystyle 2^{m}} such subsets, so Growth ( H , m ) = 2 m {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)=2^{m}} . 3. The domain is the Euclidean space R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . The set-family H {\displaystyle H} contains all the half-spaces of the form: x ⋅ ϕ ≥ 1 {\displaystyle x\cdot \phi \geq 1} , where ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } is a fixed vector. Then Growth ( H , m ) = Comp ( n , m ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)=\operatorname {Comp} (n,m)} , where Comp is the number of components in a partitioning of an n-dimensional space by m hyperplanes. 4. The domain is the real line R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } . The set-family H {\displaystyle H} contains all the real intervals, i.e., all sets of the form { x ∈ [ x 0 , x 1 ] | x ∈ R } {\displaystyle \{x\in [x_{0},x_{1}]|x\in \mathbb {R} \}} for some x 0 , x 1 ∈ R {\displaystyle x_{0},x_{1}\in \mathbb {R} } . For any set C {\displaystyle C} of m {\displaystyle m} real numbers, the intersection H ∩ C {\displaystyle H\cap C} contains all runs of between 0 and m {\displaystyle m} consecutive elements of C {\displaystyle C} . The number of such runs is ( m + 1 2 ) + 1 {\displaystyle {m+1 \choose 2}+1} , so Growth ( H , m ) = ( m + 1 2 ) + 1 {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)={m+1 \choose 2}+1} . == Polynomial or exponential == The main property that makes the growth function interesting is that it can be either polynomial or exponential - nothing in-between. The following is a property of the intersection-size: If, for some set C m {\displaystyle C_{m}} of size m {\displaystyle m} , and for some number n ≤ m {\displaystyle n\leq m} , | H ∩ C m | ≥ Comp ( n , m ) {\displaystyle |H\cap C_{m}|\geq \operatorname {Comp} (n,m)} - then, there exists a subset C n ⊆ C m {\displaystyle C_{n}\subseteq C_{m}} of size n {\displaystyle n} such that | H ∩ C n | = 2 n {\displaystyle |H\cap C_{n}|=2^{n}} . This implies the following property of the Growth function. For every family H {\displaystyle H} there are two cases: The exponential case: Growth ( H , m ) = 2 m {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)=2^{m}} identically. The polynomial case: Growth ( H , m ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)} is majorized by Comp ( n , m ) ≤ m n + 1 {\displaystyle \operatorname {Comp} (n,m)\leq m^{n}+1} , where n {\displaystyle n} is the smallest integer for which Growth ( H , n ) < 2 n {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,n)<2^{n}} . == Other properties == === Trivial upper bound === For any finite H {\displaystyle H} : Growth ( H , m ) ≤ | H | {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)\leq |H|} since for every C {\displaystyle C} , the number of elements in H ∩ C {\displaystyle H\cap C} is at most | H | {\displaystyle |H|} . Therefore, the growth function is mainly interesting when H {\displaystyle H} is infinite. === Exponential upper bound === For any nonempty H {\displaystyle H} : Growth ( H , m ) ≤ 2 m {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)\leq 2^{m}} I.e, the growth function has an exponential upper-bound. We say that a set-family H {\displaystyle H} shatters a set C {\displaystyle C} if their intersection contains all possible subsets of C {\displaystyle C} , i.e. H ∩ C = 2 C {\displaystyle H\cap C=2^{C}} . If H {\displaystyle H} shatters C {\displaystyle C} of size m {\displaystyle m} , then Growth ( H , C ) = 2 m {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,C)=2^{m}} , which is the upper bound. === Cartesian intersection === Define the Cartesian intersection of two set-families as: H 1 ⨂ H 2 := { h 1 ∩ h 2 ∣ h 1 ∈ H 1 , h 2 ∈ H 2 } {\displaystyle H_{1}\bigotimes H_{2}:=\{h_{1}\cap h_{2}\mid h_{1}\in H_{1},h_{2}\in H_{2}\}} . Then: Growth ( H 1 ⨂ H 2 , m ) ≤ Growth ( H 1 , m ) ⋅ Growth ( H 2 , m ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H_{1}\bigotimes H_{2},m)\leq \operatorname {Growth} (H_{1},m)\cdot \operatorname {Growth} (H_{2},m)} === Union === For every two set-families: Growth ( H 1 ∪ H 2 , m ) ≤ Growth ( H 1 , m ) + Growth ( H 2 , m ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H_{1}\cup H_{2},m)\leq \operatorname {Growth} (H_{1},m)+\operatorname {Growth} (H_{2},m)} === VC dimension === The VC dimension of H {\displaystyle H} is defined according to these two cases: In the polynomial case, VCDim ( H ) = n − 1 {\displaystyle \operatorname {VCDim} (H)=n-1} = the largest integer d {\displaystyle d} for which Growth ( H , d ) = 2 d {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,d)=2^{d}} . In the exponential case VCDim ( H ) = ∞ {\displaystyle \operatorname {VCDim} (H)=\infty } . So VCDim ( H ) ≥ d {\displaystyle \operatorname {VCDim} (H)\geq d} if-and-only-if Growth ( H , d ) = 2 d {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,d)=2^{d}} . The growth function can be regarded as a refinement of the concept of VC dimension. The VC dimension only tells us whether Growth ( H , d ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,d)} is equal to or smaller than 2 d {\displaystyle 2^{d}} , while the growth function tells us exactly how Growth ( H , m ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)} changes as a function of m {\displaystyle m} . Another connection between the growth function and the VC dimension is given by the Sauer–Shelah lemma: If VCDim ( H ) = d {\displaystyle \operatorname {VCDim} (H)=d} , then: for all m {\displaystyle m} : Growth ( H , m ) ≤ ∑ i = 0 d ( m i ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)\leq \sum _{i=0}^{d}{m \choose i}} In particular, for all m > d + 1 {\displaystyle m>d+1} : Growth ( H , m ) ≤ ( e m / d ) d = O ( m d ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Growth} (H,m)\leq ( The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) is an ongoing series of workshops focusing on a list of different information retrieval (IR) research areas, or tracks. It is co-sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (part of the office of the Director of National Intelligence), and began in 1992 as part of the TIPSTER Text program. Its purpose is to support and encourage research within the information retrieval community by providing the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluation of text retrieval methodologies and to increase the speed of lab-to-product transfer of technology. TREC's evaluation protocols have improved many search technologies. A 2010 study estimated that "without TREC, U.S. Internet users would have spent up to 3.15 billion additional hours using web search engines between 1999 and 2009." Hal Varian the Chief Economist at Google wrote that "The TREC data revitalized research on information retrieval. Having a standard, widely available, and carefully constructed set of data laid the groundwork for further innovation in this field." Each track has a challenge wherein NIST provides participating groups with data sets and test problems. Depending on track, test problems might be questions, topics, or target extractable features. Uniform scoring is performed so the systems can be fairly evaluated. After evaluation of the results, a workshop provides a place for participants to collect together thoughts and ideas and present current and future research work.Text Retrieval Conference started in 1992, funded by DARPA (US Defense Advanced Research Project) and run by NIST. Its purpose was to support research within the information retrieval community by providing the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluation of text retrieval methodologies. == Goals == Encourage retrieval search based on large text collections Increase communication among industry, academia, and government by creating an open forum for the exchange of research ideas Speed the transfer of technology from research labs into commercial products by demonstrating substantial improvements retrieval methodologies on real world problems To increase the availability of appropriate evaluation techniques for use by industry and academia including development of new evaluation techniques more applicable to current systems TREC is overseen by a program committee consisting of representatives from government, industry, and academia. For each TREC, NIST provide a set of documents and questions. Participants run their own retrieval system on the data and return to NIST a list of retrieved top-ranked documents. NIST pools the individual result judges the retrieved documents for correctness and evaluates the results. The TREC cycle ends with a workshop that is a forum for participants to share their experiences. == Relevance judgments in TREC == TREC defines relevance as: "If you were writing a report on the subject of the topic and would use the information contained in the document in the report, then the document is relevant." Most TREC retrieval tasks use binary relevance: a document is either relevant or not relevant. Some TREC tasks use graded relevance, capturing multiple degrees of relevance. Most TREC collections are too large to perform complete relevance assessment; for these collections it is impossible to calculate the absolute recall for each query. To decide which documents to assess, TREC usually uses a method call pooling. In this method, the top-ranked n documents from each contributing run are aggregated, and the resulting document set is judged completely. == Various TRECs == In 1992 TREC-1 was held at NIST. The first conference attracted 28 groups of researchers from academia and industry. It demonstrated a wide range of different approaches to the retrieval of text from large document collections .Finally TREC1 revealed the facts that automatic construction of queries from natural language query statements seems to work. Techniques based on natural language processing were no better no worse than those based on vector or probabilistic approach. TREC2 Took place in August 1993. 31 group of researchers participated in this. Two types of retrieval were examined. Retrieval using an ‘ad hoc’ query and retrieval using a ‘routing' query In TREC-3 a small group experiments worked with Spanish language collection and others dealt with interactive query formulation in multiple databases TREC-4 they made even shorter to investigate the problems with very short user statements TREC-5 includes both short and long versions of the topics with the goal of carrying out deeper investigation into which types of techniques work well on various lengths of topics In TREC-6 Three new tracks speech, cross language, high precision information retrieval were introduced. The goal of cross language information retrieval is to facilitate research on system that are able to retrieve relevant document regardless of language of the source document TREC-7 contained seven tracks out of which two were new Query track and very large corpus track. The goal of the query track was to create a large query collection TREC-8 contain seven tracks out of which two –question answering and web tracks were new. The objective of QA query is to explore the possibilities of providing answers to specific natural