A campus network, campus area network, corporate area network or CAN is a computer network made up of an interconnection of local area networks (LANs) within a limited geographical area. The networking equipments (switches, routers) and transmission media (optical fiber, copper plant, Cat5 cabling etc.) are almost entirely owned by the campus tenant / owner: an enterprise, university, government etc. A campus area network is larger than a local area network but smaller than a metropolitan area network (MAN) or wide area network (WAN). == University campuses == College or university campus area networks often interconnect a variety of buildings, including administrative buildings, academic buildings, laboratories, university libraries, or student centers, residence halls, gymnasiums, and other outlying structures, like conference centers, technology centers, and training institutes. Early examples include the Stanford University Network at Stanford University, Project Athena at MIT, and the Andrew Project at Carnegie Mellon University. == Corporate campuses == Much like a university campus network, a corporate campus network serves to connect buildings. Examples of such are the networks at Googleplex and Microsoft's campus. Campus networks are normally interconnected with high speed Ethernet links operating over optical fiber such as gigabit Ethernet and 10 Gigabit Ethernet. == Area range == The range of CAN is 1 to 5 km (1 to 3 mi). If two buildings have the same domain and they are connected with a network, then it will be considered as CAN only. Though the CAN is mainly used for corporate campuses so the link will be high speed.
Starlight Information Visualization System
Starlight is a software product originally developed at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and now by Future Point Systems. It is an advanced visual analysis environment. In addition to using information visualization to show the importance of individual pieces of data by showing how they relate to one another, it also contains a small suite of tools useful for collaboration and data sharing, as well as data conversion, processing, augmentation and loading. The software, originally developed for the intelligence community, allows users to load data from XML files, databases, RSS feeds, web services, HTML files, Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, Excel, CSV, Adobe PDF, TXT files, etc. and analyze it with a variety of visualizations and tools. The system integrates structured, unstructured, geospatial, and multimedia data, offering comparisons of information at multiple levels of abstraction, simultaneously and in near real-time. In addition Starlight allows users to build their own named entity-extractors using a combination of algorithms, targeted normalization lists and regular expressions in the Starlight Data Engineer (SDE). As an example, Starlight might be used to look for correlations in a database containing records about chemical spills. An analyst could begin by grouping records according to the cause of the spill to reveal general trends. Sorting the data a second time, they could apply different colors based on related details such as the company responsible, age of equipment or geographic location. Maps and photographs could be integrated into the display, making it even easier to recognize connections among multiple variables. Starlight has been deployed to both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and used on a number of large-scale projects. PNNL began developing Starlight in the mid-1990s, with funding from the Land Information Warfare Agency, a part of the Army Intelligence and Security Command and continued developed at the laboratory with funding from the NSA and the CIA. Starlight integrates visual representations of reports, radio transcripts, radar signals, maps and other information. The software system was recently honored with an R&D 100 Award for technical innovation. In 2006 Future Point Systems, a Silicon Valley startup, acquired rights to jointly develop and distribute the Starlight product in cooperation with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The software is now also used outside of the military/intelligence communities in a number of commercial environments.
Desktop Window Manager
Desktop Window Manager (DWM, previously Desktop Compositing Engine or DCE in builds of pre-reset Windows Longhorn) is the compositing window manager in Microsoft Windows since Windows Vista that enables the use of hardware acceleration to render the graphical user interface of Windows. It was originally created to enable portions of the new "Windows Aero" user experience, which allowed for effects such as transparency, 3D window switching and more. It is also included with Windows Server 2008, but requires the "Desktop Experience" feature and compatible graphics drivers to be installed. == Architecture == The Desktop Window Manager is a compositing window manager, meaning that each program has a buffer that it writes data to; DWM then composites each program's buffer into a final image. By comparison, the stacking window manager in Windows XP and earlier (and also Windows Vista and Windows 7 with Windows Aero disabled) comprises a single display buffer to which all programs write. DWM works in different ways depending on the operating system (Windows 7 or Windows Vista) and on the version of the graphics drivers it uses (WDDM 1.0 or 1.1). Under Windows 7 and with WDDM 1.1 drivers, DWM only writes the program's buffer to the video RAM, even if it is a graphics device interface (GDI) program. This is because Windows 7 supports (limited) hardware acceleration for GDI and in doing so does not need to keep a copy of the buffer in system RAM so that the CPU can write to it. Because the compositor has access to the graphics of all applications, it easily allows visual effects that string together visuals from multiple applications, such as transparency. DWM uses DirectX to perform the function of compositing and rendering in the GPU, freeing the CPU of the task of managing the rendering from the off-screen buffers to the display. However, it does not affect applications painting to the off-screen buffers – depending on the technologies used for that, this might still be CPU-bound. DWM-agnostic rendering techniques like GDI are redirected to the buffers by rendering the user interface (UI) as bitmaps. DWM-aware rendering technologies like WPF directly make the internal data structures available in a DWM-compatible format. The window contents in the buffers are then converted to DirectX textures. The desktop itself is a full-screen Direct3D surface, with windows being represented as a mesh consisting of two adjacent (and mutually inverted) triangles, which are transformed to represent a 2D rectangle. The texture, representing the UI chrome, is then mapped onto these rectangles. Window transitions are implemented as transformations of the meshes, using shader programs. With Windows Vista, the transitions are limited to the set of built-in shaders that implement the transformations. Greg Schechter, a developer at Microsoft has suggested that this might be opened up for developers and users to plug in their own effects in a future release. DWM only maps the primary desktop object as a 3D surface; other desktop objects, including virtual desktops as well as the secure desktop used by User Account Control are not. Because all applications render to an off-screen buffer, they can be read off the buffer embedded in other applications as well. Since the off-screen buffer is constantly updated by the application, the embedded rendering will be a dynamic representation of the application window and not a static rendering. This is how the live thumbnail previews and Windows Flip work in Windows Vista and Windows 7. DWM exposes a public API that allows applications to access these thumbnail representations. The size of the thumbnail is not fixed; applications can request the thumbnails at any size - smaller than the original window, at the same size or even larger - and DWM will scale them properly before returning. Aero Flip does not use the public thumbnail APIs as they do not allow for directly accessing the Direct3D textures. Instead, Aero Flip is implemented directly in the DWM engine. The Desktop Window Manager uses Media Integration Layer (MIL), the unmanaged compositor which it shares with Windows Presentation Foundation, to represent the windows as composition nodes in a composition tree. The composition tree represents the desktop and all the windows hosted in it, which are then rendered by MIL from the back of the scene to the front. Since all the windows contribute to the final image, the color of a resultant pixel can be decided by more than one window. This is used to implement effects such as per-pixel transparency. DWM allows custom shaders to be invoked to control how pixels from multiple applications are used to create the displayed pixel. The DWM includes built-in Pixel Shader 2.0 programs which compute the color of a pixel in a window by averaging the color of the pixel as determined by the window behind it and its neighboring pixels. These shaders are used by DWM to achieve the blur effect in the window borders of windows managed by DWM, and optionally for the areas where it is requested by the application. Since MIL provides a retained mode