Wonder.land (stylised as wonder.land) is a musical with music by Damon Albarn and lyrics and book by Moira Buffini. Inspired by Lewis Carroll's novels Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865) and Through the Looking-Glass (1871), it had its world premiere at the Palace Theatre in Manchester in July 2015 as part of the Manchester International Festival. The musical moved to London's Royal National Theatre in November 2015 before opening at the Théâtre du Châtelet in Paris in 2016. Licencing for potential future smaller scale productions is held by United Agents UK. == Background == The musical is inspired by the novels Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass, written by Lewis Carroll. It was announced on 21 January 2015 that the show would premiere in July of that year as part of the Manchester International Festival, with tickets going on sale the following day. The musical, a co-production by the Manchester International Festival, the Royal National Theatre and the Théâtre du Châtelet in Paris, marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The idea for a musical based on Alice in Wonderland came from Manchester International Festival artistic director Alex Poots. Damon Albarn had collaborated with the festival on Monkey: Journey to the West and Dr Dee. The musical has a book by Moira Buffini. It was directed by Rufus Norris, with set design by Rae Smith, costume design by Katrina Lindsay, lighting design by Paule Constable, projections by 59 Productions and choreography by Javier De Frutos. The musical's score was composed by Damon Albarn, with lyrics by Moira Buffini, sound design by Paul Arditti and musical direction by David Shrubsole. == Production history == The musical began previews at the Palace Theatre in Manchester on 29 June 2015. It opened on 2 July for a limited run until 12 July. A revised version moved to the Royal National Theatre, where it ran at the Olivier Theatre from 27 November 2015 to 30 April 2016. The production had a limited run, from 7 to 16 June 2016, at the Theatre Du Chatelet in Paris. == Synopsis == This synopsis is based on the final version, as seen at the National Theatre and the Théâtre du Châtelet. Earlier performances significantly differed in songs and plot. === Act 1 === AI, the MC, explains that virtual technology is "a portal to boundless lands" ("Prologue"). Aly's mother, Bianca, is exasperated with her for spending the weekend indoors on her phone. Aly accompanies Bianca to the supermarket, and thinks that her life is being ruined by her parents due to dysfunctional problems ("Who's Ruining Your Life?") Her alcoholic father, Matt, is also at the supermarket; he and Bianca argue about their divorce and his gambling. Aly goes home and picks up her phone. She tries to engage with schoolmates, who bully her ("Network"). Aly begins to wish that she is someone else. She finds the virtual online game Wonder.land. In its strange world, Aly creates an avatar: beautiful, kind Alice ("Wonder.land"). Wonder.land has one rule: malice causes deletion from the game. Aly and Alice become friends and encounter the Cheshire Cat, who explains that you can be anyone you want ("Fabulous"). Aly decides to go on a quest; Alice follows the white rabbit down a hole, falling past unusual objects and musical notes ("Falling"). The next morning, Aly is too distracted by Wonder.land to listen to Bianca's complaints about her baby brother Charlie. She plays the game at school before her phone is confiscated by stern headmistress Ms Manxome, who tells her students that taking pleasures from them is for their own good ("I'm Right"). Aly goes to Ms Manxome's office to retrieve her phone. Ms Manxome returns it, warning that if she catches her with it again, "it's a beheading – I mean, detention." Aly sees the girls who bullied her, and they bully her again until a teacher arrives. Aly's friend, Luke, is late and is given detention. Aly goes on her phone and takes out her frustration and sadness on Alice, whose tears form a pool until she is interrupted by the quarrelsome twins Dum and Dee ("Freaks"). Alice tries to befriend them, but they insult her and Aly makes her fight them. Dum and Dee cry, and Aly and Alice see a large mouse who is attracted by Alice's fighting. They are joined by the Dodo, the Mock Turtle and Humpty, who all have problems. The Dodo is stressed because his parents want him to save the planet; Dum and Dee are dancers who hate pressure; Humpty has problems with her parents; the Mock Turtle lacks self-esteem, and the mouse is lustful. Wonderland is a hiding place from teenage life ("Crap Life"). Aly returns to reality when asked a math question she cannot answer. Confronting the three bullies, Aly mocks the facial hair of one and hides in the bathroom. She again immerses herself in Wonder.land, where Alice meets a Caterpillar who is obsessed with identity ("Who are You?"). Aly is interrupted by the girls, who ridicule her father's gambling addiction and poverty before beating her up. Aly seeks understanding from Alice, who tries to get Aly to tell her what is wrong. Aly tells Alice about her family and how she hates her life, and is surprised that Alice has similar problems ("Secrets"). Luke comes into the girls' bathroom because Kieran has threatened him with violence, and hides in a cubicle when Kieran enters. Aly defends Luke, and makes Kieran leave. Luke reveals that the reason Kieran hates him is because, like himself, he is gay. Aly is amazed, and they skip class and play games on their phones. Luke plays Zombie Swarm, and Aly plays Wonder.land. Ms Manxome enters the bathroom; Luke hides his phone, but Aly does not. Ms Manxome confiscates the phone for three months, and Aly and Luke leave. Ms Manxome finds that Aly did not lock her phone, and Alice is calling her. Ms Manxome begins to talk to her, and Alice thinks she is talking to Aly. Aly complains to Luke about her phone being taken away. Matt then takes them out for tea to celebrate his new job at the local garden centre ("In Clover"). At the tea shop, Matt maniacally dances on the tables and plays with spoons; asked to stop, he punches a waiter. Bianca arrives, and they argue again. Aly begins to notice that Wonder.land is invading reality; the MC emerges from a gigantic teapot, and the landscape outside becomes surreal ("Chances"). === Act 2 === Ms Manxome manipulates Alice around Wonder.land on Aly's phone, buys many things, and makes Alice's hair red ("Entre Act"). She tells Alice about her plans to dominate and destroy the online world, and Alice thinks she is talking to Aly ("Me"). Aly, Matt, Bianca, and Charlie are at the police station. PC Rook unsuccessfully tries to get Matt to make a statement (since he is charged with assault and affray), but Matt and Bianca argue again. Aly laments the loss of her family's unity ("Heartless Useless"). In Wonder.land, Ms Manxome is hostile when she meets Dum and Dee, the Mock Turtle, the Dodo, Humpty and the Mouse. She makes Alice chase them away, but Alice and Ms Manxome are driven away by Alice's friends, who are worried about the change in her ("Me (Reprise)"). Bianca learns that Aly missed a detention and had her phone confiscated. Concerned that she is losing Aly to technology, she bans her from the internet ("Gadget"). Charlie vomits, and Aly is left to clean it up. She looks for an internet cafe to go to Wonder.land, the only place she is truly happy ("Everyone Loves Charlie"). At the cafe, Aly cannot log into Wonder.land and her avatar seems to be in use. She sees Alice receive a Vorpal sword, bought by Ms Manxome with the money on Aly's phone. Alice is no longer Alice but the Red Queen, and Ms Manxome tells her to kill her friends. Alice, knowing the person controlling her is not Aly, cannot rebel; she lashes out at her friends, bullying and trying to hurt them. The MC warns that Alice has a deletion warning – any more malice, and she will be deleted. Aly now knows that Ms Manxome controls her phone and avatar ("O Children"). Aly enlists Luke to help and decides to break into Ms. Manxome's office to retrieve the phone. Luke agrees to meet her at the school gates. Matt and Bianca wonder if they should reconcile ("Man of Broken Glass"). At the school, Luke is reluctant to get involved; Aly decides to break into the office anyway. Luke contacts the girls who bullied Aly and tells them about Ms Manxome playing on Aly's stolen phone. They decide to spread the word that it is not Aly ("Fabulous (Reprise)"). Bianca goes to the police because Aly is missing, and gives her phone to Matt. Aly is likely to also be in Wonder.land. The avatars prepare for war against Alice but disagree about a strategy. At the police station, Matt hacks into Wonder.land sees Alice, and realizes that she is controlled by someone other than Aly. The White Rabbit appears (delighting Alice), but Ms Manxome makes Alice push him aside. The borderline between Wonder.land and
Scale space implementation
In the areas of computer vision, image analysis and signal processing, the notion of scale-space representation is used for processing measurement data at multiple scales, and specifically enhance or suppress image features over different ranges of scale (see the article on scale space). A special type of scale-space representation is provided by the Gaussian scale space, where the image data in N dimensions is subjected to smoothing by Gaussian convolution. Most of the theory for Gaussian scale space deals with continuous images, whereas one when implementing this theory will have to face the fact that most measurement data are discrete. Hence, the theoretical problem arises concerning how to discretize the continuous theory while either preserving or well approximating the desirable theoretical properties that lead to the choice of the Gaussian kernel (see the article on scale-space axioms). This article describes basic approaches for this that have been developed in the literature, see also for an in-depth treatment regarding the topic of approximating the Gaussian smoothing operation and the Gaussian derivative computations in scale-space theory, and for a complementary treatment regarding hybrid discretization methods. == Statement of the problem == The Gaussian scale-space representation of an N-dimensional continuous signal, f C ( x 1 , ⋯ , x N , t ) , {\displaystyle f_{C}\left(x_{1},\cdots ,x_{N},t\right),} is obtained by convolving fC with an N-dimensional Gaussian kernel: g N ( x 1 , ⋯ , x N , t ) . {\displaystyle g_{N}\left(x_{1},\cdots ,x_{N},t\right).