Workplace robotics safety

Workplace robotics safety is an aspect of occupational safety and health when robots are used in the workplace. This includes traditional industrial robots as well as emerging technologies such as drone aircraft and wearable robotic exoskeletons. Types of accidents include collisions, crushing, and injuries from mechanical parts. Hazard controls include physical barriers, good work practices, and proper maintenance. == Background == Many workplace robots are industrial robots used in manufacturing. According to the International Federation of Robotics, 1.7 million new robots are expected to be used in factories between 2017 and 2020. Emerging robot technologies include collaborative robots, personal care robots, construction robots, exoskeletons, autonomous vehicles, and drone aircraft (also known as unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs). Advances in automation technologies (e.g. fixed robots, collaborative and mobile robots, and exoskeletons) have the potential to improve work conditions but also to introduce workplace hazards in manufacturing workplaces. Fifty-six percent of robot injuries are classified as pinch injuries and 44% of injuries are classified as impact injuries. A 1987 study found that line workers are at the greatest risk, followed by maintenance workers, and programmers. Poor workplace design and human error caused most injuries. Despite the lack of occupational surveillance data on injuries associated specifically with robots, researchers from the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) identified 61 robot-related deaths between 1992 and 2015 using keyword searches of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries research database (see info from Center for Occupational Robotics Research). Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, NIOSH and its state partners have investigated 4 robot-related fatalities under the Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation Program. In addition the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has investigated robot-related deaths and injuries, which can be reviewed at OSHA Accident Search page. Injuries and fatalities could increase over time because of the increasing number of collaborative and co-existing robots, powered exoskeletons, and autonomous vehicles into the work environment. Safety standards are being developed by the Robotic Industries Association (RIA) in conjunction with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). On October 5, 2017, OSHA, NIOSH and RIA signed an alliance to work together to enhance technical expertise, identify and help address potential workplace hazards associated with traditional industrial robots and the emerging technology of human-robot collaboration installations and systems, and help identify needed research to reduce workplace hazards. On October 16 NIOSH launched the Center for Occupational Robotics Research to "provide scientific leadership to guide the development and use of occupational robots that enhance worker safety, health, and well being". So far, the research needs identified by NIOSH and its partners include: tracking and preventing injuries and fatalities, intervention and dissemination strategies to promote safe machine control and maintenance procedures, and on translating effective evidence-based interventions into workplace practice. == Hazards == Many hazards and injuries can result from the use of robots in the workplace. Some robots, notably those in a traditional industrial environment, are fast and powerful. This increases the potential for injury as one swing from a robotic arm, for example, could cause serious bodily harm. There are additional risks when a robot malfunctions or is in need of maintenance. A worker who is working on the robot may be injured because a malfunctioning robot is typically unpredictable. For example, a robotic arm that is part of a car assembly line may experience a jammed motor. A worker who is working to fix the jam may suddenly get hit by the arm the moment it becomes unjammed. Additionally, if a worker is standing in a zone that is overlapping with nearby robotic arms, he or she may get injured by other moving equipment. There are four types of accidents that can occur with robots: impact or collision accidents, crushing and trapping accidents, mechanical part accidents, and other accidents. Impact or collision accidents occur generally from malfunctions and unpredicted changes. Crushing and trapping accidents occur when a part of a worker's body becomes trapped or caught on robotic equipment. Mechanical part accidents can occur when a robot malfunctions and starts to "break down", where the ejection of parts or exposed wire can cause serious injury. Other accidents at just general accidents that occur from working with robots. There are seven sources of hazards that are associated with human interaction with robots and machines: human errors, control errors, unauthorized access, mechanical failures, environmental sources, power systems, and improper installation. Human errors could be anything from one line of incorrect code to a loose bolt on a robotic arm. Many hazards can stem from human-based error. Control errors are intrinsic and are usually not controllable nor predictable. Unauthorized access hazards occur when a person who is not familiar with the area enters the domain of a robot. Mechanical failures can happen at any time, and a faulty unit is usually unpredictable. Environmental sources are things such as electromagnetic or radio interference in the environment that can cause a robot to malfunction. Power systems are pneumatic, hydraulic, or electrical power sources; these power sources can malfunction and cause fires, leaks, or electrical shocks. Improper installation is fairly self-explanatory; a loose bolt or an exposed wire can lead to inherent hazards. === Emerging technologies === Emerging robotic technologies can reduce hazards to workers, but can also introduce new hazards. For example, robotic exoskeletons can be used in construction to reduce load to the spine, improve posture, and reduce fatigue; however, they can also increase chest pressure, limit mobility when moving out of the way of a falling object, and cause balance problems. Unmanned aerial vehicles are being used in the construction industry to do monitoring and inspections of buildings under construction. This reduces the need for humans to be in hazardous locations, but the risk of a UAV collision presents a hazard to workers. For collaborative robots, isolation is not possible. Possible hazard controls include collision avoidance systems, and making the robot less stiff to lessen the impact force. Robotic tech vest is a wearable device for humans, worn in Amazon warehouses. == Hazard controls == There are a few ways to prevent injuries by implementing hazard controls. There can be risk assessments at each of the various stages of a robot's development. Risk assessments can help gather information about a robot's status, how well it is being maintained, and if repairs are needed soon. By being aware of the status of a robot, injuries can be prevented and hazards reduced. Safeguarding devices can be implemented to reduce the risk of injuries. These can include engineering controls such as physical barriers, guard rails, presence-sensing safeguarding devices, etc. Awareness devices are usually used in conjunction with safeguarding devices. They are usually a system of rope or chain barriers with lights, signs, whistles, and horns. Their purpose it to be able to alert workers or personnel of certain dangers. Operator safeguards can also be in place. These usually utilize safeguarding devices to protect the operator and reduce risk of injury. Additionally, when an operator is within close proximity of a robot, the working speed of the robot can be reduced to ensure that the operator is in full control. This can be done by placing the robot in the manual or teach mode. It is also crucial to inform the programmer of the robot of what type of work the robot will be doing, how it will interact with other robots, and how it will work in relation to an operator. Proper maintenance of robotic equipment is also critical in order to reduce hazards. Maintaining a robot insures that it continues to function properly, thereby reducing the risks associated with a malfunction. One common safeguard used in industrial settings is the installation of robot safety fencing. These barriers, often made from durable materials such as mesh or polycarbonate, prevent accidental interactions between workers and robotic systems, reducing the risk of injury. Robot safety fencing is particularly important in environments where high-speed or powerful robots are used. == Regulations == Some existing regulations regarding robots and robotic systems include: ANSI/RIA R15.06 OSHA 29 CFR 1910.333 OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147 ISO 10218 ISO/TS 15066 ISO/DIS 13482

Interactions Corporation

Interactions LLC (also known as Interactions Corporation) is an American software company that develops voice and text-based virtual assistant applications for customer-service contact centers. Since September 2025, it has been a subsidiary of SoundHound AI. == History == Interactions was founded in 2004. In July 2011, the company announced a $12 million venture-capital funding round led by Sigma Partners. In November 2014, AT&T sold its "Watson" speech recognition platform and related patents to Interactions in exchange for equity. In May 2017, Interactions acquired the social media customer-engagement company Digital Roots; financial terms were not disclosed. On September 3, 2025, SoundHound AI completed its acquisition of Interactions Corporation, with the acquired company becoming a wholly owned subsidiary. == Products and services == Interactions' products have been described as automated voice portals and intelligent virtual assistants used for customer-service tasks. In 2011, Humana expanded the use of an Interactions voice portal for Medicare Part D enrollment.

Netflix Prize

The Netflix Prize was an open competition for the best collaborative filtering algorithm to predict user ratings for films, based on previous ratings without any other information about the users or films, i.e. without the users being identified except by numbers assigned for the contest. The competition was held by Netflix, a video streaming service, and was open to anyone who was neither connected with Netflix (current and former employees, agents, close relatives of Netflix employees, etc.) nor a resident of certain blocked countries (such as Cuba or North Korea). On September 21, 2009, the grand prize of US$1,000,000 was given to the BellKor's Pragmatic Chaos team which bested Netflix's own algorithm for predicting ratings by 10.06%. == Problem and data sets == Netflix provided a training data set of 100,480,507 ratings that 480,189 users gave to 17,770 movies. Each training rating is a quadruplet of the form . The user and movie fields are integer IDs, while grades are from 1 to 5 (integer) stars. The qualifying data set contains over 2,817,131 triplets of the form , with grades known only to the jury. A participating team's algorithm must predict grades on the entire qualifying set, but they are informed of the score for only half of the data: a quiz set of 1,408,342 ratings. The other half is the test set of 1,408,789, and performance on this is used by the jury to determine potential prize winners. Only the judges know which ratings are in the quiz set, and which are in the test set—this arrangement is intended to make it difficult to hill climb on the test set. Submitted predictions are scored against the true grades in the form of root mean squared error (RMSE), and the goal is to reduce this error as much as possible. Note that, while the actual grades are integers in the range 1 to 5, submitted predictions need not be. Netflix also identified a probe subset of 1,408,395 ratings within the training data set. The probe, quiz, and test data sets were chosen to have similar statistical properties. In summary, the data used in the Netflix Prize looks as follows: Training set (99,072,112 ratings not including the probe set; 100,480,507 including the probe set) Probe set (1,408,395 ratings) Qualifying set (2,817,131 ratings) consisting of: Test set (1,408,789 ratings), used to determine winners Quiz set (1,408,342 ratings), used to calculate leaderboard scores For each movie, the title and year of release are provided in a separate dataset. No information at all is provided about users. In order to protect the privacy of the customers, "some of the rating data for some customers in the training and qualifying sets have been deliberately perturbed in one or more of the following ways: deleting ratings; inserting alternative ratings and dates; and modifying rating dates." The training set is constructed such that the average user rated over 200 movies, and the average movie was rated by over 5000 users. But there is wide variance in the data—some movies in the training set have as few as 3 ratings, while one user rated over 17,000 movies. There was some controversy as to the choice of RMSE as the defining metric. It has been claimed that even as small an improvement as 1% RMSE results in a significant difference in the ranking of the "top-10" most recommended movies for a user. == Prizes == Prizes were based on improvement over Netflix's own algorithm, called Cinematch, or the previous year's score if a team has made improvement beyond a certain threshold. A trivial algorithm that predicts for each movie in the quiz set its average grade from the training data produces an RMSE of 1.0540. Cinematch uses "straightforward statistical linear models with a lot of data conditioning." The performance of Cinematch had plateaued by 2006. Using only the training data, Cinematch scores an RMSE of 0.9514 on the quiz data, roughly a 10% improvement over the trivial algorithm. Cinematch has a similar performance on the test set, 0.9525. In order to win the grand prize of $1,000,000, a participating team had to improve this by another 10%, to achieve 0.8572 on the test set. Such an improvement on the quiz set corresponds to an RMSE of 0.8563. As long as no team won the grand prize, a progress prize of $50,000 was awarded every year for the best result thus far. However, in order to win this prize, an algorithm had to improve the RMSE on the quiz set by at least 1% over the previous progress prize winner (or over Cinematch, the first year). If no submission succeeded, the progress prize was not to be awarded for that year. To win a progress or grand prize a participant had to provide source code and a description of the algorithm to the jury within one week after being contacted by them. Following verification the winner also had to provide a non-exclusive license to Netflix. Netflix would publish only the description, not the source code, of the system. (To keep their algorithm and source code secret, a team could choose not to claim a prize.) The jury also kept their predictions secret from other participants. A team could send as many attempts to predict grades as they wish. Originally submissions were limited to once a week, but the interval was quickly modified to once a day. A team's best submission so far counted as their current submission. Once one of the teams succeeded in improving the RMSE by 10% or more, the jury would issue a last call, giving all teams 30 days to send their submissions. Only then, the team with the best submission was asked for the algorithm description, source code, and non-exclusive license, and, after successful verification; declared a grand prize winner. The contest would last until the grand prize winner was declared. Had no one received the grand prize, it would have lasted for at least five years (until October 2, 2011). After that date, the contest could have been terminated at any time at Netflix's sole discretion. == Progress over the years == The competition began on October 2, 2006. By October 8, a team called WXYZConsulting had already beaten Cinematch's results. By October 15, there were three teams who had beaten Cinematch, one of them by 1.06%, enough to qualify for the annual progress prize. By June 2007 over 20,000 teams had registered for the competition from over 150 countries. 2,000 teams had submitted over 13,000 prediction sets. Over the first year of the competition, a handful of front-runners traded first place. The more prominent ones were: WXYZConsulting, a team of Wei Xu and Yi Zhang. (A front runner during November–December 2006.) ML@UToronto A, a team from the University of Toronto led by Prof. Geoffrey Hinton. (A front runner during parts of October–December 2006.) Gravity, a team of four scientists from the Budapest University of Technology (A front runner during January–May 2007.) BellKor, a group of scientists from AT&T Labs. (A front runner since May 2007.) Dinosaur Planet, a team of three undergraduates from Princeton University. (A front runner on September 3, 2007 for one hour before BellKor snatched back the lead.) The algorithms used by the leading teams were usually an ensemble of singular value decomposition, k-nearest neighbor, neural networks, and so on. On August 12, 2007, many contestants gathered at the KDD Cup and Workshop 2007, held at San Jose, California. During the workshop all four of the top teams on the leaderboard at that time presented their techniques. The team from IBM Research—Yan Liu, Saharon Rosset, Claudia Perlich, and Zhenzhen Kou—won the third place in Task 1 and first place in Task 2. Over the second year of the competition, only three teams reached the leading position: BellKor, a group of scientists from AT&T Labs (front runner during May 2007 – September 2008) BigChaos, a team of Austrian scientists from Commendo Research & Consulting (single team front runner since October 2008) BellKor in BigChaos, a joint team of the two leading single teams (a front runner since September 2008) === 2007 Progress Prize === On September 2, 2007, the competition entered the "last call" period for the 2007 Progress Prize. Over 40,000 teams from 186 countries had entered the contest. They had thirty days to tender submissions for consideration. At the beginning of this period the leading team was BellKor, with an RMSE of 0.8728 (8.26% improvement), followed by Dinosaur Planet (RMSE = 0.8769; 7.83% improvement), and Gravity (RMSE = 0.8785; 7.66% improvement). In the last hour of the last call period, an entry by "KorBell" took first place. This turned out to be an alternate name for Team BellKor. On November 13, 2007, team KorBell (formerly BellKor) was declared the winner of the $50,000 Progress Prize with an RMSE of 0.8712 (8.43% improvement). The team consisted of three researchers from AT&T Labs, Yehuda Koren, Robert Bell, and Chris Volinsky. As required, they published a description of their a

Noise-based logic

Noise-based logic (NBL) is a class of multivalued deterministic logic schemes, developed in the twenty-first century, where the logic values and bits are represented by different realizations of a stochastic process. The concept of noise-based logic and its name was created by Laszlo B. Kish. In its foundation paper it is noted that the idea was inspired by the stochasticity of brain signals and by the unconventional noise-based communication schemes, such as the Kish cypher. == The noise-based logic space and hyperspace == The logic values are represented by multi-dimensional "vectors" (orthogonal functions) and their superposition, where the orthogonal basis vectors are independent noises. By the proper combination (products or set-theoretical products) of basis-noises, which are called noise-bit, a logic hyperspace can be constructed with D(N) = 2N number of dimensions, where N is the number of noise-bits. Thus N noise-bits in a single wire correspond to a system of 2N classical bits that can express 22N different logic values. Independent realizations of a stochastic process of zero mean have zero cross-correlation with each other and with other stochastic processes of zero mean. Thus the basis noise vectors are orthogonal not only to each other but they and all the noise-based logic states (superpositions) are orthogonal also to any background noises in the hardware. Therefore, the noise-based logic concept is robust against background noises, which is a property that can potentially offer a high energy-efficiency. == The types of signals used in noise-based logic == In the paper, where noise-based logic was first introduced, generic stochastic-processes with zero mean were proposed and a system of orthogonal sinusoidal signals were also proposed as a deterministic-signal version of the logic system. The mathematical analysis about statistical errors and signal energy was limited to the cases of Gaussian noises and superpositions as logic signals in the basic logic space and their products and superpositions of their products in the logic hyperspace (see also. In the subsequent brain logic scheme, the logic signals were (similarly to neural signals) unipolar spike sequences generated by a Poisson process, and set-theoretical unifications (superpositions) and intersections (products) of different spike sequences. Later, in the instantaneous noise-based logic schemes and computation works, random telegraph waves (periodic time, bipolar, with fixed absolute value of amplitude) were also utilized as one of the simplest stochastic processes available for NBL. With choosing unit amplitude and symmetric probabilities, the resulting random-telegraph wave has 0.5 probability to be in the +1 or in the −1 state which is held over the whole clock period. == The noise-based logic gates == Noise-based logic gates can be classified according to the method the input identifies the logic value at the input. The first gates analyzed the statistical correlations between the input signal and the reference noises. The advantage of these is the robustness against background noise. The disadvantage is the slow speed and higher hardware complexity. The instantaneous logic gates are fast, they have low complexity but they are not robust against background noises. With either neural spike type signals or with bipolar random-telegraph waves of unity absolute amplitude, and randomness only in the sign of the amplitude offer very simple instantaneous logic gates. Then linear or analog devices unnecessary and the scheme can operate in the digital domain. However, whenever instantaneous logic must be interfaced with classical logic schemes, the interface must use correlator-based logic gates for an error-free signal. == Universality of noise-based logic == All the noise-based logic schemes listed above have been proven universal. The papers typically produce the NOT and the AND gates to prove universality, because having both of them is a satisfactory condition for the universality of a Boolean logic. == Computation by noise-based logic == The string verification work over a slow communication channel shows a powerful computing application where the methods is inherently based on calculating the hash function. The scheme is based on random telegraph waves and it is mentioned in the paper that the authors intuitively conclude that the intelligence of the brain is using similar operations to make a reasonably good decision based on a limited amount of information. The superposition of the first D(N) = 2N integer numbers can be produced with only 2N operations, which the authors call "Achilles ankle operation" in the paper. == Computer chip realization of noise-based logic == Preliminary schemes have already been published to utilize noise-based logic in practical computers. However, it is obvious from these papers that this young field has yet a long way to go before it will be seen in everyday applications.

Overwatch

Overwatch (abbreviated as OW) is a multimedia franchise centered on a series of multiplayer first-person shooter (FPS) video games developed by Blizzard Entertainment. Overwatch was released in 2016. Overwatch 2 was released in 2022 and the original game was taken offline upon its release, though Blizzard renamed it back to Overwatch in 2026. Overwatch features hero-based combat between two teams of players fighting over various objectives, along with other traditional gameplay modes. Released in 2016, Overwatch lacked a traditional story mode. Instead, Blizzard employed a transmedia storytelling strategy to disseminate lore regarding the game's characters, releasing comics and other literary media, as well as animated media that includes short films. The game enjoyed both critical and commercial success, and garnered a devoted following. The fan community around the franchise has produced a large amount of content including art, cosplay, fan fiction, anime-influenced music videos, Internet memes, and pornography. Blizzard helped launch and promote an esports scene surrounding the game, including an annual Overwatch World Cup, Overwatch League a minor league, and the Overwatch Champions Series which borrowed elements found in traditional American sports leagues. == Gameplay == Both games in the Overwatch series are team-based hero shooters. Players select a hero character from a large roster (52 as of Season 2), divided among three class types. These are: Tanks, who have higher health and generally meant to help protect their teammates from damage, but are larger and easier to hit; Damage, who act as the team's offensive leads; and Support, who heal, provide buffs for teammates, or de-buff the opposing team. Each role also features sub-roles with extra passives. These sub-roles include 'Initiator', 'Stalwart', and 'Bruiser' for Tank. 'Specialist', 'Flanker', 'Recon', and 'Sharpshooter' for Damage. 'Medic', 'Tactician', and 'Survivor' for Support. Players are generally free to change to different heroes while inside their spawn room during the course of a match in response to the current tactics employed by other players. As of the development of Overwatch 2, a standard game features one tank player, two damage players and two support players, a change from having two of each class in its predecessor. Players choose their class before the match, and can only pick characters within that class for the duration of the game. There are different styles of game modes, however, that allow players to choose characters from any class throughout the game. Each hero has a skill kit that includes a primary attack, active skills that require a cooldown period before they can be used again, passive skills that remain active at all times, and an Ultimate skill that can only be used once they fill their Ultimate meter either by damaging opponents, mitigating damage, healing teammates or by passively generating it over time. An update in 2025 saw each hero receive a total of four unique abilities known as perks. Each hero has two minor and two major perks; minor perks consist of smaller changes to a hero's kit, while major perks are intended to affect the match more significantly. At the beginning of each match, all heroes are set to level 1 for each player. As the match progresses, players can individually level up their respective heroes, minor perks are unlocked at level 2, and major perks are unlocked at the maximum level 3. When perks become available, players may only select one of each type of perk; a selected perk becomes irreversibly attached to the current hero for the remainder of the match. If a player switches to another hero mid-match, the previously selected hero retains their level and perk progress. Game types of Overwatch are split between standard matches, competitive play, custom games, and arcade modes. Standard matches have matchmaking based loosely on the player's skill level as measured by the game. Competitive mode uses more strict matchmaking based on a player's current rank on the competitive ladder, with their rank increasing or decreasing when they win or lose a game, respectively. Arcade modes do not use matchmaking and are generally more experimental modes compared to standard and competitive modes. Custom games are created via the workshop and can be utilised to make game modes that are very different from the base game. The workshop, is the software in Overwatch which creates the game using either presets and settings or rules and conditions made by code. These game modes can be published directly onto Overwatch’s custom browse tab or shared off platform using a 5 digit alphanumeric code. Standard and competitive game modes are randomly selected at the start of each match, and are objective based, requiring teams to control a fixed objective point for a duration of time, or escort a payload to a target zone before match time expires. These modes include: Assault (introduced in Overwatch): Also known as 2 Capture Points (or 2CP), Assault has the attacking team tasked with capturing two target points in sequence on the map, while the defending team must stop them. Assault-style maps were removed from main gameplay rotation after Overwatch 2 released but available in the game's arcade mode. It is still available in the game's custom game modes. Since Season 2, Assault-style maps are available in Arcade Mode daily routines. Escort (introduced in Overwatch): Also known as "Payload" by the community, The attacking team is tasked with escorting a payload to a certain delivery point before time runs out, while the defending team must stop them. The payload vehicle moves along a fixed track when any player on the attacking team is close to it, increasing in speed if multiple attackers are present, the increase capping at 3, but will stop if a defending player is nearby; should no attacker be near the vehicle, it will start to move backwards along the track. The payload will also heal any attacking players by 10 health per second while they are near the payload. Passing specific checkpoints will extend the match time and prevent the payload from moving backwards from that point. Hybrid (Assault/Escort) (introduced in Overwatch): The attacking team has to capture the payload (as if it were a target point from Assault) and escort it to its destination, while the defending team tries to hold them back. Control (introduced in Overwatch): Each team tries to capture and maintain a common control point until their capture percentage reaches 100%. This game mode is played in a best-of-three format. Control maps are laid out in a symmetric fashion so no team has an intrinsic position advantage. Push (introduced in Overwatch 2's launch): Each team attempts to secure control of a large robot that pushes one of two barriers to the opposing team's side of the map, whilst being escorted by at least one team member, stopping when enemy players are nearby, similar to the payload movement system in Escort. The team that pushes the payload fully to the other side, or furthest into the enemy territory before the time runs out, wins the match. Flashpoint (introduced in Overwatch 2 in 2023): Similar to Control, each team attempts to capture and maintain a common control point until their capture percentage reaches 100%. This game mode takes place on significantly larger maps with five separate control points, which take a shorter amount of time to capture as compared to a standard Control map. A central control point is always activated first; after it is secured by one team, the remaining four are activated in a random order. The first team to secure three control points wins. Clash (introduced in Overwatch 2 in 2024): Clash maps feature symmetrical maps with five control points. Teams initially vie for control of the central point, with the winning team progressing to the next control point, towards the opponent's base. Opponents can push back by winning control points and shifting the next point away from their base. If a team captures the point closest to the opponent's base, they win. Otherwise the match plays out until one team wins control five times. Arcade modes may include variations of the above modes with experimental rules, and can also include modes like Deathmatch and Capture the Flag. Other common arcade modes include: Elimination (introduced in Overwatch in 2016): Two teams face off in a series of rounds, attempting to wipe out the other team; once a player is killed they remain out of the game until the next round, though they can be revived by Mercy's 'Resurrect' ability. If no team has won a round by a certain time, then the winners are decided by the team that can first take a neutral control point. Players cannot change heroes until the next round. Some of these can be played in "lockout" mode, in which the heroes selected by the winning team for a round are "locked" and cannot be selected in future rounds. Total Mayhem (i

Shape context

Shape context is a feature descriptor used in object recognition. Serge Belongie and Jitendra Malik proposed the term in their paper "Matching with Shape Contexts" in 2000. == Theory == The shape context is intended to be a way of describing shapes that allows for measuring shape similarity and the recovering of point correspondences. The basic idea is to pick n points on the contours of a shape. For each point pi on the shape, consider the n − 1 vectors obtained by connecting pi to all other points. The set of all these vectors is a rich description of the shape localized at that point but is far too detailed. The key idea is that the distribution over relative positions is a robust, compact, and highly discriminative descriptor. So, for the point pi, the coarse histogram of the relative coordinates of the remaining n − 1 points, h i ( k ) = # { q ≠ p i : ( q − p i ) ∈ bin ( k ) } {\displaystyle h_{i}(k)=\#\{q\neq p_{i}:(q-p_{i})\in {\mbox{bin}}(k)\}} is defined to be the shape context of p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} . The bins are normally taken to be uniform in log-polar space. The fact that the shape context is a rich and discriminative descriptor can be seen in the figure below, in which the shape contexts of two different versions of the letter "A" are shown. (a) and (b) are the sampled edge points of the two shapes. (c) is the diagram of the log-polar bins used to compute the shape context. (d) is the shape context for the point marked with a circle in (a), (e) is that for the point marked as a diamond in (b), and (f) is that for the triangle. As can be seen, since (d) and (e) are the shape contexts for two closely related points, they are quite similar, while the shape context in (f) is very different. For a feature descriptor to be useful, it needs to have certain invariances. In particular it needs to be invariant to translation, scaling, small perturbations, and, depending on the application, rotation. Translational invariance comes naturally to shape context. Scale invariance is obtained by normalizing all radial distances by the mean distance α {\displaystyle \alpha } between all the point pairs in the shape although the median distance can also be used. Shape contexts are empirically demonstrated to be robust to deformations, noise, and outliers using synthetic point set matching experiments. One can provide complete rotational invariance in shape contexts. One way is to measure angles at each point relative to the direction of the tangent at that point (since the points are chosen on edges). This results in a completely rotationally invariant descriptor. But of course this is not always desired since some local features lose their discriminative power if not measured relative to the same frame. Many applications in fact forbid rotational invariance e.g. distinguishing a "6" from a "9". == Use in shape matching == A complete system that uses shape contexts for shape matching consists of the following steps (which will be covered in more detail in the Details of Implementation section): Randomly select a set of points that lie on the edges of a known shape and another set of points on an unknown shape. Compute the shape context of each point found in step 1. Match each point from the known shape to a point on an unknown shape. To minimize the cost of matching, first choose a transformation (e.g. affine, thin plate spline, etc.) that warps the edges of the known shape to the unknown (essentially aligning the two shapes). Then select the point on the unknown shape that most closely corresponds to each warped point on the known shape. Calculate the "shape distance" between each pair of points on the two shapes. Use a weighted sum of the shape context distance, the image appearance distance, and the bending energy (a measure of how much transformation is required to bring the two shapes into alignment). To identify the unknown shape, use a nearest-neighbor classifier to compare its shape distance to shape distances of known objects. == Details of implementation == === Step 1: Finding a list of points on shape edges === The approach assumes that the shape of an object is essentially captured by a finite subset of the points on the internal or external contours on the object. These can be simply obtained using the Canny edge detector and picking a random set of points from the edges. Note that these points need not and in general do not correspond to key-points such as maxima of curvature or inflection points. It is preferable to sample the shape with roughly uniform spacing, though it is not critical. === Step 2: Computing the shape context === This step is described in detail in the Theory section. === Step 3: Computing the cost matrix === Consider two points p and q that have normalized K-bin histograms (i.e. shape contexts) g(k) and h(k). As shape contexts are distributions represented as histograms, it is natural to use the χ2 test statistic as the "shape context cost" of matching the two points: C S = 1 2 ∑ k = 1 K [ g ( k ) − h ( k ) ] 2 g ( k ) + h ( k ) {\displaystyle C_{S}={\frac {1}{2}}\sum _{k=1}^{K}{\frac {[g(k)-h(k)]^{2}}{g(k)+h(k)}}} The values of this range from 0 to 1. In addition to the shape context cost, an extra cost based on the appearance can be added. For instance, it could be a measure of tangent angle dissimilarity (particularly useful in digit recognition): C A = 1 2 ‖ ( cos ⁡ ( θ 1 ) sin ⁡ ( θ 1 ) ) − ( cos ⁡ ( θ 2 ) sin ⁡ ( θ 2 ) ) ‖ {\displaystyle C_{A}={\frac {1}{2}}{\begin{Vmatrix}{\dbinom {\cos(\theta _{1})}{\sin(\theta _{1})}}-{\dbinom {\cos(\theta _{2})}{\sin(\theta _{2})}}\end{Vmatrix}}} This is half the length of the chord in unit circle between the unit vectors with angles θ 1 {\displaystyle \theta _{1}} and θ 2 {\displaystyle \theta _{2}} . Its values also range from 0 to 1. Now the total cost of matching the two points could be a weighted-sum of the two costs: C = ( 1 − β ) C S + β C A {\displaystyle C=(1-\beta )C_{S}+\beta C_{A}\!\,} Now for each point pi on the first shape and a point qj on the second shape, calculate the cost as described and call it Ci,j. This is the cost matrix. === Step 4: Finding the matching that minimizes total cost === Now, a one-to-one matching π ( i ) {\displaystyle \pi (i)} that matches each point pi on shape 1 and qj on shape 2 that minimizes the total cost of matching, H ( π ) = ∑ i C ( p i , q π ( i ) ) {\displaystyle H(\pi )=\sum _{i}C\left(p_{i},q_{\pi (i)}\right)} is needed. This can be done in O ( N 3 ) {\displaystyle O(N^{3})} time using the Hungarian method, although there are more efficient algorithms. To have robust handling of outliers, one can add "dummy" nodes that have a constant but reasonably large cost of matching to the cost matrix. This would cause the matching algorithm to match outliers to a "dummy" if there is no real match. === Step 5: Modeling transformation === Given the set of correspondences between a finite set of points on the two shapes, a transformation T : R 2 → R 2 {\displaystyle T:\mathbb {R} ^{2}\to \mathbb {R} ^{2}} can be estimated to map any point from one shape to the other. There are several choices for this transformation, described below. ==== Affine ==== The affine model is a standard choice: T ( p ) = A p + o {\displaystyle T(p)=Ap+o\!} . The least squares solution for the matrix A {\displaystyle A} and the translational offset vector o is obtained by: o = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( p i − q π ( i ) ) , A = ( Q + P ) t {\displaystyle o={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(p_{i}-q_{\pi (i)}\right),A=(Q^{+}P)^{t}} Where P = ( 1 p 11 p 12 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 1 p n 1 p n 2 ) {\displaystyle P={\begin{pmatrix}1&p_{11}&p_{12}\\\vdots &\vdots &\vdots \\1&p_{n1}&p_{n2}\end{pmatrix}}} with a similar expression for Q {\displaystyle Q\!} . Q + {\displaystyle Q^{+}\!} is the pseudoinverse of Q {\displaystyle Q\!} . ==== Thin plate spline ==== The thin plate spline (TPS) model is the most widely used model for transformations when working with shape contexts. A 2D transformation can be separated into two TPS function to model a coordinate transform: T ( x , y ) = ( f x ( x , y ) , f y ( x , y ) ) {\displaystyle T(x,y)=\left(f_{x}(x,y),f_{y}(x,y)\right)} where each of the ƒx and ƒy have the form: f ( x , y ) = a 1 + a x x + a y y + ∑ i = 1 n ω i U ( ‖ ( x i , y i ) − ( x , y ) ‖ ) , {\displaystyle f(x,y)=a_{1}+a_{x}x+a_{y}y+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\omega _{i}U\left({\begin{Vmatrix}(x_{i},y_{i})-(x,y)\end{Vmatrix}}\right),} and the kernel function U ( r ) {\displaystyle U(r)\!} is defined by U ( r ) = r 2 log ⁡ r 2 {\displaystyle U(r)=r^{2}\log r^{2}\!} . The exact details of how to solve for the parameters can be found elsewhere but it essentially involves solving a linear system of equations. The bending energy (a measure of how much transformation is needed to align the points) will also be easily obtained. ==== Regularized TPS ==== The TPS formulation above has exact matching requirement for the pairs of points on the two shapes. For noisy data, it is best to

Fuzzy finite element

The fuzzy finite element method combines the well-established finite element method with the concept of fuzzy numbers, the latter being a special case of a fuzzy set. The advantage of using fuzzy numbers instead of real numbers lies in the incorporation of uncertainty (on material properties, parameters, geometry, initial conditions, etc.) in the finite element analysis. One way to establish a fuzzy finite element (FE) analysis is to use existing FE software (in-house or commercial) as an inner-level module to compute a deterministic result, and to add an outer-level loop to handle the fuzziness (uncertainty). This outer-level loop comes down to solving an optimization problem. If the inner-level deterministic module produces monotonic behavior with respect to the input variables, then the outer-level optimization problem is greatly simplified, since in this case the extrema will be located at the vertices of the domain.