graphics system by caching the composition trees, the job of repainting and refreshing the screen when windows are moved is handled by DWM and MIL, freeing the application of the responsibility. The background data is already in the composition tree and the off-screen buffers and is directly used to render the background. In pre-Vista Windows OSs, background applications had to be requested to re-render themselves by sending them the WM_PAINT message. DWM uses double-buffered graphics to prevent flickering and tearing when moving windows. The compositing engine uses optimizations such as culling to improve performance, as well as not redrawing areas that have not changed. Because the compositor is multi-monitor aware, DWM natively supports this too. During full-screen applications, such as games, DWM does not perform window compositing and therefore performance will not appreciably decrease. On Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012, DWM is used at all times and cannot be disabled, due to the new "start screen experience" implemented. Since the DWM process is usually required to run at all times on Windows 8, users experiencing an issue with the process are seeing memory usage decrease after a system reboot. This is often the first step in a long list of troubleshooting tasks that can help. It is possible to prevent DWM from restarting temporarily in Windows 8, which causes the desktop to turn black, the taskbar grey, and break the start screen/modern apps, but desktop apps will continue to function and appear just like Windows 7 and Vista's Basic theme, based on the single-buffer renderer used by XP. They also use Windows 8's centered title bar, visible within Windows PreInstallation Environment. Starting up Windows without DWM will not work because the default lock screen requires DWM unlike the fallback lockscreen that appears as a command line interface program when Windows.UI.Logon.dll isn't present on Windows versions such as 1507 and later, so it can only be done on the fly, and does not have any practical purposes. Starting with Windows 10, disabling DWM in such a way will cause the entire compositing engine to break, even traditional desktop apps, due to Universal App implementations in the taskbar and new start menu. Windows can still be partially usable without the presence of DWM but requires Sihost.exe to not be present due to it relying on DWM. Most of the applications in Windows 11 require DWM to render UI elements and transparency, Windows 11's new task manager requires dwm to render menus unlike the fallback -d version. Unlike its predecessors, Windows 8 supports basic display adapters through Windows Advanced Rasterization Platform (WARP), which uses software rendering and the CPU to render the interface rather than the graphics card. This allows DWM to function without compatible drivers, but not at the same level of performance as with a normal graphics card. DWM on Windows 8 also adds support for stereoscopic 3D. == Redirection == For rendering techniques that are not DWM-aware, output must be redirected to the DWM buffers. With Windows, either GDI or DirectX can be used for rendering. To make these two work with DWM, redirection techniques for both are provided. With GDI, which is the most used UI rendering technique in Microsoft Windows, each application window is notified when it or a part of it comes in view and it is the job of the application to render itself. Without DWM, the rendering rasterizes the UI in a buffer in video memory, from where it is rendered to the screen. Under DWM, GDI calls are redirected to use the Canonical Display Driver (cdd.dll), a software renderer. A buffer equal to the size of the window is allocated in system memory and CDD.DLL outputs to this buffer rather than the video memory. Another buffer is allocated in the video memory to represent t
Steerable filter
In image processing, a steerable filter is an orientation-selective filter that can be computationally rotated to any direction. Rather than designing a new filter for each orientation, a steerable filter is synthesized from a linear combination of a small, fixed set of "basis filters". This approach is efficient and is widely used for tasks that involve directionality, such as edge detection, texture analysis, and shape-from-shading. The principle of steerability has been generalized in deep learning to create equivariant neural networks, which can recognize features in data regardless of their orientation or position. == Example == A common example of a steerable filter is the first derivative of a two-dimensional Gaussian function. This filter responds strongly to oriented image features like edges. It is constructed from two basis filters: the partial derivative of the Gaussian with respect to the horizontal direction ( x {\displaystyle x} ) and the vertical direction ( y {\displaystyle y} ). If G ( x , y ) {\displaystyle G(x,y)} is the Gaussian function, and G x {\displaystyle G_{x}} and G y {\displaystyle G_{y}} are its partial derivatives (which measure the rate of change in the x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} directions, respectively), a