language queries TREC-9 Includes seven tracks In TREC-10 Video tracks introduced Video tracks design to promote research in content based retrieval from digital video In TREC-11 Novelty tracks introduced. The goal of novelty track is to investigate systems abilities to locate relevant and new information within the ranked set of documents returned by a traditional document retrieval system TREC-12 held in 2003 added three new tracks; Genome track, robust retrieval track, HARD (Highly Accurate Retrieval from Documents) == Tracks == === Current tracks === New tracks are added as new research needs are identified, this list is current for TREC 2018. CENTRE Track – Goal: run in parallel CLEF 2018, NTCIR-14, TREC 2018 to develop and tune an IR reproducibility evaluation protocol (new track for 2018). Common Core Track – Goal: an ad hoc search task over news documents. Complex Answer Retrieval (CAR) – Goal: to develop systems capable of answering complex information needs by collating information from an entire corpus. Incident Streams Track – Goal: to research technologies to automatically process social media streams during emergency situations (new track for TREC 2018). The News Track – Goal: partnership with The Washington Post to develop test collections in news environment (new for 2018). Precision Medicine Track – Goal: a specialization of the Clinical Decision Support track to focus on linking oncology patient data to clinical trials. Real-Time Summarization Track (RTS) – Goal: to explore techniques for real-time update summaries from social media streams. === Past tracks === Chemical Track – Goal: to develop and evaluate technology for large scale search in chemistry-related documents, including academic papers and patents, to better meet the needs of professional searchers, and specifically patent searchers and chemists. Clinical Decision Support Track – Goal: to investigate techniques for linking medical cases to information relevant for patient care Contextual Suggestion Track – Goal: to investigate search techniques for complex information needs that are highly dependent on context and user interests. Crowdsourcing Track – Goal: to provide a collaborative venue for exploring crowdsourcing methods both for evaluating search and for performing search tasks. Genomics Track – Goal: to study the retrieval of genomic data, not just gene sequences but also supporting documentation such as research papers, lab reports, etc. Last ran on TREC 2007. Dynamic Domain Track – Goal: to investigate domain-specific search algorithms that adapt to the dynamic information needs of professional users as they explore in complex domains. Enterprise Track – Goal: to study search over the data of an organization to complete some task. Last ran on TREC 2008. Entity Track – Goal: to perform entity-related search on Web data. These search tasks (such as finding entities and properties of entities) address common information needs that are not that well modeled as ad hoc document search. Cross-Language Track – Goal: to investigate the ability of retrieval systems to find documents topically regardless of source language. After 1999, this track spun off into CLEF. FedWeb Track – Goal: to select best resources to forward a query to, and merge the results so that most relevant are on the top. Federated Web Search Track – Goal: to investigate techniques for the selection and combination of search results from a large number of real on-line web search services. Filtering Track – Goal: to binarily decide retrieval of new L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc. was an American biometric technology company headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, specializing in identity management products and services including facial recognition systems, fingerprint readers, and secure credentialing solutions for governments and commercial enterprises. The company's shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "ID." == History == L-1 Identity Solutions was formed on August 29, 2006, from a merger of Viisage Technology, Inc. and Identix Incorporated. Prior to the Safran acquisition, L-1 divested its Intelligence Services Group (ISG) comprising SpecTal LLC, Advanced Concepts Inc., and McClendon LLC to BAE Systems, Inc. for approximately $297 million. The transaction, initially announced in September 2010, closed on February 15, 2011, with more than 1,000 ISG employees joining BAE Systems' Intelligence & Security sector. It specializes in selling face recognition systems, electronic passports, such as Fly Clear, and other biometric technology to governments such as the United States and Saudi Arabia. It also licenses technology to other companies internationally, including China. On July 26, 2011, Safran (NYSE Euronext Paris: SAF) acquired L-1 Identity Solutions, Inc. for a total cash amount of USD 1.09 billion. L-1 was part of Morpho's MorphoTrust department which rebranded to Idemia in 2017. Bioscrypt is a biometrics research, development and manufacturing company purchased by L-1 Identity Solutions. It provides fingerprint IP readers for physical access control systems, Facial recognition system readers for contactless access control authentication and OEM fingerprint modules for embedded applications. According to IMS Research, Bioscrypt has been the world market leader in biometric access control for enterprises (since 2006) with a worldwide market share of over 13%. In 2011, Bioscrypt was sold to Safran Morpho.Mean squared prediction error
Growth function
Text Retrieval Conference
L-1 Identity Solutions