Scale-invariant feature operator

In the fields of computer vision and image analysis, the scale-invariant feature operator (or SFOP) is an algorithm to detect local features in images. The algorithm was published by Förstner et al. in 2009. == Algorithm == The scale-invariant feature operator (SFOP) is based on two theoretical concepts: spiral model feature operator Desired properties of keypoint detectors: Invariance and repeatability for object recognition Accuracy to support camera calibration Interpretability: Especially corners and circles, should be part of the detected keypoints (see figure). As few control parameters as possible with clear semantics Complementarity to known detectors scale-invariant corner/circle detector. == Theory == === Maximize the weight === Maximize the weight w {\displaystyle w} = 1/variance of a point p {\displaystyle p} w ( p , α , τ , σ ) = ( N ( σ ) − 2 ) λ m i n ( M ( p , α , τ , σ ) ) Ω ( p , α , τ , σ ) {\displaystyle w(\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma )=\left(N(\sigma )-2\right){\frac {\lambda _{min}(M(\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma ))}{\Omega (\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma )}}} comprising: 1. the image model Ω ( p , α , τ , σ ) = ∑ n = 1 N ( σ ) [ ( q n − p ) T R α ∇ T g ( q n ) ] 2 G σ ( q n − p ) = N ( σ ) t r { R α ∇ τ ∇ τ T R α T ∗ p p T G σ ( p ) } {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Omega (\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma )&=\sum _{n=1}^{N(\sigma )}[(\mathbf {q} _{n}-\mathbf {p} )^{T}\mathbf {R} _{\alpha }\mathbf {\nabla } _{T}g(\mathbf {q} _{n})]^{2}G_{\sigma }(\mathbf {q} _{n}-\mathbf {p} )\\&=N(\sigma )\mathbf {tr} \left\{R_{\alpha }\mathbf {\nabla } _{\tau }\mathbf {\nabla } _{\tau }^{T}R_{\alpha }^{T}\mathbf {p} \mathbf {p} ^{T}G_{\sigma }(\mathbf {p} )\right\}\end{aligned}}} 2. the smaller eigenvalue of the structure tensor M ( p , α , τ , σ ) ⏟ structure tensor = G σ ( p ) ⏟ weighted summation ∗ ( R σ ∇ τ ∇ τ T R σ T ) ⏟ squared rotated gradients {\displaystyle \underbrace {M(\mathbf {p} ,\alpha ,\tau ,\sigma )} _{\text{structure tensor}}=\underbrace {G_{\sigma }(\mathbf {p} )} _{\text{weighted summation}}\underbrace {(R_{\sigma }\nabla _{\tau }\nabla _{\tau }^{T}R_{\sigma }^{T})} _{\text{squared rotated gradients}}} === Reduce the search space === Reduce the 5-dimensional search space by linking the differentiation scale τ {\displaystyle \tau } to the integration scale τ = σ / 3 {\displaystyle \tau =\sigma /3} solving for the optimal α ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\alpha }}} using the model Ω ( α ) = a − b cos ⁡ ( 2 α − 2 α 0 ) {\displaystyle \Omega (\alpha )=a-b\cos(2\alpha -2\alpha _{0})} and determining the parameters from three angles, e. g. Ω ( 0 ∘ ) , Ω ( 60 ∘ ) , Ω ( 120 ∘ ) → a , b , α 0 → α ^ {\displaystyle \Omega (0^{\circ }),\Omega (60^{\circ }),\Omega (120^{\circ })\quad \rightarrow \quad a,b,\alpha _{0}\quad \rightarrow \quad {\hat {\alpha }}} pre-selection possible: α = 0 ∘ → junctions , α = 90 ∘ → circular features {\displaystyle \alpha =0^{\circ }\,\rightarrow \,{\mbox{junctions}},\quad \alpha =90^{\circ }\,\rightarrow \,{\mbox{circular features}}} === Filter potential keypoints === non-maxima suppression over scale, space and angle thresholding the isotropy λ 2 ( M ) {\displaystyle \lambda _{2(M)}} :eigenvalues characterize the shape of the keypoint, smallest eigenvalue has to be larger than threshold T λ {\displaystyle T_{\lambda }} derived from noise variance V ( n ) {\displaystyle V(n)} and significance level S {\displaystyle S} : T λ ( V ( n ) , τ , σ , S ) = N ( σ ) 16 π τ 4 V ( n ) χ 2 , S 2 {\displaystyle T_{\lambda }(V(n),\tau ,\sigma ,S)={\frac {N(\sigma )}{16\pi \tau ^{4}}}V(n)\chi _{2,S}^{2}} == Algorithm == == Results == === Interpretability of SFOP keypoints ===

Data event

A data event is a relevant state transition defined in an event schema. Typically, event schemata are described by pre- and post condition for a single or a set of data items. In contrast to ECA (Event condition action), which considers an event to be a signal, the data event not only refers to the change (signal), but describes specific state transitions, which are referred to in ECA as conditions. Considering data events as relevant data item state transitions allows defining complex event-reaction schemata for a database. Defining data event schemata for relational databases is limited to attribute and instance events. Object-oriented databases also support collection properties, which allows defining changes in collections as data events, too.

Principal component analysis

Principal component analysis (PCA) is a linear dimensionality reduction technique with applications in exploratory data analysis, visualization and data preprocessing. The data are linearly transformed onto a new coordinate system such that the directions (principal components) capturing the largest variation in the data can be easily identified. The principal components of a collection of points in a real coordinate space are a sequence of p {\displaystyle p} unit vectors, where the i {\displaystyle i} -th vector is the direction of a line that best fits the data while being orthogonal to the first i − 1 {\displaystyle i-1} vectors. Here, a best-fitting line is defined as one that minimizes the average squared perpendicular distance from the points to the line. These directions (i.e., principal components) constitute an orthonormal basis in which different individual dimensions of the data are linearly uncorrelated. Many studies use the first two principal components in order to plot the data in two dimensions and to visually identify clusters of closely related data points. Principal component analysis has applications in many fields such as population genetics, microbiome studies, and atmospheric science. == Overview == When performing PCA, the first principal component of a set of p {\displaystyle p} variables is the derived variable formed as a linear combination of the original variables that explains the most variance. The second principal component explains the most variance in what is left once the effect of the first component is removed, and we may proceed through p {\displaystyle p} iterations until all the variance is explained. PCA is most commonly used when many of the variables are highly correlated with each other and it is desirable to reduce their number to an independent set. The first principal component can equivalently be defined as a direction that maximizes the variance of the projected data. The i {\displaystyle i} -th principal component can be taken as a direction orthogonal to the first i − 1 {\displaystyle i-1} principal components that maximizes the variance of the projected data. For either objective, it can be shown that the principal components are eigenvectors of the data's covariance matrix. Thus, the principal components are often computed by eigendecomposition of the data covariance matrix or singular value decomposition of the data matrix. PCA is the simplest of the true eigenvector-based multivariate analyses and is closely related to factor analysis. Factor analysis typically incorporates more domain-specific assumptions about the underlying structure and solves eigenvectors of a slightly different matrix. PCA is also related to canonical correlation analysis (CCA). CCA defines coordinate systems that optimally describe the cross-covariance between two datasets while PCA defines a new orthogonal coordinate system that optimally describes variance in a single dataset. Robust and L1-norm-based variants of standard PCA have also been proposed. == History == PCA was invented in 1901 by Karl Pearson, as an analogue of the principal axis theorem in mechanics; it was later independently developed and named by Harold Hotelling in the 1930s. Depending on the field of application, it is also named the discrete Karhunen–Loève transform (KLT) in signal processing, the Hotelling transform in multivariate quality control, proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) in mechanical engineering, singular value decomposition (SVD) of X (invented in the last quarter of the 19th century), eigenvalue decomposition (EVD) of XTX in linear algebra, factor analysis (for a discussion of the differences between PCA and factor analysis see Ch. 7 of Jolliffe's Principal Component Analysis), Eckart–Young theorem (Harman, 1960), or empirical orthogonal functions (EOF) in meteorological science (Lorenz, 1956), empirical eigenfunction decomposition (Sirovich, 1987), quasiharmonic modes (Brooks et al., 1988), spectral decomposition in noise and vibration, and empirical modal analysis in structural dynamics. == Intuition == PCA can be thought of as fitting a p-dimensional ellipsoid to the data, where each axis of the ellipsoid represents a principal component. If some axis of the ellipsoid is small, then the variance along that axis is also small. To find the axes of the ellipsoid, we must first center the values of each variable in the dataset on 0 by subtracting the mean of the variable's observed values from each of those values. These transformed values are used instead of the original observed values for each of the variables. Then, we compute the covariance matrix of the data and calculate the eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors of this covariance matrix. Then we must normalize each of the orthogonal eigenvectors to turn them into unit vectors. Once this is done, each of the mutually-orthogonal unit eigenvectors can be interpreted as an axis of the ellipsoid fitted to the data. This choice of basis will transform the covariance matrix into a diagonalized form, in which the diagonal elements represent the variance of each axis. The proportion of the variance that each eigenvector represents can be calculated by dividing the eigenvalue corresponding to that eigenvector by the sum of all eigenvalues. Biplots and scree plots (degree of explained variance) are used to interpret findings of the PCA. == Details == PCA is defined as an orthogonal linear transformation on a real inner product space that transforms the data to a new coordinate system such that the greatest variance by some scalar projection of the data comes to lie on the first coordinate (called the first principal component), the second greatest variance on the second coordinate, and so on. Consider an n × p {\displaystyle n\times p} data matrix, X, with column-wise zero empirical mean (the sample mean of each column has been shifted to zero), where each of the n rows represents a different repetition of the experiment, and each of the p columns gives a particular kind of feature (say, the results from a particular sensor). Mathematically, the transformation is defined by a set of size l {\displaystyle l} (where l {\displaystyle l} is usually selected to be strictly less than p {\displaystyle p} to reduce dimensionality) of p {\displaystyle p} -dimensional vectors of weights or coefficients w ( k ) = ( w 1 , … , w p ) ( k ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{(k)}=(w_{1},\dots ,w_{p})_{(k)}} that map each row vector x ( i ) = ( x 1 , … , x p ) ( i ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{(i)}=(x_{1},\dots ,x_{p})_{(i)}} of X to a new vector of principal component scores t ( i ) = ( t 1 , … , t l ) ( i ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {t} _{(i)}=(t_{1},\dots ,t_{l})_{(i)}} , given by t k ( i ) = x ( i ) ⋅ w ( k ) f o r i = 1 , … , n k = 1 , … , l {\displaystyle {t_{k}}_{(i)}=\mathbf {x} _{(i)}\cdot \mathbf {w} _{(k)}\qquad \mathrm {for} \qquad i=1,\dots ,n\qquad k=1,\dots ,l} in such a way that the individual variables t 1 , … , t l {\displaystyle t_{1},\dots ,t_{l}} of t considered over the data set successively inherit the maximum possible variance from X, with each coefficient vector w constrained to be a unit vector. The above may equivalently be written in matrix form as T = X W {\displaystyle \mathbf {T} =\mathbf {X} \mathbf {W} } where T i k = t k ( i ) {\displaystyle {\mathbf {T} }_{ik}={t_{k}}_{(i)}} , X i j = x j ( i ) {\displaystyle {\mathbf {X} }_{ij}={x_{j}}_{(i)}} , and W j k = w j ( k ) {\displaystyle {\mathbf {W} }_{jk}={w_{j}}_{(k)}} . === First component === In order to maximize variance, the first weight vector w(1) thus has to satisfy w ( 1 ) = arg ⁡ max ‖ w ‖ = 1 { ∑ i ( t 1 ) ( i ) 2 } = arg ⁡ max ‖ w ‖ = 1 { ∑ i ( x ( i ) ⋅ w ) 2 } {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{(1)}=\arg \max _{\Vert \mathbf {w} \Vert =1}\,\left\{\sum _{i}(t_{1})_{(i)}^{2}\right\}=\arg \max _{\Vert \mathbf {w} \Vert =1}\,\left\{\sum _{i}\left(\mathbf {x} _{(i)}\cdot \mathbf {w} \right)^{2}\right\}} Equivalently, writing this in matrix form gives w ( 1 ) = arg ⁡ max ‖ w ‖ = 1 { ‖ X w ‖ 2 } = arg ⁡ max ‖ w ‖ = 1 { w T X T X w } {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{(1)}=\arg \max _{\left\|\mathbf {w} \right\|=1}\left\{\left\|\mathbf {Xw} \right\|^{2}\right\}=\arg \max _{\left\|\mathbf {w} \right\|=1}\left\{\mathbf {w} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {X} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {Xw} \right\}} Since w(1) has been defined to be a unit vector, it equivalently also satisfies w ( 1 ) = arg ⁡ max { w T X T X w w T w } {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} _{(1)}=\arg \max \left\{{\frac {\mathbf {w} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {X} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {Xw} }{\mathbf {w} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {w} }}\right\}} The quantity to be maximised can be recognised as a Rayleigh quotient. A standard result for a positive semidefinite matrix such as XTX is that the quotient's maximum possible value is the largest eigenvalue of the matrix, which occurs when w is the corresponding eigenvector. With w(1) found, the first principal component of a data vector

Exploratory blockmodeling

Exploratory blockmodeling is an (inductive) approach (or a group of approaches) in blockmodeling regarding the specification of an ideal blockmodel. This approach, also known as hypotheses-generating, is the simplest approach, as it "merely involves the definition of the block types permitted as well as of the number of clusters." With this approach, researcher usually defines the best possible blockmodel, which then represent the base for the analysis of the whole network. This approach is usually based on: previous analyses and theoretical considerations, using stricker blockmodel and block types, where the structural equivalence is stricker than the regular equivalence and using smaller number of classes. The opposite approach is called a confirmatory blockmodeling.

Stochastic gradient descent

Stochastic gradient descent (often abbreviated SGD) is an iterative method for optimizing an objective function with suitable smoothness properties (e.g. differentiable or subdifferentiable). It can be regarded as a stochastic approximation of gradient descent optimization, since it replaces the actual gradient (calculated from the entire data set) by an estimate thereof (calculated from a randomly selected subset of the data). Especially in high-dimensional optimization problems this reduces the very high computational burden, achieving faster iterations in exchange for a lower convergence rate. The basic idea behind stochastic approximation can be traced back to the Robbins–Monro algorithm of the 1950s. Today, stochastic gradient descent has become an important optimization method in machine learning. == Background == Both statistical estimation and machine learning consider the problem of minimizing an objective function that has the form of a sum: Q ( w ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n Q i ( w ) , {\displaystyle Q(w)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}Q_{i}(w),} where the parameter w {\displaystyle w} that minimizes Q ( w ) {\displaystyle Q(w)} is to be estimated. Each summand function Q i {\displaystyle Q_{i}} is typically associated with the i {\displaystyle i} -th observation in the data set (used for training). In classical statistics, sum-minimization problems arise in least squares and in maximum-likelihood estimation (for independent observations). The general class of estimators that arise as minimizers of sums are called M-estimators. However, in statistics, it has been long recognized that requiring even local minimization is too restrictive for some problems of maximum-likelihood estimation. Therefore, contemporary statistical theorists often consider stationary points of the likelihood function (or zeros of its derivative, the score function, and other estimating equations). The sum-minimization problem also arises for empirical risk minimization. There, Q i ( w ) {\displaystyle Q_{i}(w)} is the value of the loss function at i {\displaystyle i} -th example, and Q ( w ) {\displaystyle Q(w)} is the empirical risk. When used to minimize the above function, a standard (or "batch") gradient descent method would perform the following iterations: w := w − η ∇ Q ( w ) = w − η n ∑ i = 1 n ∇ Q i ( w ) . {\displaystyle w:=w-\eta \,\nabla Q(w)=w-{\frac {\eta }{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\nabla Q_{i}(w).} The step size is denoted by η {\displaystyle \eta } (sometimes called the learning rate in machine learning) and here " := {\displaystyle :=} " denotes the update of a variable in the algorithm. In many cases, the summand functions have a simple form that enables inexpensive evaluations of the sum-function and the sum gradient. For example, in statistics, one-parameter exponential families allow economical function-evaluations and gradient-evaluations. However, in other cases, evaluating the sum-gradient may require expensive evaluations of the gradients from all summand functions. When the training set is enormous and no simple formulas exist, evaluating the sums of gradients becomes very expensive, because evaluating the gradient requires evaluating all the summand functions' gradients. To economize on the computational cost at every iteration, stochastic gradient descent samples a subset of summand functions at every step. This is very effective in the case of large-scale machine learning problems. == Iterative method == In stochastic (or "on-line") gradient descent, the true gradient of Q ( w ) {\displaystyle Q(w)} is approximated by a gradient at a single sample: w := w − η ∇ Q i ( w ) . {\displaystyle w:=w-\eta \,\nabla Q_{i}(w).} As the algorithm sweeps through the training set, it performs the above update for each training sample. Several passes can be made over the training set until the algorithm converges. If this is done, the data can be shuffled for each pass to prevent cycles. Typical implementations may use an adaptive learning rate so that the algorithm converges. In pseudocode, stochastic gradient descent can be presented as : A compromise between computing the true gradient and the gradient at a single sample is to compute the gradient against more than one training sample (called a "mini-batch") at each step. This can perform significantly better than "true" stochastic gradient descent described, because the code can make use of vectorization libraries rather than computing each step separately as was first shown in where it was called "the bunch-mode back-propagation algorithm". It may also result in smoother convergence, as the gradient computed at each step is averaged over more training samples. The convergence of stochastic gradient descent has been analyzed using the theories of convex minimization and of stochastic approximation. Briefly, when the learning rates η {\displaystyle \eta } decrease with an appropriate rate, and subject to relatively mild assumptions, stochastic gradient descent converges almost surely to a global minimum when the objective function is convex or pseudoconvex, and otherwise converges almost surely to a local minimum. This is in fact a consequence of the Robbins–Siegmund theorem. == Linear regression == Suppose we want to fit a straight line y ^ = w 1 + w 2 x {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=w_{1}+w_{2}x} to a training set with observations ( ( x 1 , y 1 ) , ( x 2 , y 2 ) … , ( x n , y n ) ) {\displaystyle ((x_{1},y_{1}),(x_{2},y_{2})\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n}))} and corresponding estimated responses ( y ^ 1 , y ^ 2 , … , y ^ n ) {\displaystyle ({\hat {y}}_{1},{\hat {y}}_{2},\ldots ,{\hat {y}}_{n})} using least squares. The objective function to be minimized is Q ( w ) = ∑ i = 1 n Q i ( w ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( y ^ i − y i ) 2 = ∑ i = 1 n ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) 2 . {\displaystyle Q(w)=\sum _{i=1}^{n}Q_{i}(w)=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\hat {y}}_{i}-y_{i}\right)^{2}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i}\right)^{2}.} The last line in the above pseudocode for this specific problem will become: [ w 1 w 2 ] ← [ w 1 w 2 ] − η [ ∂ ∂ w 1 ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) 2 ∂ ∂ w 2 ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) 2 ] = [ w 1 w 2 ] − η [ 2 ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) 2 x i ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) ] . {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}w_{1}\\w_{2}\end{bmatrix}}\leftarrow {\begin{bmatrix}w_{1}\\w_{2}\end{bmatrix}}-\eta {\begin{bmatrix}{\frac {\partial }{\partial w_{1}}}(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i})^{2}\\{\frac {\partial }{\partial w_{2}}}(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i})^{2}\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}w_{1}\\w_{2}\end{bmatrix}}-\eta {\begin{bmatrix}2(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i})\\2x_{i}(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i})\end{bmatrix}}.} Note that in each iteration or update step, the gradient is only evaluated at a single x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . This is the key difference between stochastic gradient descent and batched gradient descent. In general, given a linear regression y ^ = ∑ k ∈ 1 : m w k x k {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=\sum _{k\in 1:m}w_{k}x_{k}} problem, stochastic gradient descent behaves differently when m < n {\displaystyle m

