Self-supervised learning

Self-supervised learning (SSL) is a paradigm in machine learning where a model is trained on a task using the data itself to generate supervisory signals, rather than relying on externally-provided labels. In the context of neural networks, self-supervised learning aims to leverage inherent structures or relationships within the input data to create meaningful training signals. SSL tasks are designed so that solving them requires capturing essential features or relationships in the data. The input data is typically augmented or transformed in a way that creates pairs of related samples, where one sample serves as the input, and the other is used to formulate the supervisory signal. This augmentation can involve introducing noise, cropping, rotation, or other transformations. Self-supervised learning more closely imitates the way humans learn to classify objects. During SSL, the model learns in two steps. First, the task is solved based on an auxiliary or pretext classification task using pseudo-labels, which help to initialize the model parameters. Next, the actual task is performed with supervised or unsupervised learning. Self-supervised learning has produced promising results in recent years, and has found practical application in fields such as audio processing, and is being used by Facebook and others for speech recognition. == Pseudo-labels == Pseudo-labels are automatically generated labels that a model assigns to unlabeled data based on its own predictions. They are widely used in self-supervised and semi-supervised learning, where ground-truth annotations are limited or unavailable. By treating predicted labels as surrogate ground truth, learning algorithms can make use of large quantities of unlabeled data in the training process. Pseudo-labeling also plays an important role in systems that must adapt to concept drift, where the statistical properties of the data change over time. In these scenarios, the model may detect that an incoming instance deviates from previously learned behavior. The system then generates a classification result for that instance, and this predicted class is used as a pseudo-label for updating or retraining model components that are becoming outdated. This approach enables continuous adaptation in dynamic environments without requiring manual annotation. In many adaptive learning pipelines, pseudo-labels are chosen when the classifier produces sufficiently confident predictions, reducing the risk of propagating errors. These pseudo-labeled instances are then incorporated into training to refresh or evolve the model's understanding of emerging data patterns, particularly when existing components show signs of “aging” due to drift or distributional shifts. This strategy reduces reliance on manual labeling while helping maintain long-term model performance. == Types == === Autoassociative self-supervised learning === Autoassociative self-supervised learning is a specific category of self-supervised learning where a neural network is trained to reproduce or reconstruct its own input data. In other words, the model is tasked with learning a representation of the data that captures its essential features or structure, allowing it to regenerate the original input. The term "autoassociative" comes from the fact that the model is essentially associating the input data with itself. This is often achieved using autoencoders, which are a type of neural network architecture used for representation learning. Autoencoders consist of an encoder network that maps the input data to a lower-dimensional representation (latent space), and a decoder network that reconstructs the input from this representation. The training process involves presenting the model with input data and requiring it to reconstruct the same data as closely as possible. The loss function used during training typically penalizes the difference between the original input and the reconstructed output (e.g. mean squared error). By minimizing this reconstruction error, the autoencoder learns a meaningful representation of the data in its latent space. === Contrastive self-supervised learning === For a binary classification task, training data can be divided into positive examples and negative examples. Positive examples are those that match the target. For example, if training a classifier to identify birds, the positive training data would include images that contain birds. Negative examples would be images that do not. Contrastive self-supervised learning uses both positive and negative examples. The loss function in contrastive learning is used to minimize the distance between positive sample pairs, while maximizing the distance between negative sample pairs. An early example uses a pair of 1-dimensional convolutional neural networks to process a pair of images and maximize their agreement. Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training (CLIP) allows joint pretraining of a text encoder and an image encoder, such that a matching image-text pair have image encoding vector and text encoding vector that span a small angle (having a large cosine similarity). InfoNCE (Noise-Contrastive Estimation) is a method to optimize two models jointly, based on Noise Contrastive Estimation (NCE). Given a set X = { x 1 , … x N } {\displaystyle X=\left\{x_{1},\ldots x_{N}\right\}} of N {\displaystyle N} random samples containing one positive sample from p ( x t + k ∣ c t ) {\displaystyle p\left(x_{t+k}\mid c_{t}\right)} and N − 1 {\displaystyle N-1} negative samples from the 'proposal' distribution p ( x t + k ) {\displaystyle p\left(x_{t+k}\right)} , it minimizes the following loss function: L N = − E X [ log ⁡ f k ( x t + k , c t ) ∑ x j ∈ X f k ( x j , c t ) ] {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\mathrm {N} }=-\mathbb {E} _{X}\left[\log {\frac {f_{k}\left(x_{t+k},c_{t}\right)}{\sum _{x_{j}\in X}f_{k}\left(x_{j},c_{t}\right)}}\right]} === Non-contrastive self-supervised learning === Non-contrastive self-supervised learning (NCSSL) uses only positive examples. Counterintuitively, NCSSL converges on a useful local minimum rather than reaching a trivial solution, with zero loss. For the example of binary classification, it would trivially learn to classify each example as positive. Effective NCSSL requires an extra predictor on the online side that does not back-propagate on the target side. === Joint-Embedding and Predictive Architectures === A major class of self-supervised learning moves beyond contrastive pairs, instead maximizing the agreement between views while preventing collapse through statistical constraints. Rooted in Deep Canonical Correlation Analysis (Deep CCA), this approach includes Joint-Embedding Architectures (JEA) like Barlow Twins and VICReg, which enforce covariance constraints to learn invariant representations without negative sampling. Deep Latent Variable Path Modelling (DLVPM) generalizes this to multimodal systems, using path models to enforce correlation and orthogonality across diverse data types. In 2022 Yann LeCun introduced Joint-Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPA) as a step towards decision making, reasoning, and autonomous human intelligence in machines, including self-improvement through autonomous learning. Founded in representation learning, LeCun included the concept of a “world model” in JEPA which aims to enable machines to replicate human intellect by providing machines with a concept for the world in which they exist. Unlike autoencoders, JEPAs operate entirely in latent space, avoiding pixel-level noise to focus on semantic structure. Rather than just learning invariance, JEPAs learn by predicting masked latent representations from visible context. JEPA has been applied to domains such as image analysis, audio processing, and motion in images and video. == Comparison with other forms of machine learning == SSL belongs to supervised learning methods insofar as the goal is to generate a classified output from the input. At the same time, however, it does not require the explicit use of labeled input-output pairs. Instead, correlations, metadata embedded in the data, or domain knowledge present in the input are implicitly and autonomously extracted from the data. These supervisory signals, extracted from the data, can then be used for training. SSL is similar to unsupervised learning in that it does not require labels in the sample data. Unlike unsupervised learning, however, learning is not done using inherent data structures. Semi-supervised learning combines supervised and unsupervised learning, requiring only a small portion of the learning data be labeled. In transfer learning, a model designed for one task is reused on a different task. Training an autoencoder intrinsically constitutes a self-supervised process, because the output pattern needs to become an optimal reconstruction of the input pattern itself. However, in current jargon, the term 'self-supervised' often refers to tasks based on a pretext-task training setup

Monitoring as a service

Monitoring as a service (MaaS) is a cloud-based framework for the deployment of monitoring functionalities for various other services and applications within the cloud. The most common application for MaaS is online state monitoring, which continuously tracks certain states of applications, networks, systems, instances or any element that may be deployable within the cloud.

NOMINATE (scaling method)

NOMINATE (an acronym for nominal three-step estimation) is a multidimensional scaling application developed by US political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal in the early 1980s to analyze preferential and choice data, such as legislative roll-call voting behavior. In its most well-known application, members of the US Congress are placed on a two-dimensional map, with politicians who are ideologically similar (i.e. who often vote the same) being close together. One of these two dimensions corresponds to the familiar left–right political spectrum (liberal–conservative in the United States). As computing capabilities grew, Poole and Rosenthal developed multiple iterations of their NOMINATE procedure: the original D-NOMINATE method, W-NOMINATE, and most recently DW-NOMINATE (for dynamic, weighted NOMINATE). In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE. In 2016, the society awarded Poole its Career Achievement Award, stating that "the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores." == Procedure == The main procedure is an application of multidimensional scaling techniques to political choice data. Though there are important technical differences between these types of NOMINATE scaling procedures, all operate under the same fundamental assumptions. First, that alternative choices can be projected on a basic, low-dimensional (often two-dimensional) Euclidean space. Second, within that space, individuals have utility functions which are bell-shaped (normally distributed), and maximized at their ideal point. Because individuals also have symmetric, single-peaked utility functions which center on their ideal point, ideal points represent individuals' most preferred outcomes. That is, individuals most desire outcomes closest their ideal point, and will choose/vote probabilistically for the closest outcome. Ideal points can be recovered from observing choices, with individuals exhibiting similar preferences placed more closely than those behaving dissimilarly. It is helpful to compare this procedure to producing maps based on driving distances between cities. For example, Los Angeles is about 1,800 miles from St. Louis; St. Louis is about 1,200 miles from Miami; and Miami is about 2,700 miles from Los Angeles. From this (dis)similarities data, any map of these three cities should place Miami far from Los Angeles, with St. Louis somewhere in between (though a bit closer to Miami than Los Angeles). Just as cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco would be clustered on a map, NOMINATE places ideologically similar legislators (e.g., liberal Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.)) closer to each other, and farther from dissimilar legislators (e.g., conservative Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)) based on the degree of agreement between their roll call voting records. At the heart of the NOMINATE procedures (and other multidimensional scaling methods, such as Poole's Optimal Classification method) are algorithms they utilize to arrange individuals and choices in low dimensional (usually two-dimensional) space. Thus, NOMINATE scores provide "maps" of legislatures. Using NOMINATE procedures to study congressional roll call voting behavior from the First Congress to the present-day, Poole and Rosenthal published Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting in 1997 and the revised edition Ideology and Congress in 2007. In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were named the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE, a recognition conferred to "individual(s) for developing statistical software that makes a significant research contribution". In 2016, Keith T. Poole was awarded the Society for Political Methodology's Career Achievement Award. The citation for this award reads, in part, "One can say perfectly correctly, and without any hyperbole: the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores. NOMINATE has produced data that entire bodies of our discipline—and many in the press—have relied on to understand the U.S. