Macroelectronics are flexible electronics that cover a large area. The most visible example of macroelectronics is flat-panel displays. Other emerging applications include rollable display, printable thin film solar cell and electronic skin. Flat-panel displays fabricated on glass substrates are fragile so fabricating directly on flexible substrates, such as polymers is being explored. Displays made on thin polymer substrates can be more rugged than glass. In September 2005, Philips Polymer Vision revealed the world's first prototype of a rollable electronic reader, which can unfold to a 5-inch display and roll back into a pocket-size (100×60×20 mm) device. Thin-film devices on flexible polymer substrates can lend themselves to low-cost fabrication processes (i.e., roll-to-roll printing), resulting in lightweight, rugged and flexible macroelectronic products.
CPU modes
CPU modes (also called processor modes, CPU states, CPU privilege levels and other names) are operating modes for the central processing unit of most computer architectures that place restrictions on the type and scope of operations that can be performed by instructions being executed by the CPU. For example, this design allows an operating system to run with more privileges than application software by running the operating systems and applications in different modes. Ideally, only highly trusted kernel code is allowed to execute in the unrestricted mode; everything else (including non-supervisory portions of the operating system) runs in a restricted mode and must use a system call (via interrupt) to request the kernel perform on its behalf any operation that could damage or compromise the system, making it impossible for untrusted programs to alter or damage other programs (or the computing system itself). Device drivers are designed to be part of the kernel due to the need for frequent I/O access. Multiple modes can be implemented, e.g. allowing a hypervisor to run multiple operating system supervisors beneath it, which is the basic design of many virtual machine systems available today. == Mode types == The unrestricted mode is often called kernel mode, but many other designations exist (master mode, supervisor mode, privileged mode, etc.). Restricted modes are usually referred to as user modes, but are also known by many other names (slave mode, problem state, etc.). Hypervisor Hypervisor mode is used to support virtualization, allowing the simultaneous operation of multiple operating systems. Kernel and user In kernel mode, the CPU may perform any operation allowed by its architecture; any instruction may be executed, any I/O operation initiated, any area of memory accessed, and so on. In the other CPU modes, certain restrictions on CPU operations are enforced by the hardware. Typically, certain instructions are not permitted (especially those—including I/O operations—that could alter the global state of the machine), some memory areas cannot be accessed, etc. User-mode capabilities of the CPU are typically a subset of those available in kernel mode, but in some cases, such as hardware emulation of non-native architectures, they may be significantly different from those available in standard kernel mode. Some CPU architectures support more modes than those, often with a hierarchy of privileges. These architectures are often said to have ring-based security, wherein the hierarchy of privileges resembles a set of concentric rings, with the kernel mode in the center. Multics hardware was the first significant implementation of ring security, but many other hardware platforms have been designed along similar lines, including the Intel 80286 protected mode, and the IA-64 as well, though it is referred to by a different name in these cases. Mode protection may extend to resources beyond the CPU hardware itself. Hardware registers track the current operating mode of the CPU, but additional virtual-memory registers, page-table entries, and other data may track mode identifiers for other resources. For example, a CPU may be operating in Ring 0 as indicated by a status word in the CPU itself, but every access to memory may additionally be validated against a separate ring number for the virtual-memory segment targeted by the access, and/or against a ring number for the physical page (if any) being targeted. This has been demonstrated with the PSP handheld system. Hardware that meets the Popek and Goldberg virtualization requirements makes writing software to efficiently support a virtual machine much simpler. Such a system can run software that "believes" it is running in supervisor mode, but is actually running in user mode. == Architectures == Several computer systems introduced in the 1960s, such as the IBM System/360, DEC PDP-6/PDP-10, the GE-600/Honeywell 6000 series, and the Burroughs B5000 series and B6500 series, support two CPU modes; a mode that grants full privileges to code running in that mode, and a mode that prevents direct access to input/output devices and some other hardware facilities to code running in that mode. The first mode is referred to by names such as supervisor state (System/360), executive mode (PDP-6/PDP-10), master mode (GE-600 series), control mode (B5000 series), and control state (B6500 series). The second mode is referred to by names such as problem state (System/360), user mode (PDP-6/PDP-10), slave mode (GE-600 series), and normal state (B6500 series); there are multiple non-control modes in the B5000 series. === RISC-V === RISC-V has three main CPU modes: User Mode (U), Supervisor Mode (S), and Machine Mode (M). Virtualization is supported via an orthogonal CSR setting instead of a fourth mode.
Image moment
In image processing, computer vision and related fields, an image moment is a certain particular weighted average (moment) of the image pixels' intensities, or a function of such moments, usually chosen to have some attractive property or interpretation. Image moments are useful to describe objects after segmentation. Simple properties of the image which are found via image moments include area (or total intensity), its centroid, and information about its orientation. == Raw moments == For a 2D continuous function f(x,y) the moment (sometimes called "raw moment") of order (p + q) is defined as M p q = ∫ − ∞ ∞ ∫ − ∞ ∞ x p y q f ( x , y ) d x d y {\displaystyle M_{pq}=\int \limits _{-\infty }^{\infty }\int \limits _{-\infty }^{\infty }x^{p}y^{q}f(x,y)\,dx\,dy} for p,q = 0,1,2,... Adapting this to scalar (grayscale) image with pixel intensities I(x,y), raw image moments Mij are calculated by M i j = ∑ x ∑ y x i y j I ( x , y ) {\displaystyle M_{ij}=\sum _{x}\sum _{y}x^{i}y^{j}I(x,y)\,\!} In some cases, this may be calculated by considering the image as a probability density function, i.e., by dividing the above by ∑ x ∑ y I ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \sum _{x}\sum _{y}I(x,y)\,\!} A uniqueness theorem states that if f(x,y) is piecewise continuous and has nonzero values only in a finite part of the xy plane, moments of all orders exist, and the moment sequence (Mpq) is uniquely determined by f(x,y). Conversely, (Mpq) uniquely determines f(x,y). In practice, the image is summarized with functions of a few lower order moments. === Examples === Simple image properties derived via raw moments include: Area (for binary images) or sum of grey level (for greytone images): M 00 {\displaystyle M_{00}} Centroid: { x ¯ , y ¯ } = { M 10 M 00 , M 01 M 00 } {\displaystyle \{{\bar {x}},\ {\bar {y}}\}=\left\{{\frac {M_{10}}{M_{00}}},{\frac {M_{01}}{M_{00}}}\right\}} == Central moments == Central moments are defined as μ p q = ∫ − ∞ ∞ ∫ − ∞ ∞ ( x − x ¯ ) p ( y − y ¯ ) q f ( x , y ) d x d y {\displaystyle \mu _{pq}=\int \limits _{-\infty }^{\infty }\int \limits _{-\infty }^{\infty }(x-{\bar {x}})^{p}(y-{\bar {y}})^{q}f(x,y)\,dx\,dy} where x ¯ = M 10 M 00 {\displaystyle {\bar {x}}={\frac {M_{10}}{M_{00}}}} and y ¯ = M 01 M 00 {\displaystyle {\bar {y}}={\frac {M_{01}}{M_{00}}}} are the components of the centroid. If ƒ(x, y) is a digital image, then the previous equation becomes μ p q = ∑ x ∑ y ( x − x ¯ ) p ( y − y ¯ ) q f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \mu _{pq}=\sum _{x}\sum _{y}(x-{\bar {x}})^{p}(y-{\bar {y}})^{q}f(x,y)} The central moments of order up to 3 are: μ 00 = M 00 , μ 01 = 0 , μ 10 = 0 , μ 11 = M 11 − x ¯ M 01 = M 11 − y ¯ M 10 , μ 20 = M 20 − x ¯ M 10 , μ 02 = M 02 − y ¯ M 01 , μ 21 = M 21 − 2 x ¯ M 11 − y ¯ M 20 + 2 x ¯ 2 M 01 , μ 12 = M 12 − 2 y ¯ M 11 − x ¯ M 02 + 2 y ¯ 2 M 10 , μ 30 = M 30 − 3 x ¯ M 20 + 2 x ¯ 2 M 10 , μ 03 = M 03 − 3 y ¯ M 02 + 2 y ¯ 2 M 01 . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\mu _{00}&=M_{00},&\mu _{01}&=0,\\\mu _{10}&=0,&\mu _{11}&=M_{11}-{\bar {x}}M_{01}=M_{11}-{\bar {y}}M_{10},\\\mu _{20}&=M_{20}-{\bar {x}}M_{10},&\mu _{02}&=M_{02}-{\bar {y}}M_{01},\\\mu _{21}&=M_{21}-2{\bar {x}}M_{11}-{\bar {y}}M_{20}+2{\bar {x}}^{2}M_{01},&\mu _{12}&=M_{12}-2{\bar {y}}M_{11}-{\bar {x}}M_{02}+2{\bar {y}}^{2}M_{10},\\\mu _{30}&=M_{30}-3{\bar {x}}M_{20}+2{\bar {x}}^{2}M_{10},&\mu _{03}&=M_{03}-3{\bar {y}}M_{02}+2{\bar {y}}^{2}M_{01}.\end{aligned}}} It can be shown that: μ p q = ∑ m p ∑ n q ( p m ) ( q n ) ( − x ¯ ) ( p − m ) ( − y ¯ ) ( q − n ) M m n {\displaystyle \mu _{pq}=\sum _{m}^{p}\sum _{n}^{q}{p \choose m}{q \choose n}(-{\bar {x}})^{(p-m)}(-{\bar {y}})^{(q-n)}M_{mn}} Central moments are translational invariant. === Examples === Information about image orientation can be derived by first using the second order central moments to construct a covariance matrix. μ 20 ′ = μ 20 / μ 00 = M 20 / M 00 − x ¯ 2 μ 02 ′ = μ 02 / μ 00 = M 02 / M 00 − y ¯ 2 μ 11 ′ = μ 11 / μ 00 = M 11 / M 00 − x ¯ y ¯ {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\mu '_{20}&=\mu _{20}/\mu _{00}=M_{20}/M_{00}-{\bar {x}}^{2}\\\mu '_{02}&=\mu _{02}/\mu _{00}=M_{02}/M_{00}-{\bar {y}}^{2}\\\mu '_{11}&=\mu _{11}/\mu _{00}=M_{11}/M_{00}-{\bar {x}}{\bar {y}}\end{aligned}}} The covariance matrix of the image I ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I(x,y)} is now cov [ I ( x , y ) ] = [ μ 20 ′ μ 11 ′ μ 11 ′ μ 02 ′ ] . {\displaystyle \operatorname {cov} [I(x,y)]={\begin{bmatrix}\mu '_{20}&\mu '_{11}\\\mu '_{11}&\mu '_{02}\end{bmatrix}}.} The eigenvectors of this matrix correspond to the major and minor axes of the image intensity, so the orientation can thus be extracted from the angle of the eigenvector associated with the largest eigenvalue towards the axis closest to this eigenvector. It can be shown that this angle Θ is given by the following formula: Θ = 1 2 arctan ( 2 μ 11 ′ μ 20 ′ − μ 02 ′ ) {\displaystyle \Theta ={\frac {1}{2}}\arctan \left({\frac {2\mu '_{11}}{\mu '_{20}-\mu '_{02}}}\right)} The above formula holds as long as: μ 20 ′ − μ 02 ′ ≠ 0 {\displaystyle \mu '_{20}-\mu '_{02}\neq 0} The eigenvalues of the covariance matrix can easily be shown to be λ i = μ 20 ′ + μ 02 ′ 2 ± 4 μ ′ 11 2 + ( μ ′ 20 − μ ′ 02 ) 2 2 , {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}={\frac {\mu '_{20}+\mu '_{02}}{2}}\pm {\frac {\sqrt {4{\mu '}_{11}^{2}+({\mu '}_{20}-{\mu '}_{02})^{2}}}{2}},} and are proportional to the squared length of the eigenvector axes. The relative difference in magnitude of the eigenvalues are thus an indication of the eccentricity of the image, or how elongated it is. The eccentricity is 1 − λ 2 λ 1 . {\displaystyle {\sqrt {1-{\frac {\lambda _{2}}{\lambda _{1}}}}}.} == Moment invariants == Moments are well-known for their application in image analysis, since they can be used to derive invariants with respect to specific transformation classes. The term invariant moments is often abused in this context. However, while moment invariants are invariants that are formed from moments, the only moments that are invariants themselves are the central moments. Note that the invariants detailed below are exactly invariant only in the continuous domain. In a discrete domain, neither scaling nor rotation are well defined: a discrete image transformed in such a way is generally an approximation, and the transformation is not reversible. These invariants therefore are only approximately invariant when describing a shape in a discrete image. === Translation invariants === The central moments μi j of any order are, by construction, invariant with respect to translations. === Scale invariants === Invariants ηi j with respect to both translation and scale can be constructed from central moments by dividing through a properly scaled zero-th central moment: η i j = μ i j μ 00 ( 1 + i + j 2 ) {\displaystyle \eta _{ij}={\frac {\mu _{ij}}{\mu _{00}^{\left(1+{\frac {i+j}{2}}\right)}}}\,\!} where i + j ≥ 2. Note that translational invariance directly follows by only using central moments. === Rotation invariants === As shown in the work of Hu, invariants with respect to translation, scale, and rotation can be constructed: I 1 = η 20 + η 02 {\displaystyle I_{1}=\eta _{20}+\eta _{02}} I 2 = ( η 20 − η 02 ) 2 + 4 η 11 2 {\displaystyle I_{2}=(\eta _{20}-\eta _{02})^{2}+4\eta _{11}^{2}} I 3 = ( η 30 − 3 η 12 ) 2 + ( 3 η 21 − η 03 ) 2 {\displaystyle I_{3}=(\eta _{30}-3\eta _{12})^{2}+(3\eta _{21}-\eta _{03})^{2}} I 4 = ( η 30 + η 12 ) 2 + ( η 21 + η 03 ) 2 {\displaystyle I_{4}=(\eta _{30}+\eta _{12})^{2}+(\eta _{21}+\eta _{03})^{2}} I 5 = ( η 30 − 3 η 12 ) ( η 30 + η 12 ) [ ( η 30 + η 12 ) 2 − 3 ( η 21 + η 03 ) 2 ] + ( 3 η 21 − η 03 ) ( η 21 + η 03 ) [ 3 ( η 30 + η 12 ) 2 − ( η 21 + η 03 ) 2 ] {\displaystyle I_{5}=(\eta _{30}-3\eta _{12})(\eta _{30}+\eta _{12})[(\eta _{30}+\eta _{12})^{2}-3(\eta _{21}+\eta _{03})^{2}]+(3\eta _{21}-\eta _{03})(\eta _{21}+\eta _{03})[3(\eta _{30}+\eta _{12})^{2}-(\eta _{21}+\eta _{03})^{2}]} I 6 = ( η 20 − η 02 ) [ ( η 30 + η 12 ) 2 − ( η 21 + η 03 ) 2 ] + 4 η 11 ( η 30 + η 12 ) ( η 21 + η 03 ) {\displaystyle I_{6}=(\eta _{20}-\eta _{02})[(\eta _{30}+\eta _{12})^{2}-(\eta _{21}+\eta _{03})^{2}]+4\eta _{11}(\eta _{30}+\eta _{12})(\eta _{21}+\eta _{03})} I 7 = ( 3 η 21 − η 03 ) ( η 30 + η 12 ) [ ( η 30 + η 12 ) 2 − 3 ( η 21 + η 03 ) 2 ] − ( η 30 − 3 η 12 ) ( η 21 + η 03 ) [ 3 ( η 30 + η 12 ) 2 − ( η 21 + η 03 ) 2 ] . {\displaystyle I_{7}=(3\eta _{21}-\eta _{03})(\eta _{30}+\eta _{12})[(\eta _{30}+\eta _{12})^{2}-3(\eta _{21}+\eta _{03})^{2}]-(\eta _{30}-3\eta _{12})(\eta _{21}+\eta _{03})[3(\eta _{30}+\eta _{12})^{2}-(\eta _{21}+\eta _{03})^{2}].} These are well-known as Hu moment invariants. The first one, I1, is analogous to the moment of inertia around the image's centroid, where the pixels' intensities are analogous to physical density. The first six, I1 ... I6, are reflection symmetric, i.e. they are unchanged if the image is changed to a mirror image. The last one, I7, is reflection antisymmetric (changes sign under reflection), which enables it to distinguish mirror images of otherwise identical im
Ugly duckling theorem
The ugly duckling theorem is an argument showing that classification is not really possible without some sort of bias. More particularly, it assumes finitely many properties combinable by logical connectives, and finitely many objects; it asserts that any two different objects share the same number of (extensional) properties. The theorem is named after Hans Christian Andersen's 1843 story "The Ugly Duckling", because it shows that a duckling is just as similar to a swan as two swans are to each other. It was derived by Satosi Watanabe in 1969. == Mathematical formula == Suppose there are n things in the universe, and one wants to put them into classes or categories. One has no preconceived ideas or biases about what sorts of categories are "natural" or "normal" and what are not. So one has to consider all the possible classes that could be, all the possible ways of making a set out of the n objects. There are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such ways, the size of the power set of n objects. One can use that to measure the similarity between two objects, and one would see how many sets they have in common. However, one cannot. Any two objects have exactly the same number of classes in common if we can form any possible class, namely 2 n − 1 {\displaystyle 2^{n-1}} (half the total number of classes there are). To see this is so, one may imagine each class is represented by an n-bit string (or binary encoded integer), with a zero for each element not in the class and a one for each element in the class. As one finds, there are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such strings. As all possible choices of zeros and ones are there, any two bit-positions will agree exactly half the time. One may pick two elements and reorder the bits so they are the first two, and imagine the numbers sorted lexicographically. The first 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} numbers will have bit #1 set to zero, and the second 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} will have it set to one. Within each of those blocks, the top 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have bit #2 set to zero and the other 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have it as one, so they agree on two blocks of 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} or on half of all the cases, no matter which two elements one picks. So if we have no preconceived bias about which categories are better, everything is then equally similar (or equally dissimilar). The number of predicates simultaneously satisfied by two non-identical elements is constant over all such pairs. Thus, some kind of inductive bias is needed to make judgements to prefer certain categories over others. === Boolean functions === Let x 1 , x 2 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}} be a set of vectors of k {\displaystyle k} booleans each. The ugly duckling is the vector which is least like the others. Given the booleans, this can be computed using Hamming distance. However, the choice of boolean features to consider could have been somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps there were features derivable from the original features that were important for identifying the ugly duckling. The set of booleans in the vector can be extended with new features computed as boolean functions of the k {\displaystyle k} original features. The only canonical way to do this is to extend it with all possible Boolean functions. The resulting completed vectors have 2 k {\displaystyle 2^{k}} features. The ugly duckling theorem states that there is no ugly duckling because any two completed vectors will either be equal or differ in exactly half of the features. Proof. Let x and y be two vectors. If they are the same, then their completed vectors must also be the same because any Boolean function of x will agree with the same Boolean function of y. If x and y are different, then there exists a coordinate i {\displaystyle i} where the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of x {\displaystyle x} differs from the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of y {\displaystyle y} . Now the completed features contain every Boolean function on k {\displaystyle k} Boolean variables, with each one exactly once. Viewing these Boolean functions as polynomials in k {\displaystyle k} variables over GF(2), segregate the functions into pairs ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} where f {\displaystyle f} contains the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate as a linear term and g {\displaystyle g} is f {\displaystyle f} without that linear term. Now, for every such pair ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} , x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} will agree on exactly one of the two functions. If they agree on one, they must disagree on the other and vice versa. (This proof is believed to be due to Watanabe.) == Discussion == A possible way around the ugly duckling theorem would be to introduce a constraint on how similarity is measured by limiting the properties involved in classification, for instance, between A and B. However Medin et al. (1993) point out that this does not actually resolve the arbitrariness or bias problem since in what respects A is similar to B: "varies with the stimulus context and task, so that there is no unique answer, to the question of how similar is one object to another". For example, "a barberpole and a zebra would be more similar than a horse and a zebra if the feature striped had sufficient weight. Of course, if these feature weights were fixed, then these similarity relations would be constrained". Yet the property "striped" as a weight 'fix' or constraint is arbitrary itself, meaning: "unless one can specify such criteria, then the claim that categorization is based on attribute matching is almost entirely vacuous". Stamos (2003) remarked that some judgments of overall similarity are non-arbitrary in the sense they are useful: "Presumably, people's perceptual and conceptual processes have evolved that information that matters to human needs and goals can be roughly approximated by a similarity heuristic... If you are in the jungle and you see a tiger but you decide not to stereotype (perhaps because you believe that similarity is a false friend), then you will probably be eaten. In other words, in the biological world stereotyping based on veridical judgments of overall similarity statistically results in greater survival and reproductive success." Unless some properties are considered more salient, or 'weighted' more important than others, everything will appear equally similar, hence Watanabe (1986) wrote: "any objects, in so far as they are distinguishable, are equally similar". In a weaker setting that assumes infinitely many properties, Murphy and Medin (1985) give an example of two putative classified things, plums and lawnmowers: "Suppose that one is to list the attributes that plums and lawnmowers have in common in order to judge their similarity. It is easy to see that the list could be infinite: Both weigh less than 10,000 kg (and less than 10,001 kg), both did not exist 10,000,000 years ago (and 10,000,001 years ago), both cannot hear well, both can be dropped, both take up space, and so on. Likewise, the list of differences could be infinite… any two entities can be arbitrarily similar or dissimilar by changing the criterion of what counts as a relevant attribute." According to Woodward, the ugly duckling theorem is related to Schaffer's Conservation Law for Generalization Performance, which states that all algorithms for learning of boolean functions from input/output examples have the same overall generalization performance as random guessing. The latter result is generalized by Woodward to functions on countably infinite domains.
Application performance engineering
Application performance engineering is a method to develop and test application performance in various settings, including mobile computing, the cloud, and conventional information technology (IT). == Methodology == According to the American National Institute of Standards and Technology, nearly four out of every five dollars spent on the total cost of ownership of an application is directly attributable to finding and fixing issues post-deployment. A full one-third of this cost could be avoided with better software testing. Application performance engineering attempts to test software before it is published. While practices vary among organizations, the method attempts to emulate the real-world conditions that software in development will confront, including network deployment and access by mobile devices. Techniques include network virtualization.
Machine unlearning
Machine unlearning is a branch of machine learning focused on removing specific undesired element, such as private data, wrong or manipulated training data, outdated information, copyrighted material, harmful content, dangerous abilities, or misinformation, without needing to rebuild models from the ground up. Large language models, like the ones powering ChatGPT, may be asked not just to remove specific elements but also to unlearn a "concept," "fact," or "knowledge," which aren't easily linked to specific examples. New terms such as "model editing," "concept editing," and "knowledge unlearning" have emerged to describe this process. == History == Early research efforts were largely motivated by Article 17 of the GDPR, the European Union's privacy regulation commonly known as the "right to be forgotten" (RTBF), introduced in 2014. The GDPR did not anticipate that the development of large language models would make data erasure a complex task. This issue has since led to research on "machine unlearning," with a growing focus on removing copyrighted material, harmful content, dangerous capabilities, and misinformation. Just as early experiences in humans shape later ones, some concepts are more fundamental and harder to unlearn. A piece of knowledge may be so deeply embedded in the model's knowledge graph that unlearning it could cause internal contradictions, requiring adjustments to other parts of the graph to resolve them. Researchers have now also started studying unlearning in the context of removing incorrect or adversarially manipulated training data such as systematically biased labels or poisoning attacks. == Motivations == At present, machine unlearning is motivated by a growing range of concerns that extend well beyond the field's original focus on data privacy. A widely used taxonomy in the literature distinguishes two high-level categories of motivation. Access revocation covers cases where a data subject or rights holder requests the removal of data they own or control. This is most commonly associated with RTBF established by the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and analogous legislation such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). These regulations grant individuals the legal right to request erasure of their personal data from any system that has processed it, including models that were trained on it. Access revocation also encompasses the removal of copyrighted or pay-walled content that was incorporated into training corpora without the necessary licenses, a concern that has become prominent with the widespread use of largely web-scraped pre-training datasets. Model correction covers cases where the model exhibits undesirable behavior arising from the training data, regardless of any individual's request. This includes: Removal of toxic, biased, or unsafe outputs introduced by harmful content in the training set Correction of stale or factually incorrect associations, such as outdated knowledge encoded in a deployed model Removal of dangerous capabilities, such as detailed knowledge of the synthesis of chemical or biological agents Correction of the influence of data poisoning or adversarial attacks that have corrupted model behavior This second category has been formalized as corrective machine unlearning, which frames unlearning as a post-training mechanism for repairing the effects of bad or harmful training data. It is closely related to the AI safety literature, where data filtering alone has been found insufficient to prevent hazardous knowledge from being encoded in model weights, motivating unlearning as a complementary risk mitigation strategy. A further distinction has been drawn in the literature between removal {eliminating the influence of specific training data on model parameters) and suppression (preventing the model from generating specific outputs regardless of how that knowledge is encoded). These two goals are not equivalent: removing training data does not guarantee meaningful output suppression, and suppressing outputs does not constitute removal of the underlying training data's influence. == SISA Training == SISA is a training strategy consisting of four mechanisms designed to make machine unlearning more efficient by structuring how models are trained and updated. Its goal is to allow a system to remove the influence of specific data points without retraining an entire model from scratch. By reorganizing training data and workflows, SISA reduces the computational burden of unlearning requests. Sharding divides the training dataset into multiple disjoint subsets, or shards. Each shard is used to train a separate model instance. This ensures that a single data point affects only one shard, so unlearning it requires updating only the corresponding shard rather than the full model. Isolation refers to training each shard independently, with nothing shared across shards during the training process. This separation prevents cross-contamination between shards, ensuring that forgetting data in one shard does not require adjustments to any others. Slicing breaks the data within each shard into sequential slices and stores model states after each slice is trained on. When an unlearning request targets a piece of data, the system can roll back to the checkpoint before the point was seen and retrain only from that slice