Superintelligence ban

Superintelligence ban refers to proposed legal, ethical, or policy measures intended to restrict or prohibit the development of artificial superintelligence, AI systems that would surpass human cognitive abilities in nearly all domains. The idea arises from concerns that such systems could become uncontrollable, potentially posing existential threats to humanity or causing severe social and economic disruption. == Background == The concept of limiting or banning superintelligence research has roots in early 21st-century debates on artificial general intelligence (AGI) safety. Thinkers such as Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky warned that self-improving AI could rapidly exceed human oversight. As advanced models like large-scale language models and autonomous agents began demonstrating complex reasoning abilities, policymakers and ethicists increasingly discussed the need for legal constraints on the creation of systems capable of recursive self-improvement. In October 2025, the Future of Life Institute published a statement calling for "a prohibition on the development of superintelligence, not lifted before there is broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably, and strong public buy-in." This statement was signed by various public personalities, such as Richard Branson and Steve Wozniak, and AI experts, such as Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton. == Rationale == Supporters of a superintelligence ban argue that once AI systems surpass human intelligence, traditional containment, alignment, and control methods may fail. They contend that even limited experimentation with such systems could lead to irreversible outcomes, including loss of human decision-making power or unintended global harm. Some propose international treaties modeled after the nuclear non-proliferation framework to prevent a competitive AI arms race. Opponents argue that a ban would be difficult to define and enforce, given the lack of a precise threshold distinguishing advanced AGI from superintelligence. They also warn that excessive restriction could slow scientific progress, hinder beneficial automation, and encourage unregulated underground research. == Global discussion == Although no government has enacted an explicit superintelligence ban, the idea has been debated within the European Union, United Nations, and several independent AI safety organizations. The Future of Life Institute, Center for AI Safety, and other organizations have called for international cooperation to manage risks associated with the pursuit of superintelligent systems. In 2024 and 2025, proposals for a temporary moratorium on frontier AI research were circulated among major technology firms and research institutes, reflecting growing public concern over the trajectory of AI capabilities.

Dynamic time warping

In time series analysis, dynamic time warping (DTW) is an algorithm for measuring similarity between two temporal sequences, which may vary in speed. For instance, similarities in walking could be detected using DTW, even if one person was walking faster than the other, or if there were accelerations and decelerations during the course of an observation. DTW has been applied to temporal sequences of video, audio, and graphics data — indeed, any data that can be turned into a one-dimensional sequence can be analyzed with DTW. A well-known application has been automatic speech recognition, to cope with different speaking speeds. Other applications include speaker recognition and online signature recognition. It can also be used in partial shape matching applications. In general, DTW is a method that calculates an optimal match between two given sequences (e.g. time series) with certain restriction and rules: Every index from the first sequence must be matched with one or more indices from the other sequence, and vice versa The first index from the first sequence must be matched with the first index from the other sequence (but it does not have to be its only match) The last index from the first sequence must be matched with the last index from the other sequence (but it does not have to be its only match) The mapping of the indices from the first sequence to indices from the other sequence must be monotonically increasing, and vice versa, i.e. if j > i {\displaystyle j>i} are indices from the first sequence, then there must not be two indices l > k {\displaystyle l>k} in the other sequence, such that index i {\displaystyle i} is matched with index l {\displaystyle l} and index j {\displaystyle j} is matched with index k {\displaystyle k} , and vice versa We can plot each match between the sequences 1 : M {\displaystyle 1:M} and 1 : N {\displaystyle 1:N} as a path in a M × N {\displaystyle M\times N} matrix from ( 1 , 1 ) {\displaystyle (1,1)} to ( M , N ) {\displaystyle (M,N)} , such that each step is one of ( 0 , 1 ) , ( 1 , 0 ) , ( 1 , 1 ) {\displaystyle (0,1),(1,0),(1,1)} . In this formulation, we see that the number of possible matches is the Delannoy number. The optimal match is denoted by the match that satisfies all the restrictions and the rules and that has the minimal cost, where the cost is computed as the sum of absolute differences, for each matched pair of indices, between their values. The sequences are "warped" non-linearly in the time dimension to determine a measure of their similarity independent of certain non-linear variations in the time dimension. This sequence alignment method is often used in time series classification. Although DTW measures a distance-like quantity between two given sequences, it doesn't guarantee the triangle inequality to hold. In addition to a similarity measure between the two sequences (a so called "warping path" is produced), by warping according to this path the two signals may be aligned in time. The signal with an original set of points X(original), Y(original) is transformed to X(warped), Y(warped). This finds applications in genetic sequence and audio synchronisation. In a related technique sequences of varying speed may be averaged using this technique see the average sequence section. This is conceptually very similar to the Needleman–Wunsch algorithm. == Implementation == This example illustrates the implementation of the dynamic time warping algorithm when the two sequences s and t are strings of discrete symbols. For two symbols x and y, d ( x , y ) {\displaystyle d(x,y)} is a distance between the symbols, e.g., d ( x , y ) = | x − y | {\displaystyle d(x,y)=|x-y|} . int DTWDistance(s: array [1..n], t: array [1..m]) { DTW := array [0..n, 0..m] for i := 0 to n for j := 0 to m DTW[i, j] := infinity DTW[0, 0] := 0 for i := 1 to n for j := 1 to m cost := d(s[i], t[j]) DTW[i, j] := cost + minimum(DTW[i-1, j ], // insertion DTW[i , j-1], // deletion DTW[i-1, j-1]) // match return DTW[n, m] } where DTW[i, j] is the distance between s[1:i] and t[1:j] with the best alignment. We sometimes want to add a locality constraint. That is, we require that if s[i] is matched with t[j], then | i − j | {\displaystyle |i-j|} is no larger than w, a window parameter. We can easily modify the above algorithm to add a locality constraint (differences marked). However, the above given modification works only if | n − m | {\displaystyle |n-m|} is no larger than w, i.e. the end point is within the window length from diagonal. In order to make the algorithm work, the window parameter w must be adapted so that | n − m | ≤ w {\displaystyle |n-m|\leq w} (see the line marked with () in the code). int DTWDistance(s: array [1..n], t: array [1..m], w: int) { DTW := array [0..n, 0..m] w := max(w, abs(n-m)) // adapt window size () for i := 0 to n for j:= 0 to m DTW[i, j] := infinity DTW[0, 0] := 0 for i := 1 to n for j := max(1, i-w) to min(m, i+w) DTW[i, j] := 0 for i := 1 to n for j := max(1, i-w) to min(m, i+w) cost := d(s[i], t[j]) DTW[i, j] := cost + minimum(DTW[i-1, j ], // insertion DTW[i , j-1], // deletion DTW[i-1, j-1]) // match return DTW[n, m] } == Warping properties == The DTW algorithm produces a discrete matching between existing elements of one series to another. In other words, it does not allow time-scaling of segments within the sequence. Other methods allow continuous warping. For example, Correlation Optimized Warping (COW) divides the sequence into uniform segments that are scaled in time using linear interpolation, to produce the best matching warping. The segment scaling causes potential creation of new elements, by time-scaling segments either down or up, and thus produces a more sensitive warping than DTW's discrete matching of raw elements. == Complexity == The time complexity of the DTW algorithm is O ( N M ) {\displaystyle O(NM)} , where N {\displaystyle N} and M {\displaystyle M} are the lengths of the two input sequences. The 50 years old quadratic time bound was broken in 2016: an algorithm due to Gold and Sharir enables computing DTW in O ( N 2 / log ⁡ log ⁡ N ) {\displaystyle O({N^{2}}/\log \log N)} time and space for two input sequences of length N {\displaystyle N} . This algorithm can also be adapted to sequences of different lengths. Despite this improvement, it was shown that a strongly subquadratic running time of the form O ( N 2 − ϵ ) {\displaystyle O(N^{2-\epsilon })} for some ϵ > 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon >0} cannot exist unless the Strong exponential time hypothesis fails. While the dynamic programming algorithm for DTW requires O ( N M ) {\displaystyle O(NM)} space in a naive implementation, the space consumption can be reduced to O ( min ( N , M ) ) {\displaystyle O(\min(N,M))} using Hirschberg's algorithm. == Fast computation == Fast techniques for computing DTW include PrunedDTW, SparseDTW, FastDTW, and the MultiscaleDTW. A common task, retrieval of similar time series, can be accelerated by using lower bounds such as LB_Keogh, LB_Improved, or LB_Petitjean. However, the Early Abandon and Pruned DTW algorithm reduces the degree of acceleration that lower bounding provides and sometimes renders it ineffective. In a survey, Wang et al. reported slightly better results with the LB_Improved lower bound than the LB_Keogh bound, and found that other techniques were inefficient. Subsequent to this survey, the LB_Enhanced bound was developed that is always tighter than LB_Keogh while also being more efficient to compute. LB_Petitjean is the tightest known lower bound that can be computed in linear time. == Average sequence == Averaging for dynamic time warping is the problem of finding an average sequence for a set of sequences. NLAAF is an exact method to average two sequences using DTW. For more than two sequences, the problem is related to that of multiple alignment and requires heuristics. DBA is currently a reference method to average a set of sequences consistently with DTW. COMASA efficiently randomizes the search for the average sequence, using DBA as a local optimization process. == Supervised learning == A nearest-neighbour classifier can achieve state-of-the-art performance when using dynamic time warping as a distance measure. == Amerced Dynamic Time Warping == Amerced Dynamic Time Warping (ADTW) is a variant of DTW designed to better control DTW's permissiveness in the alignments that it allows. The windows that classical DTW uses to constrain alignments introduce a step function. Any warping of the path is allowed within the window and none beyond it. In contrast, ADTW employs an additive penalty that is incurred each time that the path is warped. Any amount of warping is allowed, but each warping action incurs a direct penalty. ADTW significantly outperforms DTW with windowing when applied as a nearest neighbor classifier on a set of benchmark time series classification tasks. == Alternative approaches == In functional data analysis, time series are regarde