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 ) , . . . , (
Rendering equation
In computer graphics, the rendering equation is an integral equation that expresses the amount of light leaving a point on a surface as the sum of emitted light and reflected light. It was independently introduced into computer graphics by David Immel et al. and James Kajiya in 1986. The equation is important in the theory of physically based rendering, describing the relationships between the bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) and the radiometric quantities used in rendering. The rendering equation is defined at every point on every surface in the scene being rendered, including points hidden from the camera. The incoming light quantities on the right side of the equation usually come from the left (outgoing) side at other points in the scene (ray casting can be used to find these other points). The radiosity rendering method solves a discrete approximation of this system of equations. In distributed ray tracing, the integral on the right side of the equation may be evaluated using Monte Carlo integration by randomly sampling possible incoming light directions. Path tracing improves and simplifies this method. The rendering equation can be extended to handle effects such as fluorescence (in which some absorbed energy is re-emitted at different wavelengths) and can support transparent and translucent materials by using a bidirectional scattering distribution function (BSDF) in place of a BRDF. The theory of path tracing sometimes uses a path integral (integral over possible paths from a light source to a point) instead of the integral over possible incoming directions. == Equation form == The rendering equation may be written in the form L o ( x , ω o , λ , t ) = L e ( x , ω o , λ , t ) + L r ( x , ω o , λ , t ) {\displaystyle L_{\text{o}}(\mathbf {x} ,\omega _{\text{o}},\lambda ,t)=L_{\text{e}}(\mathbf {x} ,\omega _{\text{o}},\lambda ,t)+L_{\text{r}}(\mathbf {x} ,\omega _{\text{o}},\lambda ,t)} L r ( x , ω o , λ , t ) = ∫ Ω f r ( x , ω i , ω o , λ , t ) L i ( x , ω i , λ , t ) ( ω i ⋅ n ) d ω i {\displaystyle L_{\text{r}}(\mathbf {x} ,\omega _{\text{o}},\lambda ,t)=\int _{\Omega }f_{\text{r}}(\mathbf {x} ,\omega _{\text{i}},\omega _{\text{o}},\lambda ,t)L_{\text{i}}(\mathbf {x} ,\omega _{\text{i}},\lambda ,t)(\omega _{\text{i}}\cdot \mathbf {n} )\operatorname {d} \omega _{\text{i}}} where L o ( x , ω o , λ , t ) {\displaystyle L_{\text{o}}(\mathbf {x} ,\omega _{\text{o}},\lambda ,t)} is the total spectral radiance of wavelength λ {\displaystyle \lambda } directed outward along direction ω o {\displaystyle \omega _{\text{o}}} at time t {\displaystyle t} , from a particular position x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } is the location in space ω o {\displaystyle \omega _{\text{o}}} is the direction of the outgoing light λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is a particular wavelength of light t {\displaystyle t} is time L e ( x , ω o , λ , t ) {\displaystyle L_{\text{e}}(\mathbf {x} ,\omega _{\text{o}},\lambda ,t)} is emitted spectral radiance L r ( x , ω o , λ , t ) {\displaystyle L_{\text{r}}(\mathbf {x} ,\omega _{\text{o}},\lambda ,t)} is reflected spectral radiance ∫ Ω … d ω i {\displaystyle \int _{\Omega }\dots \operatorname {d} \omega _{\text{i}}} is an integral over Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } is the unit hemisphere centered around n {\displaystyle \mathbf {n} } containing all possible values for ω i {\displaystyle \omega _{\text{i}}} where ω i ⋅ n > 0 {\displaystyle \omega _{\text{i}}\cdot \mathbf {n} >0} f r ( x , ω i , ω o , λ , t ) {\displaystyle f_{\text{r}}(\mathbf {x} ,\omega _{\text{i}},\omega _{\text{o}},\lambda ,t)} is the bidirectional reflectance distribution function, the proportion of light reflected from ω i {\displaystyle \omega _{\text{i}}} to ω o {\displaystyle \omega _{\text{o}}} at position x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } , time t {\displaystyle t} , and at wavelength λ {\displaystyle \lambda } ω i {\displaystyle \omega _{\text{i}}} is the negative direction of the incoming light L i ( x , ω i , λ , t ) {\displaystyle L_{\text{i}}(\mathbf {x} ,\omega _{\text{i}},\lambda ,t)} is spectral radiance of wavelength λ {\displaystyle \lambda } coming inward toward x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } from direction ω i {\displaystyle \omega _{\text{i}}} at time t {\displaystyle t} n {\displaystyle \mathbf {n} } is the surface normal at x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } ω i ⋅ n {\displaystyle \omega _{\text{i}}\cdot \mathbf {n} } is the weakening factor of outward irradiance due to incident angle, as the light flux is smeared across a surface whose area is larger than the projected area perpendicular to the ray. This is often written as cos θ i {\displaystyle \cos \theta _{i}} . Two noteworthy features are: its linearity—it is composed only of multiplications and additions, and its spatial homogeneity—it is the same in all positions and orientations. These mean a wide range of factorings and rearrangements of the equation are possible. It is a Fredholm integral equation of the second kind, similar to those that arise in quantum field theory. Note this equation's spectral and time dependence — L o {\displaystyle L_{\text{o}}} may be sampled at or integrated over sections of the visible spectrum to obtain, for example, a trichromatic color sample. A pixel value for a single frame in an animation may be obtained by fixing t ; {\displaystyle t;} motion blur can be produced by averaging L o {\displaystyle L_{\text{o}}} over some given time interval (by integrating over the time interval and dividing by the length of the interval). Note that a solution to the rendering equation is the function L o {\displaystyle L_{\text{o}}} . The function L i {\displaystyle L_{\text{i}}} is related to L o {\displaystyle L_{\text{o}}} via a ray-tracing operation: The incoming radiance from some direction at one point is the outgoing radiance at some other point in the opposite direction. == Applications == Solving the rendering equation for any given scene is the primary challenge in realistic rendering. One approach to solving the equation is based on finite element methods, leading to the radiosity algorithm. Another approach using Monte Carlo methods has led to many different algorithms including path tracing, photon mapping, and Metropolis light transport, among others. == Limitations == Although the equation is very general, it does not capture every aspect of light reflection. Some missing aspects include the following: Transmission, which occurs when light is transmitted through the surface, such as when it hits a glass object or a water surface, Subsurface scattering, where the spatial locations for incoming and departing light are different. Surfaces rendered without accounting for subsurface scattering may appear unnaturally opaque — however, it is not necessary to account for this if transmission is included in the equation, since that will effectively include also light scattered under the surface, Polarization, where different light polarizations will sometimes have different reflection distributions, for example when light bounces at a water surface, Phosphorescence, which occurs when light or other electromagnetic radiation is absorbed at one moment and emitted at a later moment, usually with a longer wavelength (unless the absorbed electromagnetic radiation is very intense), Interference, where the wave properties of light are exhibited, Fluorescence, where the absorbed and emitted light have different wavelengths, Non-linear effects, where very intense light can increase the energy level of an electron with more energy than that of a single photon (this can occur if the electron is hit by two photons at the same time), and emission of light with higher frequency than the frequency of the light that hit the surface suddenly becomes possible, and Doppler effect, where light that bounces off an object moving at a very high speed will get its wavelength changed: if the light bounces off an object that is moving towards it, the light will be blueshifted and the photons will be packed more closely so the photon flux will be increased; if it bounces off an object moving away from it, it will be redshifted and the photon flux will be decreased. This effect becomes apparent only at speeds comparable to the speed of light, which is not the case for most rendering applications. For scenes that are either not composed of simple surfaces in a vacuum or for which the travel time for light is an important factor, researchers have generalized the rendering equation to produce a volume rendering equation suitable for volume rendering and a transient rendering equation for use with data from a time-of-flight camera.