forward. This reduces retraining time even within a shard. Aggregation occurs at inference, when the model is queried. It combines the outputs of each shard to determine the output of the overall model. This is often through majority voting or averaging. This allows SISA-trained systems to behave like a single model despite being composed of multiple shard-level models. Together, these mechanisms enable machine learning systems to forget specific data points with far lower computational cost than full retraining. The trade-off is that sharding and slicing can lead to reduced model accuracy, worse generalization, and increased storage requirements for the intermediate checkpoints. This can be tolerable based on the needs of the individual or organization to comply with "right to be forgotten" or efficiently recover from backdoor attacks. == Algorithms == Machine unlearning algorithms are broadly categorized into exact and approximate methods, reflecting a fundamental trade-off between formal guarantees and computational tractability. === Exact Unlearning === Exact unlearning methods produce a model that is statistically indistinguishable from one retrained from scratch on the dataset with the forget data removed. The canonical framework for exact unlearning is SISA Training (Sharded, Isolated, Sliced, and Aggregated), introduced by Bourtoule et al. (2021). SISA partitions the training dataset into disjoint shards and trains a separate sub-model on each. At inference time, predictions are aggregated across sub-models. When an unlearning request is received, only the sub-model corresponding to the shard containing the target data requires retraining, reducing computational overhead proportionally to the number of shards. Exact methods provide the strongest guarantees but become prohibitively expensive for large pre-trained neural networks and are generally limited to settings where training can be structured in advance. === Approximate Unlearning === Approximate unlearning methods seek to produce a model whose behavior is sufficiently close to an exactly unlearned model without the cost of full retraining. These methods dominate practical applications. Common approaches include: Gradient Ascent: The model is fine-tuned by maximizing the loss on the forget set, directly degrading its performance on targeted data. This is the most direct approach but risks destabilizing performance on retained data. Random Labelling: The model is fine-tuned on the forget set using randomly shuffled labels, confusing its associations with the targeted data while producing a less aggressive weight shift than pure gradient ascent. Gradient Difference: Combines gradient ascent on the forget set with simultaneous gradient descent on the retain set, using the retain objective as a regularizer to preserve general model utility. KL Divergence Regularization: Minimizes the KL divergence between the outputs of the unlearned model and the original model on the retain set, anchoring behavior on data the model should remember. Weight Pruning and Fine-tuning: Parameters with the smallest L1-norm are pruned — targeting weights most weakly associated with general knowledge and potentially most associated with the forget set — followed by fine-tuning on the retain set to restore utility. Layer Reset and Fine-tuning: The first or last k layers are re-initialized to random weights and the model is subsequently fine-tuned on the retain set. This is a coarse but computationally simple approach. Selective Synaptic Dampening: Uses influence functions to estimate the effect of individual trainin
Text Retrieval Conference
The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) is an ongoing series of workshops focusing on a list of different information retrieval (IR) research areas, or tracks. It is co-sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (part of the office of the Director of National Intelligence), and began in 1992 as part of the TIPSTER Text program. Its purpose is to support and encourage research within the information retrieval community by providing the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluation of text retrieval methodologies and to increase the speed of lab-to-product transfer of technology. TREC's evaluation protocols have improved many search technologies. A 2010 study estimated that "without TREC, U.S. Internet users would have spent up to 3.15 billion additional hours using web search engines between 1999 and 2009." Hal Varian the Chief Economist at Google wrote that "The TREC data revitalized research on information retrieval. Having a standard, widely available, and carefully constructed set of data laid the groundwork for further innovation in this field." Each track has a challenge wherein NIST provides participating groups with data sets and test problems. Depending on track, test problems might be questions, topics, or target extractable features. Uniform scoring is performed so the systems can be fairly evaluated. After evaluation of the results, a workshop provides a place for participants to collect together thoughts and ideas and present current and future research work.Text Retrieval Conference started in 1992, funded by DARPA (US Defense Advanced Research Project) and run by NIST. Its purpose was to support research within the information retrieval community by providing the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluation of text retrieval methodologies. == Goals == Encourage retrieval search based on large text collections Increase communication among industry, academia, and government by creating an open forum for the exchange of research ideas Speed the transfer of technology from research labs into commercial products by demonstrating substantial improvements retrieval methodologies on real world problems To increase the availability of appropriate evaluation techniques for use by industry and academia including development of new evaluation techniques more applicable to current systems TREC is overseen by a program committee consisting of representatives from government, industry, and academia. For each TREC, NIST provide a set of documents and questions. Participants run their own retrieval system on the data and return to NIST a list of retrieved