} In other words: L ( x 1 , ⋯ , x N , t ) = ∫ u 1 = − ∞ ∞ ⋯ ∫ u N = − ∞ ∞ f C ( x 1 − u 1 , ⋯ , x N − u N , t ) ⋅ g N ( u 1 , ⋯ , u N , t ) d u 1 ⋯ d u N . {\displaystyle L\left(x_{1},\cdots ,x_{N},t\right)=\int _{u_{1}=-\infty }^{\infty }\cdots \int _{u_{N}=-\infty }^{\infty }f_{C}\left(x_{1}-u_{1},\cdots ,x_{N}-u_{N},t\right)\cdot g_{N}\left(u_{1},\cdots ,u_{N},t\right)\,du_{1}\cdots du_{N}.} However, for implementation, this definition is impractical, since it is continuous. When applying the scale space concept to a discrete signal fD, different approaches can be taken. This article is a brief summary of some of the most frequently used methods. == Separability == Using the separability property of the Gaussian kernel g N ( x 1 , … , x N , t ) = G ( x 1 , t ) ⋯ G ( x N , t ) {\displaystyle g_{N}\left(x_{1},\dots ,x_{N},t\right)=G\left(x_{1},t\right)\cdots G\left(x_{N},t\right)} the N-dimensional convolution operation can be decomposed into a set of separable smoothing steps with a one-dimensional Gaussian kernel G along each dimension L ( x 1 , ⋯ , x N , t ) = ∫ u 1 = − ∞ ∞ ⋯ ∫ u N = − ∞ ∞ f C ( x 1 − u 1 , ⋯ , x N − u N , t ) G ( u 1 , t ) d u 1 ⋯ G ( u N , t ) d u N , {\displaystyle L(x_{1},\cdots ,x_{N},t)=\int _{u_{1}=-\infty }^{\infty }\cdots \int _{u_{N}=-\infty }^{\infty }f_{C}(x_{1}-u_{1},\cdots ,x_{N}-u_{N},t)G(u_{1},t)\,du_{1}\cdots G(u_{N},t)\,du_{N},} where G ( x , t ) = 1 2 π t e − x 2 2 t {\displaystyle G(x,t)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {2\pi t}}}e^{-{\frac {x^{2}}{2t}}}} and the standard deviation of the Gaussian σ is related to the scale parameter t according to t = σ2. Separability will be assumed in all that follows, even when the kernel is not exactly Gaussian, since separation of the dimensions is the most practical way to implement multidimensional smoothing, especially at larger scales. Therefore, the rest of the article focuses on the one-dimensional case. == The sampled Gaussian kernel == When implementing the one-dimensional smoothing step in practice, the presumably simplest approach is to convolve the discrete signal fD with a sampled Gaussian kernel: L ( x , t ) = ∑ n = − ∞ ∞ f ( x − n ) G ( n , t ) {\displaystyle L(x,t)=\sum _{n=-\infty }^{\infty }f(x-n)\,G(n,t)} where G ( n , t ) = 1 2 π t e − n 2 2 t {\displaystyle G(n,t)={\frac {1}{\sqrt {2\pi t}}}e^{-{\frac {n^{2}}{2t}}}} (with t = σ2) which in turn is truncated at the ends to give a filter with finite impulse response L ( x , t ) = ∑ n = − M M f ( x − n ) G ( n , t ) {\displaystyle L(x,t)=\sum _{n=-M}^{M}f(x-n)\,G(n,t)} for M chosen sufficiently large (see error function) such that 2 ∫ M ∞ G ( u , t ) d u = 2 ∫ M t ∞ G ( v , 1 ) d v < ε . {\displaystyle 2\int _{M}^{\infty }G(u,t)\,du=2\int _{\frac {M}{\sqrt {t}}}^{\infty }G(v,1)\,dv<\varepsilon .} A common choice is to set M to a constant C times the standard deviation of the Gaussian kernel M = C σ + 1 = C t + 1 {\displaystyle M=C\sigma +1=C{\sqrt {t}}+1} where C is often chosen somewhere between 3 and 6. Using the sampled Gaussian kernel can, however, lead to implementation problems, in particular when computing higher-order derivatives at finer scales by applying sampled derivatives of Gaussian kernels. When accuracy and robustness are primary design criteria, alternative implementation approaches should therefore be considered. For small values of ε (10−6 to 10−8) the errors introduced by truncating the Gaussian are usually negligible. For larger values of ε, however, there are many better alternatives to a rectangular window function. For example, for a given number of points, a Hamming window, Blackman window, or Kaiser window will do less damage to the spectral and other properties of the Gaussian than a simple truncation will. Notwithstanding this, since the Gaussian kernel decreases rapidly at the tails, the main recommendation is still to use a sufficiently small value of ε such that the truncation effects are no longer important. == The discrete Gaussian kernel == A more refined approach is to convolve the original signal with the discrete Gaussian kernel T(n, t) L ( x , t ) = ∑ n = − ∞ ∞ f ( x − n ) T ( n , t ) {\displaystyle L(x,t)=\sum _{n=-\infty }^{\infty }f(x-n)\,T(n,t)} where T ( n , t ) = e − t I n ( t ) {\displaystyle T(n,t)=e^{-t}I_{n}(t)} and I n ( t ) {\displaystyle I_{n}(t)} denotes the modified Bessel functions of integer order, n. This is the discrete counterpart of the continuous Gaussian in that it is the solution to the discrete diffusion equation (discrete space, continuous time), just as the continuous Gaussian is the solution to the continuous diffusion equation. This filter can be truncated in the spatial domain as for the sampled Gaussian L ( x , t ) = ∑ n = − M M f ( x − n ) T ( n , t ) {\displaystyle L(x,t)=\sum _{n=-M}^{M}f(x-n)\,T(n,t)} or can be implemented in the Fourier domain using a closed-form expression for its discrete-time Fourier transform: T ^ ( θ , t ) = ∑ n = − ∞ ∞ T ( n , t ) e − i θ n = e t ( cos θ − 1 ) . {\displaystyle {\widehat {T}}(\theta ,t)=\sum _{n=-\infty }^{\infty }T(n,t)\,e^{-i\theta n}=e^{t(\cos \theta -1)}.} With this frequency-domain approach, the scale-space properties transfer exactly to the discrete domain, or with excellent approximation using periodic extension and a suitably long discrete Fourier transform to approximate the discrete-time Fourier transform of the signal being smoothed. Moreover, higher-order derivative approximations can be computed in a straightforward manner (and preserving scale-space properties) by applying small support central difference operators to the discrete scale space representation. As with the sampled Gaussian, a plain truncation of the infinite impulse response will in most cases be a sufficient approximation for small values of ε, while for larger values of ε it is better to use either a decomposition of the discrete Gaussian into a cascade of generalized binomial filters or alternatively to construct a finite approximate kernel by multiplying by a window function. If ε has been chosen too large such that effects of the truncation error begin to appear (for example as spurious extrema or spurious responses to higher-order derivative operators), then the options are to decrease the value of ε such that a larger finite kernel is used, with cutoff where the support is very small, or to use a tapered window. == Recursive filters == Since computational efficiency is often important, low-order recursive filters are often used for scale-space smoothing. For example, Young and van Vliet use a third-order recursive filter with one real pole and a pair of complex poles, applied forward and backward to make a sixth-order symmetric approximation to the Gaussian with low computational complexity for any smoothing scale. By relaxing a few of the axioms, Lindeberg concluded that good smoothing filters would be "normalized Pólya frequency sequences", a family of discrete kernels that includes all filters with real poles at 0 < Z < 1 and/or Z > 1, as well as with real zeros at Z < 0. For symmetry, which leads to approximate directional homogeneity, these filters must be further restricted to pairs of poles and zeros that lead to zero-phase filters. To match the transfer function curvature at zero frequency of the discrete Gaussian, which ensures an approximate semi-group property of additive t, two poles at Z = 1 + 2 t − ( 1 + 2 t ) 2 − 1 {\displaystyle
Possibility theory
Possibility theory is a mathematical theory for dealing with certain types of uncertainty and is an alternative to probability theory. It uses measures of possibility and necessity between 0 and 1, ranging from impossible to possible and unnecessary to necessary, respectively. Professor Lotfi Zadeh first introduced possibility theory in 1978 as an extension of his theory of fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic. Didier Dubois and Henri Prade further contributed to its development. Earlier, in the 1950s, economist G. L. S. Shackle proposed the min/max algebra to describe degrees of potential surprise. == Formalization of possibility == For simplicity, assume that the universe of discourse Ω is a finite set. A possibility measure is a function Π {\displaystyle \Pi } from 2 Ω {\displaystyle 2^{\Omega }} to [0, 1] such that: Axiom 1: Π ( ∅ ) = 0 {\displaystyle \Pi (\varnothing )=0} Axiom 2: Π ( Ω ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (\Omega )=1} Axiom 3: Π ( U ∪ V ) = max ( Π ( U ) , Π ( V ) ) {\displaystyle \Pi (U\cup V)=\max \left(\Pi (U),\Pi (V)\right)} for any disjoint subsets U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} . It follows that, like probability on finite probability spaces, the possibility measure is determined by its behavior on singletons: Π ( U ) = max ω ∈ U Π ( { ω } ) . {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=\max _{\omega \in U}\Pi (\{\omega \}).} Axiom 1 can be interpreted as the assumption that Ω is an exhaustive description of future states of the world, because it means that no belief weight is given to elements outside Ω. Axiom 2 could be interpreted as the assumption that the evidence from which Π {\displaystyle \Pi } was constructed is free of any contradiction. Technically, it implies that there is at least one element in Ω with possibility 1. Axiom 3 corresponds to the additivity axiom in probabilities. However, there is an important practical difference. Possibility theory is computationally more convenient because Axioms 1–3 imply that: Π ( U ∪ V ) = max ( Π ( U ) , Π ( V ) ) {\displaystyle \Pi (U\cup V)=\max \left(\Pi (U),\Pi (V)\right)} for any subsets U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} . Because one can know the possibility of the union from the possibility of each component, it can be said that possibility is compositional with respect to the union operator. Note however that it is not compositional with respect to the intersection operator. Generally: Π ( U ∩ V ) ≤ min ( Π ( U ) , Π ( V ) ) ≤ max ( Π ( U ) , Π ( V ) ) . {\displaystyle \Pi (U\cap V)\leq \min \left(\Pi (U),\Pi (V)\right)\leq \max \left(\Pi (U),\Pi (V)\right).} When Ω is not finite, Axiom 3 can be replaced by: For all index sets I {\displaystyle I} , if the subsets U i , i ∈ I {\displaystyle U_{i,\,i\in I}} are pairwise disjoint, Π ( ⋃ i ∈ I U i ) = sup i ∈ I Π ( U i ) . {\displaystyle \Pi \left(\bigcup _{i\in I}U_{i}\right)=\sup _{i\in I}\Pi (U_{i}).} == Necessity == Whereas probability theory uses a single number, the probability, to describe how likely an event is to occur, possibility theory uses two concepts, the possibility and the necessity of the event. For any set U {\displaystyle U} , the necessity measure is defined by N ( U ) = 1 − Π ( U ¯ ) {\displaystyle N(U)=1-\Pi ({\overline {U}})} . In the above formula, U ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {U}}} denotes the complement of U {\displaystyle U} , that is the elements of Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } that do not belong to U {\displaystyle U} . It is straightforward to show that: N ( U ) ≤ Π ( U ) {\displaystyle N(U)\leq \Pi (U)} for any U {\displaystyle U} and that: N ( U ∩ V ) = min ( N ( U ) , N ( V ) ) {\displaystyle N(U\cap V)=\min(N(U),N(V))} . Note that contrary to probability theory, possibility is not self-dual. That is, for any event U {\displaystyle U} , we only have the inequality: Π ( U ) + Π ( U ¯ ) ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)+\Pi ({\overline {U}})\geq 1} However, the following duality rule holds: For any event U {\displaystyle U} , either Π ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=1} , or N ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle N(U)=0} Accordingly, beliefs about an event can be represented by a number and a bit. == Interpretation == There are four cases that can be interpreted as follows: N ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle N(U)=1} means that U {\displaystyle U} is necessary. U {\displaystyle U} is certainly true. It implies that Π ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=1} . Π ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=0} means that U {\displaystyle U} is impossible. U {\displaystyle U} is certainly false. It implies that N ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle N(U)=0} . Π ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=1} means that U {\displaystyle U} is possible. I would not be surprised at all if U {\displaystyle U} occurs. It leaves N ( U ) {\displaystyle N(U)} unconstrained. N ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle N(U)=0} means that U {\displaystyle U} is unnecessary. I would not be surprised at all if U {\displaystyle U} does not occur. It leaves Π ( U ) {\displaystyle \Pi (U)} unconstrained. The intersection of the last two cases is N ( U ) = 0 {\displaystyle N(U)=0} and Π ( U ) = 1 {\displaystyle \Pi (U)=1} meaning that I believe nothing at all about U {\displaystyle U} . Because it allows for indeterminacy like this, possibility theory relates to the graduation of a many-valued logic, such as intuitionistic logic, rather than the classical two-valued logic. Note that unlike possibility, fuzzy logic is compositional with respect to both the union and the intersection operator. The relationship with fuzzy theory can be explained with the following classic example. Fuzzy logic: When a bottle is half full, it can be said that the level of truth of the proposition "The bottle is full" is 0.5. The word "full" is seen as a fuzzy predicate describing the amount of liquid in the bottle. Possibility theory: There is one bottle, either completely full or totally empty. The proposition "the possibility level that the bottle is full is 0.5" describes a degree of belief. One way to interpret 0.5 in that proposition is to define its meaning as: I am ready to bet that it's empty as long as the odds are even (1:1) or better, and I would not bet at any rate that it's full. == Possibility theory as an imprecise probability theory == There is an extensive formal correspondence between probability and possibility theories, where the addition operator corresponds to the maximum operator. A possibility measure can be seen as a consonant plausibility measure in the Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence. The operators of possibility theory can be seen as a hyper-cautious version of the operators of the transferable belief model, a modern development of the theory of evidence. Possibility can be seen as an upper probability: any possibility distribution defines a unique credal set of admissible probability distributions by K = { P ∣ ∀ S P ( S ) ≤ Π ( S ) } . {\displaystyle K=\{\,P\mid \forall S\ P(S)\leq \Pi (S)\,\}.} This allows one to study possibility theory using the tools of imprecise probabilities. == Necessity logic == We call generalized possibility every function satisfying Axiom 1 and Axiom 3. We call generalized necessity the dual of a generalized possibility. The generalized necessities are related to a very simple and interesting fuzzy logic called necessity logic. In the deduction apparatus of necessity logic the logical axioms are the usual classical tautologies. Also, there is only a fuzzy inference rule extending the usual modus ponens. Such a rule says that if α and α → β are proved at degree λ and μ, respectively, then we can assert β at degree min{λ,μ}. It is easy to see that the theories of such a logic are the generalized necessities and that the completely consistent theories coincide with the necessities (see for example Gerla 2001).
They're Made Out of Meat
"They're Made Out of Meat" is a short story by American writer Terry Bisson. It was originally published in OMNI. It consists entirely of dialogue between two characters. Bisson's website hosts a theatrical adaptation. A film adaptation won the Grand Prize at the Seattle Science Fiction Museum's 2006 film festival. The story was collected in the 1993 anthology Bears Discover Fire and Other Stories, and has circulated widely on the Internet, which Bisson found "flattering". It has been quoted in cognitive, cosmological, and philosophical scholarship. == Plot == The two characters are intelligent beings capable of traveling faster than light, on a mission to "contact, welcome and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in this quadrant of the Universe." Bisson's stage directions represent them as "two lights moving like fireflies among the stars" on a projection screen. One of them tells the incredulous other about the recent discovery of carbon-based lifeforms "made up entirely of meat". After conversing briefly about it, they both deem such beings and communication with them too bizarre and agree to "erase the records and forget the whole thing", marking the Solar System "unoccupied". == Film adaptations == === They're Made out of Meat (2005) === In 2005, Stephen O'Regan wrote and directed a live film adaptation starring Tom Noonan and Ben Bailey. The film was made as a final project for the New York Film Academy. The main action takes place inside a diner full of teenagers in Staten Island, New York. The music for the film was scored by Bob Reynolds. === They're Made out of Meat (2010) === Jeff Frumess and Trevor Scott produced a version in 2010. They added the character of a homeless conspiracy theorist with an original score by musician Sam Belkin. The film was shot at Hartsdale station in Westchester County, New York. === Meat (2021) === Masha Maksimova developed a version in Cinemiracle format, a triple split-screen process, as a student project at the Berlin University of Applied Sciences in the communication design course. The dialogue is conducted by two telepathic humanoid aliens and the thoughts are visualised by found-footage collages.
Probabilistic database
Most real databases contain data whose correctness is uncertain. In order to work with such data, there is a need to quantify the integrity of the data. This is achieved by using probabilistic databases. A probabilistic database is an uncertain database in which the possible worlds have associated probabilities. Probabilistic database management systems are currently an active area of research. "While there are currently no commercial probabilistic database systems, several research prototypes exist..." Probabilistic databases distinguish between the logical data model and the physical representation of the data much like relational databases do in the ANSI-SPARC Architecture. In probabilistic databases this is even more crucial since such databases have to represent very large numbers of possible worlds, often exponential in the size of one world (a classical database), succinctly. == Terminology == In a probabilistic database, each tuple is associated with a probability between 0 and 1, with 0 representing that the data is certainly incorrect, and 1 representing that it is certainly correct. === Possible worlds === A probabilistic database could exist in multiple states. For example, if there is uncertainty about the existence of a tuple in the database, then the database could be in two different states with respect to that tuple—the first state contains the tuple, while the second one does not. Similarly, if an attribute can take one of the values x, y or z, then the database can be in three different states with respect to that attribute. Each of these states is called a possible world. Consider the following database: (Here {b3, b3′, b3′′} denotes that the attribute can take any of the values b3, b3′ or b3′′) Assuming that there is uncertainty about the first tuple, certainty about the second tuple, and uncertainty about the value of attribute B in the third tuple. Then the actual state of the database may or may not contain the first tuple (depending on whether it is correct or not). Similarly, the value of the attribute B may be b3, b3′ or b3′′. Consequently, the possible worlds corresponding to the database are as follows: === Types of Uncertainties === There are essentially two kinds of uncertainties that could exist in a probabilistic database, as described in the table below: By assigning values to random variables associated with the data items, different possible worlds can be represented. == History == The first published use of the term "probabilistic database" was probably in the 1987 VLDB conference paper "The theory of probabilistic databases", by Cavallo and Pittarelli. The title (of the 11 page paper) was intended as a bit of a joke, since David Maier's 600 page monograph, The Theory of Relational Databases, would have been familiar at that time to many of the conference participants and readers of the conference proceedings.
Instance selection
Instance selection (or dataset reduction, or dataset condensation) is an important data pre-processing step that can be applied in many machine learning (or data mining) tasks. Approaches for instance selection can be applied for reducing the original dataset to a manageable volume, leading to a reduction of the computational resources that are necessary for performing the learning process. Algorithms of instance selection can also be applied for removing noisy instances, before applying learning algorithms. This step can improve the accuracy in classification problems. Algorithm for instance selection should identify a subset of the total available data to achieve the original purpose of the data mining (or machine learning) application as if the whole data had been used. Considering this, the optimal outcome of IS would be the minimum data subset that can accomplish the same task with no performance loss, in comparison with the performance achieved when the task is performed using the whole available data. Therefore, every instance selection strategy should deal with a trade-off between the reduction rate of the dataset and the classification quality. == Instance selection algorithms == The literature provides several different algorithms for instance selection. They can be distinguished from each other according to several different criteria. Considering this, instance selection algorithms can be grouped in two main classes, according to what instances they select: algorithms that preserve the instances at the boundaries of classes and algorithms that preserve the internal instances of the classes. Within the category of algorithms that select instances at the boundaries it is possible to cite DROP3, ICF and LSBo. On the other hand, within the category of algorithms that select internal instances, it is possible to mention ENN and LSSm. In general, algorithm such as ENN and LSSm are used for removing harmful (noisy) instances from the dataset. They do not reduce the data as the algorithms that select border instances, but they remove instances at the boundaries that have a negative impact on the data mining task. They can be used by other instance selection algorithms, as a filtering step. For example, the ENN algorithm is used by DROP3 as the first step, and the LSSm algorithm is used by LSBo. There is also another group of algorithms that adopt different selection criteria. For example, the algorithms LDIS, CDIS and XLDIS select the densest instances in a given arbitrary neighborhood. The selected instances can include both, border and internal instances. The LDIS and CDIS algorithms are very simple and select subsets that are very representative of the original dataset. Besides that, since they search by the representative instances in each class separately, they are faster (in terms of time complexity and effective running time) than other algorithms, such as DROP3 and ICF. Besides that, there is a third category of algorithms that, instead of selecting actual instances of the dataset, select prototypes (that can be synthetic instances). In this category it is possible to include PSSA, PSDSP and PSSP. The three algorithms adopt the notion of spatial partition (a hyperrectangle) for identifying similar instances and extract prototypes for each set of similar instances. In general, these approaches can also be modified for selecting actual instances of the datasets. The algorithm ISDSP adopts a similar approach for selecting actual instances (instead of prototypes).
Clinical decision support system
A clinical decision support system (CDSS) is a form of health information technology that provides clinicians, staff, patients, or other individuals with knowledge and person-specific information to enhance decision-making in clinical workflows. CDSS tools include alerts and reminders, clinical guidelines, condition-specific order sets, patient data summaries, diagnostic support, and context-aware reference information. They often leverage artificial intelligence to analyze clinical data and help improve care quality and safety. CDSSs constitute a major topic in artificial intelligence in medicine. == Characteristics == A clinical decision support system is an active knowledge system that uses variables of patient data to produce advice regarding health care. This implies that a CDSS is simply a decision support system focused on using knowledge management. === Purpose === The main purpose of modern CDSS is to assist clinicians at the point of care. This means that clinicians interact with a CDSS to help to analyze and reach a diagnosis based on patient data for different diseases. In the early days, CDSSs were conceived to make decisions for the clinician in a literal manner. The clinician would input the information and wait for the CDSS to output the "right" choice, and the clinician would simply act on that output. However, the modern methodology of using CDSSs to assist means that the clinician interacts with the CDSS, utilizing both their knowledge and the CDSS's, better to analyse the patient's data than either a human or a CDSS could do on their own. Typically, a CDSS makes suggestions for the clinician to review, and the clinician is expected to pick out useful information from the presented results and discount erroneous CDSS suggestions. The two main types of CDSS are knowledge-based systems and non-knowledge-based (machine learning–based) systems: An example of how a clinician might use a clinical decision support system is a diagnosis decision support system (DDSS). DDSS requests some of the patient's data and, in response, proposes a set of possible diagnoses. The physician then takes the output of the DDSS and determines which diagnoses are likely and which are not, and, if necessary, orders further tests to narrow down the diagnosis. Another example of a CDSS would be a case-based reasoning (CBR) system. A CBR system might use previous case data to help determine the appropriate amount of beams and the optimal beam angles for use in radiotherapy for brain cancer patients; medical physicists and oncologists would then review the recommended treatment plan to determine its viability. Another important classification of a CDSS is based on the timing of its use. Physicians use these systems at the point of care to help them as they are dealing with a patient, with the timing of use being either pre-diagnosis, during diagnosis, or post-diagnosis. Pre-diagnosis CDSS systems help the physician prepare the diagnoses. CDSSs help review and filter the physician's preliminary diagnostic choices to improve outcomes. Post-diagnosis CDSS systems are used to mine data to derive connections between patients and their past medical history and clinical research to predict future events. Early speculation that AI-based decision support would replace clinicians in common tasks has largely given way to a consensus around assistive models, in which AI augments rather than supplants clinical judgment. Contemporary deep learning-based systems, unlike earlier rule-based tools, can be trained directly on clinical data without manual rule authoring and integrated into electronic health record workflows at the point of care. Another approach, used by the National Health Service in England, is to use a CDSS to triage medical conditions out of hours by suggesting a suitable next step to the patient (e.g. call an ambulance, or see a general practitioner on the next working day). The suggestion, which may be disregarded by either the patient or the phone operative if common sense or caution suggests otherwise, is based on the known information and an implicit conclusion about what the worst-case diagnosis is likely to be; it is not always revealed to the patient because it might well be incorrect and is not based on a medically-trained person's opinion - it is only used for initial triage purposes. === Knowledge-based === Most CDSSs consist of three parts: the knowledge base, an inference engine, and a mechanism to communicate. The knowledge base contains the rules and associations of compiled data which most often take the form of IF-THEN rules. If this was a system for determining drug interactions, then a rule might be that IF drug X is taken AND drug Y is taken THEN alert the user. Using another interface, an advanced user could edit the knowledge base to keep it up to date with new drugs. The inference engine combines the rules from the knowledge base with the patient's data. The communication mechanism allows the system to show the results to the user as well as have input into the system. An expression language such as GELLO or CQL (Clinical Quality Language) is needed for expressing knowledge artefacts in a computable manner. For example: if a patient has diabetes mellitus, and if the last haemoglobin A1c test result was less than 7%, recommend re-testing if it has been over six months, but if the last test result was greater than or equal to 7%, then recommend re-testing if it has been over three months. The current focus of the HL7 CDS WG is to build on the Clinical Quality Language (CQL). The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced that it plans to use CQL for the specification of Electronic Clinical Quality Measures (eCQMs). === Non-knowledge-based === CDSSs which do not use a knowledge base use a form of artificial intelligence called machine learning, which allow computers to learn from past experiences and/or find patterns in clinical data. This eliminates the need for writing rules and expert input. However, since systems based on machine learning cannot explain the reasons for their conclusions, most clinicians do not use them directly for diagnoses, reliability and accountability reasons. Nevertheless, they can be useful as post-diagnostic systems, for suggesting patterns for clinicians to look into in more depth. As of 2012, three types of non-knowledge-based systems are support-vector machines, artificial neural networks and genetic algorithms. Artificial neural networks use nodes and weighted connections between them to analyse the patterns found in patient data to derive associations between symptoms and a diagnosis. Genetic algorithms are based on simplified evolutionary processes using directed selection to achieve optimal CDSS results. The selection algorithms evaluate components of random sets of solutions to a problem. The solutions that come out on top are then recombined and mutated and run through the process again. This happens over and over until the proper solution is discovered. They are functionally similar to neural networks in that they are also "black boxes" that attempt to derive knowledge from patient data. Non-knowledge-based networks often focus on a narrow list of symptoms, such as symptoms for a single disease, as opposed to the knowledge-based approach, which covers the diagnosis of many diseases. An example of a non-knowledge-based CDSS is a web server developed using a support vector machine for the prediction of gestational diabetes in Ireland. == Regulations == === History, United States === The IOM had published a report in 1999, To Err is Human, which focused on the patient safety crisis in the United States, pointing to the incredibly high number of deaths. This statistic attracted great attention to the quality of patient care. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) promoted the usage of health information technology, including clinical decision support systems, to advance the quality of patient care. With the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), there was a push for widespread adoption of health information technology through the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH). Through these initiatives, more hospitals and clinics were integrating electronic medical records (EMRs) and computerized physician order entry (CPOE) within their health information processing and storage. Despite the absence of laws, the CDSS vendors would almost certainly be viewed as having a legal duty of care to both the patients who may adversely be affected due to CDSS usage and the clinicians who may use the technology for patient care. However, duties of care legal regulations are not explicitly defined yet. With the enactment of the HITECH Act included in the ARRA, encouraging the adoption of health IT, more detailed case laws for CDSS and EMRs were still being defined by the Office of National Coordinator for Health Informati