Dynamic Graphics Project
The Dynamic Graphics Project (commonly referred to as DGP) is an interdisciplinary research laboratory at the University of Toronto devoted to projects involving computer graphics, computer vision, human computer interaction, and visualization. The lab began as the computer graphics research group of Department of Computer Science Professor Leslie Mezei in 1967. Mezei invited Bill Buxton, a pioneer of human–computer interaction (HCI) to join. In 1972, Ronald Baecker, another HCI pioneer joined, establishing DGP as the first Canadian university group focused on computer graphics and human-computer interaction. According to csrankings.org, the DGP is the top research institution in the world for the combined subfields of computer graphics, HCI, and visualization. Since then, DGP has hosted many well known faculty and students in computer graphics, computer vision and HCI (e.g., Alain Fournier, Bill Reeves, Jos Stam, Demetri Terzopoulos, Marilyn Tremaine). DGP also occasionally hosts artists in residence (e.g., Oscar-winner Chris Landreth). Many past and current researchers at Autodesk (and before that Alias Wavefront) graduated after working at DGP. DGP is located in the St. George campus of University of Toronto in the Bahen Centre for Information Technology. DGP researchers regularly publish at ACM SIGGRAPH, ACM SIGCHI and ICCV. DGP hosts the Toronto User Experience (TUX) Speaker Series and the Sanders Series Lectures. == Notable alumni == Bill Buxton (MS 1978) James McCrae (PhD 2013) Dimitris Metaxas (PhD 1992) Bill Reeves (MS 1976, Ph.D. 1980) Jos Stam (MS 1991, Ph.D. 1995)
CLAWS (linguistics)
The Constituent Likelihood Automatic Word-tagging System (CLAWS) is a program that performs part-of-speech tagging. It was developed in the 1980s at Lancaster University by the University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language. It has an overall accuracy rate of 96–97% with the latest version (CLAWS4) tagging around 100 million words of the British National Corpus. == History == A Part-Of-Speech Tagger (POS Tagger) is a piece of software that reads text in some language and assigns parts of speech to each word (and other token), such as noun, verb, adjective, etc., although generally computational applications use more fine-grained POS tags like 'noun-plural'. Developed in the early 1980s, CLAWS was built to fill the ever-growing gap created by always-changing POS necessities. Originally created to add part-of-speech tags to the LOB corpus of British English, the CLAWS tagset has since been adapted to other languages as well, including Urdu and Arabic. Since its inception, CLAWS has been hailed for its functionality and adaptability. Still, it is not without flaws, and though it boasts an error-rate of only 1.5% when judged in major categories, CLAWS still remains with c.3.3% ambiguities unresolved. Ambiguity arises in cases such as with the word flies, and whether it should be classified as a noun or a verb. It's these ambiguities that will require the various upgrades and tagsets that CLAWS will endure. == Rules and processing == CLAWS uses a Hidden Markov model to determine the likelihood of sequences of words in anticipating each part-of-speech label. === Sample output === This excerpt from Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897) has been tagged using both the CLAWS C5 and C7 tagsets. This is what a CLAWS output will generally look like, with the most likely part-of-speech tag following each word. == Tagsets == === CLAWS1 tagset === The first tagset developed in CLAWS, CLAWS1 tagset, has 132 word tags. In terms of form and application, C1 tagset is similar to Brown Corpus tags. See Table of tags in C1 tagset here. === CLAWS2 tagset === From 1983 to 1986, updated versions leading to CLAWS2 were part of a larger attempt to deal with aspects such as recognizing sentence breaks, in order to avoid the need for manual pre-processing of a text before the tags were applied, moving instead to optional manual post-editing to adjust the output of the automatic annotation, if needed. The CLAWS2 tagset has 166 word tags. See Table of tags in C2 tagset here. === CLAWS4 tagset === The CLAWS4 was used for the 100-million-word British National Corpus (BNC). A general-purpose grammatical tagger, it is a successor of the CLAWS1 tagger. In tagging the BNC, the many rounds of work that went into CLAWS4 focused on making the CLAWS program independent from the tagsets. For example, the BNC project used two tagset versions: "a main tagset (C5) with 62 tags with which the whole of the corpus has been tagged, and a larger (C7) tagset with 152 tags, which has been used to make a selected 'core' sample corpus of two million words." The latest version of CLAWS4 is offered by UCREL, a research center of Lancaster University. === CLAWS5 tagset === The CLAWS5 tagset, which was used for BNC, has over 60 tags. See Table of tags in C5 tagset here. === CLAWS6 tagset === The CLAWS6 tagset was used for the BNC sampler corpus and the COLT corpus. It has over 160 tags, including 13 determiner subtypes. See Table of tags in C6 tagset here. === CLAWS7 tagset === The standard CLAWS7 tagset is used currently. It is only different in the punctuation tags when compared to the CLAWS6 tagset. See Table of tags in C7 tagset here. === CLAWS8 tagset === CLAWS8 tagset was extended from C7 tagset with further distinctions in the determiner and pronoun categories, as well as 37 new auxiliary tags for forms of be, do, and have. See Table of tags in C8 tagset here