top-ranked documents. NIST pools the individual result judges the retrieved documents for correctness and evaluates the results. The TREC cycle ends with a workshop that is a forum for participants to share their experiences. == Relevance judgments in TREC == TREC defines relevance as: "If you were writing a report on the subject of the topic and would use the information contained in the document in the report, then the document is relevant." Most TREC retrieval tasks use binary relevance: a document is either relevant or not relevant. Some TREC tasks use graded relevance, capturing multiple degrees of relevance. Most TREC collections are too large to perform complete relevance assessment; for these collections it is impossible to calculate the absolute recall for each query. To decide which documents to assess, TREC usually uses a method call pooling. In this method, the top-ranked n documents from each contributing run are aggregated, and the resulting document set is judged completely. == Various TRECs == In 1992 TREC-1 was held at NIST. The first conference attracted 28 groups of researchers from academia and industry. It demonstrated a wide range of different approaches to the retrieval of text from large document collections .Finally TREC1 revealed the facts that automatic construction of queries from natural language query statements seems to work. Techniques based on natural language processing were no better no worse than those based on vector or probabilistic approach. TREC2 Took place in August 1993. 31 group of researchers participated in this. Two types of retrieval were examined. Retrieval using an ‘ad hoc’ query and retrieval using a ‘routing' query In TREC-3 a small group experiments worked with Spanish language collection and others dealt with interactive query formulation in multiple databases TREC-4 they made even shorter to investigate the problems with very short user statements TREC-5 includes both short and long versions of the topics with the goal of carrying out deeper investigation into which types of techniques work well on various lengths of topics In TREC-6 Three new tracks speech, cross language, high precision information retrieval were introduced. The goal of cross language information retrieval is to facilitate research on system that are able to retrieve relevant document regardless of language of the source document TREC-7 contained seven tracks out of which two were new Query track and very large corpus track. The goal of the query track was to create a large query collection TREC-8 contain seven tracks out of which two –question answering and web tracks were new. The objective of QA query is to explore the possibilities of providing answers to specific natural language queries TREC-9 Includes seven tracks In TREC-10 Video tracks introduced Video tracks design to promote research in content based retrieval from digital video In TREC-11 Novelty tracks introduced. The goal of novelty track is to investigate systems abilities to locate relevant and new information within the ranked set of documents returned by a traditional document retrieval system TREC-12 held in 2003 added three new tracks; Genome track, robust retrieval track, HARD (Highly Accurate Retrieval from Documents) == Tracks == === Current tracks === New tracks are added as new research needs are identified, this list is current for TREC 2018. CENTRE Track – Goal: run in parallel CLEF 2018, NTCIR-14, TREC 2018 to develop and tune an IR reproducibility evaluation protocol (new track for 2018). Common Core Track – Goal: an ad hoc search task over news documents. Complex Answer Retrieval (CAR) – Goal: to develop systems capable of answering complex information needs by collating information from an entire corpus. Incident Streams Track – Goal: to research technologies to automatically process social media streams during emergency situations (new track for TREC 2018). The News Track – Goal: partnership with The Washington Post to develop test collections in news environment (new for 2018). Precision Medicine Track – Goal: a specialization of the Clinical Decision Support track to focus on linking oncology patient data to clinical trials. Real-Time Summarization Track (RTS) – Goal: to explore techniques for real-time update summaries from social media streams. === Past tracks === Chemical Track – Goal: to develop and evaluate technology for large scale search in chemistry-related documents, including academic papers and patents, to better meet the needs of professional searchers, and specifically patent searchers and chemists. Clinical Decision Support Track – Goal: to investigate techniques for linking medical cases to information relevant for patient care Contextual Suggestion Track – Goal: to investigate search techniques for complex information needs that are highly dependent on context and user interests. Crowdsourcing Track – Goal: to provide a collaborative venue for exploring crowdsourcing methods both for evaluating search and for performing search tasks. Genomics Track – Goal: to study the retrieval of genomic data, not just gene sequences but also supporting documentation such as research papers, lab reports, etc. Last ran on TREC 2007. Dynamic Domain Track – Goal: to investigate domain-specific search algorithms that adapt to the dynamic information needs of professional users as they explore in complex domains. Enterprise Track – Goal: to study search over the data of an organization to complete some task. Last ran on TREC 2008. Entity Track – Goal: to perform entity-related search on Web data. These search tasks (such as finding entities and properties of entities) address common information needs that are not that well modeled as ad hoc document search. Cross-Language Track – Goal: to investigate the ability of retrieval systems to find documents topically regardless of source language. After 1999, this track spun off into CLEF. FedWeb Track – Goal: to select best resources to forward a query to, and merge the results so that most relevant are on the top. Federated Web Search Track – Goal: to investigate techniques for the selection and combination of search results from a large number of real on-line web search services. Filtering Track – Goal: to binarily decide retrieval of new