new filter G θ {\displaystyle G_{\theta }} oriented at an angle θ {\displaystyle \theta } can be synthesized with the formula: G θ = cos ( θ ) G x + sin ( θ ) G y {\displaystyle G_{\theta }=\cos(\theta )G_{x}+\sin(\theta )G_{y}} Here, the basis filters G x {\displaystyle G_{x}} and G y {\displaystyle G_{y}} are weighted by cos ( θ ) {\displaystyle \cos(\theta )} and sin ( θ ) {\displaystyle \sin(\theta )} to "steer" the filter's sensitivity to the desired orientation. This is equivalent to taking the dot product of the direction vector ( cos θ , sin θ ) {\displaystyle (\cos \theta ,\sin \theta )} with the filter's gradient, ( G x , G y ) {\displaystyle (G_{x},G_{y})} . == Generalization in deep learning: Equivariant neural networks == The concept of steerability is foundational to equivariant neural networks, a class of models in deep learning designed to understand symmetries in data. A network is considered equivariant to a transformation (like a rotation) if transforming the input and then passing it through the network produces the same result as passing the input through the network first and then transforming the output. Formally, for a transformation T {\displaystyle T} and a network f {\displaystyle f} , this property is defined as f ( T ( input ) ) = T ( f ( input ) ) {\displaystyle f(T({\text{input}}))=T(f({\text{input}}))} . This built-in understanding of geometry makes models more data-efficient. For example, a network equivariant to rotation does not need to be shown an object in multiple orientations to learn to recognize it; it inherently understands that a rotated object is still the same object. This leads to better generalization and performance, particularly in scientific applications. === Mathematical foundation === Equivariant neural networks use principles from group theory to create operations that respect geometric symmetries, such as the SO(3) group for 3D rotations or the E(3) group for rotations and translations. Instead of learning standard filter kernels, these networks learn how to combine a fixed set of basis kernels. These basis functions are chosen so that they have well-defined behaviors under transformation groups. Spherical harmonics are frequently used as basis functions because they form a complete set of functions that behave predictably under rotation, making them ideal for creating steerable 3D kernels. Features within the network are treated as geometric tensors, which are mathematical objects (like scalars or vectors) that are "typed" by their behavior under transformations. These types correspond to the irreducible representations (irreps) of the group. The tensor product is the fundamental operation used to combine these typed features in a way that preserves equivariance, guaranteeing that the network as a whole respects the desired symmetry. Frameworks like e3nn simplify the construction of these networks by automating the complex mathematics of irreducible representations and tensor products. === Applications === Steerable and equivariant models are highly effective for problems with inherent geometric symmetries. Examples include: Protein structure analysis: SE(3)-equivariant networks can process 3D molecular structures while respecting their rotational and translational symmetries. 3D Point cloud processing: Rotation-equivariant filters built from steerable spherical functions can perform tasks like 3D shape classification. Computational chemistry: E(3)-equivariant graph neural networks are used to model interatomic potentials for molecular dynamics simulations, creating highly accurate and data-efficient models of physical systems.
Fyre (software)
Fyre, formerly de Jong Explorer, is a cross-platform tool for producing artwork based on histograms of iterated chaotic functions. It implements the Peter de Jong map in a fixed function pipeline through either a GTK GUI frontend, or a command line facility for easier rendering of high-resolution, high quality images. The program was renamed from de Jong Explorer to Fyre simply because 'It wasn't taken yet' and so that in the future, it could support more functions than just the standard Peter de Jong map. Fyre features a sidebar on the left to which the user can input the required variables and on the right is displayed the result of the equation. == Extra features == Additional image manipulation tools such as Gaussian blurs and Gamma controls are included in the program. The advantage to using them directly within Fyre is that the image accuracy and quality do not decline. Fyre features animation capabilities so that a user can link together several maps and create uncompressed AVIs from them. However, the uncompressed animation files are very large and so should be compressed with a separate tool, such as mencoder. == Peter de Jong Map == For most values of a,b,c and d the point (x,y) moves chaotically. The resulting image is a map of the probability that the point lies within the area represented by each pixel. Therefore, the longer that the user lets Fyre render for, the larger the probability map becomes and the more accurate the resulting image.
Stability (learning theory)
Stability, also known as algorithmic stability, is a notion in computational learning theory of how a machine learning algorithm output is changed with small perturbations to its inputs. A stable learning algorithm is one for which the prediction does not change much when the training data is modified slightly. For instance, consider a machine learning algorithm that is being trained to recognize handwritten letters of the alphabet, using 1000 examples of handwritten letters and their labels ("A" to "Z") as a training set. One way to modify this training set is to leave out an example, so that only 999 examples of handwritten letters and their labels are available. A stable learning algorithm would produce a similar classifier with both the 1000-element and 999-element training sets. Stability can be studied for many types of learning problems, from language learning to inverse problems in physics and engineering, as it is a property of the learning process rather than the type of information being learned. The study of stability gained importance in computational learning theory in the 2000s when it was shown to have a connection with generalization. It was shown that for large classes of learning algorithms, notably empirical risk minimization algorithms, certain types of stability ensure good generalization. == History == A central goal in designing a machine learning system is to guarantee that the learning algorithm will generalize, or perform accurately on new examples after being trained on a finite number of them. In the 1990s, milestones were reached in obtaining generalization bounds for supervised learning algorithms. The technique historically used to prove generalization was to show that an algorithm was consistent, using the uniform convergence properties of empirical quantities to their means. This technique was used to obtain generalization bounds for the large class of empirical risk minimization (ERM) algorithms. An ERM algorithm is one that selects a solution from a hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} in such a way to minimize the empirical error on a training set S {\displaystyle S} . A general result, proved by Vladimir Vapnik for an ERM binary classification algorithms, is that for any target function and input distribution, any hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} with VC-dimension d {\displaystyle d} , and n {\displaystyle n} training examples, the algorithm is consistent and will produce a training error that is at most O ( d n ) {\displaystyle O\left({\sqrt {\frac {d}{n}}}\right)} (plus logarithmic factors) from the true error. The result was later extended to almost-ERM algorithms with function classes that do not have unique minimizers. Vapnik's work, using what became known as VC theory, established a relationship between generalization of a learning algorithm and properties of the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} of functions being learned. However, these results could not be applied to algorithms with hypothesis spaces of unbounded VC-dimension. Put another way, these results could not be applied when the information being learned had a complexity that was too large to measure. Some of the simplest machine learning algorithms—for instance, for regression—have hypothesis spaces with unbounded VC-dimension. Another example is language learning algorithms that can produce sentences of arbitrary length. Stability analysis was developed in the 2000s for computational learning theory and is an alternative method for obtaining generalization bounds. The stability of an algorithm is a property of the learning process, rather than a direct property of the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} , and it can be assessed in algorithms that have hypothesis spaces with unbounded or undefined VC-dimension such as nearest neighbor. A stable learning algorithm is one for which the learned function does not change much when the training set is slightly modified, for instance by leaving out an example. A measure of Leave one out error is used in a Cross Validation Leave One Out (CVloo) algorithm to evaluate a learning algorithm's stability with respect to the loss function. As such, stability analysis is the application of sensitivity analysis to machine learning. == Summary of classic results == Early 1900s - Stability in learning theory was earliest described in terms of continuity of the learning map L {\displaystyle L} , traced to Andrey Nikolayevich Tikhonov. 1979 - Devroye and Wagner observed that the leave-one-out behavior of an algorithm is related to its sensitivity to small changes in the sample. 1999 - Kearns and Ron discovered a connection between finite VC-dimension and stability. 2002 - In a landmark paper, Bousquet and Elisseeff proposed the notion of uniform hypothesis stability of a learning algorithm and showed that it implies low generalization error. Uniform hypothesis stability, however, is a strong condition that does not apply to large classes of algorithms, including ERM algorithms with a hypothesis space of only two functions. 2002 - Kutin and Niyogi extended Bousquet and Elisseeff's results by providing generalization bounds for several weaker forms of stability which they called almost-everywhere stability. Furthermore, they took an initial step in establishing the relationship between stability and consistency in ERM algorithms in the Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) setting. 2004 - Poggio et al. proved a general relationship between stability and ERM consistency. They proposed a statistical form of leave-one-out-stability which they called CVEEEloo stability, and showed that it is a) sufficient for generalization in bounded loss classes, and b) necessary and sufficient for consistency (and thus generalization) of ERM algorithms for certain loss functions such as the square loss, the absolute value and the binary classification loss. 2010 - Shalev Shwartz et al. noticed problems with the original results of Vapnik due to the complex relations between hypothesis space and loss class. They discuss stability notions that capture different loss classes and different types of learning, supervised and unsupervised. 2016 - Moritz Hardt et al. proved stability of gradient descent given certain assumption on the hypothesis and number of times each instance is used to update the model. == Preliminary definitions == We define several terms related to learning algorithms training sets, so that we can then define stability in multiple ways and present theorems from the field. A machine learning algorithm, also known as a learning map L {\displaystyle L} , maps a training data set, which is a set of labeled examples ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} , onto a function f {\displaystyle f} from X {\displaystyle X} to Y {\displaystyle Y} , where X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} are in the same space of the training examples. The functions f {\displaystyle f} are selected from a hypothesis space of functions called H {\displaystyle H} . The training set from which an algorithm learns is defined as S = { z 1 = ( x 1 , y 1 ) , . . , z m = ( x m , y m ) } {\displaystyle S=\{z_{1}=(x_{1},\ y_{1})\ ,..,\ z_{m}=(x_{m},\ y_{m})\}} and is of size m {\displaystyle m} in Z = X × Y {\displaystyle Z=X\times Y} drawn i.i.d. from an unknown distribution D. Thus, the learning map L {\displaystyle L} is defined as a mapping from Z m {\displaystyle Z_{m}} into H {\displaystyle H} , mapping a training set S {\displaystyle S} onto a function f S {\displaystyle f_{S}} from X {\displaystyle X} to Y {\displaystyle Y} . Here, we consider only deterministic algorithms where L {\displaystyle L} is symmetric with respect to S {\displaystyle S} , i.e. it does not depend on the order of the elements in the training set. Furthermore, we assume that all functions are measurable and all sets are countable. The loss V {\displaystyle V} of a hypothesis f {\displaystyle f} with respect to an example z = ( x , y ) {\displaystyle z=(x,y)} is then defined as V ( f , z ) = V ( f ( x ) , y ) {\displaystyle V(f,z)=V(f(x),y)} . The empirical error of f {\displaystyle f} is I S [ f ] = 1 n ∑ V ( f , z i ) {\displaystyle I_{S}[f]={\frac {1}{n}}\sum V(f,z_{i})} . The true error of f {\displaystyle f} is I [ f ] = E z V ( f , z ) {\displaystyle I[f]=\mathbb {E} _{z}V(f,z)} Given a training set S of size m, we will build, for all i = 1....,m, modified training sets as follows: By removing the i-th element S | i = { z 1 , . . . , z i − 1 , z i + 1 , . . . , z m } {\displaystyle S^{|i}=\{z_{1},...,\ z_{i-1},\ z_{i+1},...,\ z_{m}\}} By replacing the i-th element S i = { z 1 , . . . , z i − 1 , z i ′ , z i + 1 , . . . , z m } {\displaystyle S^{i}=\{z_{1},...,\ z_{i-1},\ z_{i}',\ z_{i+1},...,\ z_{m}\}} == Definitions of stability == === Hypothesis Stability === An algorithm L {\displaystyle L} has hypothesis stability β with respect to the loss function V if the following holds: ∀ i ∈ { 1 , . . . , m } , E S , z [ | V ( f S , z ) − V ( f S |
Fyre (software)
Fyre, formerly de Jong Explorer, is a cross-platform tool for producing artwork based on histograms of iterated chaotic functions. It implements the Peter de Jong map in a fixed function pipeline through either a GTK GUI frontend, or a command line facility for easier rendering of high-resolution, high quality images. The program was renamed from de Jong Explorer to Fyre simply because 'It wasn't taken yet' and so that in the future, it could support more functions than just the standard Peter de Jong map. Fyre features a sidebar on the left to which the user can input the required variables and on the right is displayed the result of the equation. == Extra features == Additional image manipulation tools such as Gaussian blurs and Gamma controls are included in the program. The advantage to using them directly within Fyre is that the image accuracy and quality do not decline. Fyre features animation capabilities so that a user can link together several maps and create uncompressed AVIs from them. However, the uncompressed animation files are very large and so should be compressed with a separate tool, such as mencoder. == Peter de Jong Map == For most values of a,b,c and d the point (x,y) moves chaotically. The resulting image is a map of the probability that the point lies within the area represented by each pixel. Therefore, the longer that the user lets Fyre render for, the larger the probability map becomes and the more accurate the resulting image.