Language identification
In natural language processing, language identification or language guessing is the problem of determining which natural language a given content is in. Computational approaches to this problem view it as a special case of text categorization, solved with various statistical methods. == Overview == === Logical approach === A common non-statistical intuitive approach (though highly uncertain) is to look for common letter combinations, or distinctive diacritics or punctuation. === Statistical approach === There are several statistical approaches to language identification. An older statistical method by Grefenstette was based on the frequency of short n-grams, which are often function morphemes. For example, "ing" is more common in English than in French, while the sequence "que" is more common in French. Given a new page found on the Web, one counts the number of occurrences of each such short sequence and picks the language whose frequency table it matches the most. One technique is to compare the compressibility of the text to the compressibility of texts in a set of known languages. This approach is known as mutual information based distance measure. The same technique can also be used to empirically construct family trees of languages which closely correspond to the trees constructed using historical methods. Mutual information based distance measure is essentially equivalent to more conventional model-based methods and is not generally considered to be either novel or better than simpler techniques. Another technique, as described by Cavnar and Trenkle (1994) and Dunning (1994) is to create a language n-gram model from a "training text" for each of the languages. These models can be based on characters (Cavnar and Trenkle) or encoded bytes (Dunning); in the latter, language identification and character encoding detection are integrated. Then, for any piece of text needing to be identified, a similar model is made, and that model is compared to each stored language model. The most likely language is the one with the model that is most similar to the model from the text needing to be identified. This approach can be problematic when the input text is in a language for which there is no model. In that case, the method may return another, "most similar" language as its result. Also problematic for any approach are pieces of input text that are composed of several languages, as is common on the Web. As of 2025, a commonly used baseline method is via the fastText library, which has comparable classification accuracy as deep learning techniques, but much faster. == Identifying similar languages == One of the great bottlenecks of language identification systems is to distinguish between closely related languages. Similar languages like Bulgarian and Macedonian or Indonesian and Malay present significant lexical and structural overlap, making it challenging for systems to discriminate between them. In 2014 the DSL shared task has been organized providing a dataset (Tan et al., 2014) containing 13 different languages (and language varieties) in six language groups: Group A (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian), Group B (Indonesian, Malaysian), Group C (Czech, Slovak), Group D (Brazilian Portuguese, European Portuguese), Group E (Peninsular Spanish, Argentine Spanish), Group F (American English, British English). The best system reached performance of over 95% results (Goutte et al., 2014). Results of the DSL shared task are described in Zampieri et al. 2014. == Software == Apache OpenNLP includes char n-gram based statistical detector and comes with a model that can distinguish 103 languages Apache Tika contains a language detector for 18 languages
MyChild App
MyChild App is an Android app that helps parents screen developmental disorders in their children between the age of 1 and 24 months. The app contains information for parents about the different stages of a child's development. == Background == Launched in 2015 on Google PlayStore, the app is a consumer product of the parent company, Time Ahead, Inc. Its office is based in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. As of August 2016, the app had been downloaded by 11,000+ users in 140+ countries and is a part of fbstart case study. == Funding == In 2015, MyChild App raised a seed round of $100k led by 500 Startups, followed by angel investors Samir Bangara, Anisha Mittal, Pallav Nadhani, Deobrat Singh, Lalit Mangal, Arihant Patni, Amit Gupta, Dr. Ritesh Malik, Saurab Paruthi, and Singapore Angel Network.
Scale space
Scale-space theory is a framework for multi-scale signal representation developed by the computer vision, image processing and signal processing communities with complementary motivations from physics and biological vision. It is a formal theory for handling image structures at different scales, by representing an image as a one-parameter family of smoothed images, the scale-space representation, parametrized by the size of the smoothing kernel used for suppressing fine-scale structures. The parameter t {\displaystyle t} in this family is referred to as the scale parameter, with the interpretation that image structures of spatial size smaller than about t {\displaystyle {\sqrt {t}}} have largely been smoothed away in the scale-space level at scale t {\displaystyle t} . The main type of scale space is the linear (Gaussian) scale space, which has wide applicability as well as the attractive property of being possible to derive from a small set of scale-space axioms. The corresponding scale-space framework encompasses a theory for Gaussian derivative operators, which can be used as a basis for expressing a large class of visual operations for computerized systems that process visual information. This framework also allows visual operations to be made scale invariant, which is necessary for dealing with the size variations that may occur in image data, because real-world objects may be of different sizes and in addition the distance between the object and the camera may be unknown and may vary depending on the circumstances. == Definition == The notion of scale space applies to signals of arbitrary numbers of variables. The most common case in the literature applies to two-dimensional images, which is what is presented here. Consider a given image f {\displaystyle f} where f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} is the greyscale value of the pixel at position ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} . The linear (Gaussian) scale-space representation of f {\displaystyle f} is a family of derived signals L ( x , y ; t ) {\displaystyle L(x,y;t)} defined by the convolution of f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} with the two-dimensional Gaussian kernel g ( x , y ; t ) = 1 2 π t e − ( x 2 + y 2 ) / 2 t {\displaystyle g(x,y;t)={\frac {1}{2\pi t}}e^{-(x^{2}+y^{2})/2t}\,} such that L ( ⋅ , ⋅ ; t ) = g ( ⋅ , ⋅ ; t ) ∗ f ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) , {\displaystyle L(\cdot ,\cdot ;t)\ =g(\cdot ,\cdot ;t)f(\cdot ,\cdot ),} where the semicolon in the argument of L {\displaystyle L} implies that the convolution is performed only over the variables x , y {\displaystyle x,y} , while the scale parameter t {\displaystyle t} after the semicolon just indicates which scale level is being defined. This definition of L {\displaystyle L} works for a continuum of scales t ≥ 0 {\displaystyle t\geq 0} , but typically only a finite discrete set of levels in the scale-space representation would be actually considered. The scale parameter t = σ 2 {\displaystyle t=\sigma ^{2}} is the variance of the Gaussian filter and as a limit for t = 0 {\displaystyle t=0} the filter g {\displaystyle g} becomes an impulse function such that L ( x , y ; 0 ) = f ( x , y ) , {\displaystyle L(x,y;0)=f(x,y),} that is, the scale-space representation at scale level t = 0 {\displaystyle t=0} is the image f {\displaystyle f} itself. As t {\displaystyle t} increases, L {\displaystyle L} is the result of smoothing f {\displaystyle f} with a larger and larger filter, thereby removing more and more of the details that the image contains. Since the standard deviation of the filter is σ = t {\displaystyle \sigma ={\sqrt {t}}} , details that are significantly smaller than this value are to a large extent removed from the image at scale parameter t {\displaystyle t} , see the following figures and for graphical illustrations. === Why a Gaussian filter? === When faced with the task of generating a multi-scale representation one may ask: could any filter g of low-pass type and with a parameter t which determines its width be used to generate a scale space? The answer is no, as it is of crucial importance that the smoothing filter does not introduce new spurious structures at coarse scales that do not correspond to simplifications of corresponding structures at finer scales. In the scale-space literature, a number of different ways have been expressed to formulate this criterion in precise mathematical terms. The conclusion from several different axiomatic derivations that have been presented is that the Gaussian scale space constitutes the canonical way to generate a linear scale space, based on the essential requirement that new structures must not be created when going from a fine scale to any coarser scale. Conditions, referred to as scale-space axioms, that have been used for deriving the uniqueness of the Gaussian kernel include linearity, shift invariance, semi-group structure, non-enhancement of local extrema, scale invariance and rotational invariance. In the works, the uniqueness claimed in the arguments based on scale invariance has been criticized, and alternative self-similar scale-space kernels have been proposed. The Gaussian kernel is, however, a unique choice according to the scale-space axiomatics based on causality or non-enhancement of local extrema. === Alternative definition === Equivalently, the scale-space family can be defined as the solution of the diffusion equation (for example in terms of the heat equation), ∂ t L = 1 2 ∇ 2 L , {\displaystyle \partial _{t}L={\frac {1}{2}}\nabla ^{2}L,} with initial condition L ( x , y ; 0 ) = f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle L(x,y;0)=f(x,y)} . This formulation of the scale-space representation L means that it is possible to interpret the intensity values of the image f as a "temperature distribution" in the image plane and that the process that generates the scale-space representation as a function of t corresponds to heat diffusion in the image plane over time t (assuming the thermal conductivity of the material equal to the arbitrarily chosen constant 1/2). Although this connection may appear superficial for a reader not familiar with differential equations, it is indeed the case that the main scale-space formulation in terms of non-enhancement of local extrema is expressed in terms of a sign condition on partial derivatives in the 2+1-D volume generated by the scale space, thus within the framework of partial differential equations. Furthermore, a detailed analysis of the discrete case shows that the diffusion equation provides a unifying link between continuous and discrete scale spaces, which also generalizes to nonlinear scale spaces, for example, using anisotropic diffusion. Hence, one may say that the primary way to generate a scale space is by the diffusion equation, and that the Gaussian kernel arises as the Green's function of this specific partial differential equation. == Motivations == The motivation for generating a scale-space representation of a given data set originates from the basic observation that real-world objects are composed of different structures at different scales. This implies that real-world objects, in contrast to idealized mathematical entities such as points or lines, may appear in different ways depending on the scale of observation. For example, the concept of a "tree" is appropriate at the scale of meters, while concepts such as leaves and molecules are more appropriate at finer scales. For a computer vision system analysing an unknown scene, there is no way to know a priori what scales are appropriate for describing the interesting structures in the image data. Hence, the only reasonable approach is to consider descriptions at multiple scales in order to be able to capture the unknown scale variations that may occur. Taken to the limit, a scale-space representation considers representations at all scales. Another motivation to the scale-space concept originates from the process of performing a physical measurement on real-world data. In order to extract any information from a measurement process, one has to apply operators of non-infinitesimal size to the data. In many branches of computer science and applied mathematics, the size of the measurement operator is disregarded in the theoretical modelling of a problem. The scale-space theory on the other hand explicitly incorporates the need for a non-infinitesimal size of the image operators as an integral part of any measurement as well as any other operation that depends on a real-world measurement. There is a close link between scale-space theory and biological vision. Many scale-space operations show a high degree of similarity with receptive field profiles recorded from the mammalian retina and the first stages in the visual cortex. In these respects, the scale-space framework can be seen as a theoretically well-founded paradigm for early vision, which in addition has been thoroughly tested by algorithms and experiments. == Gaussian derivatives == At any scale in scale space, we c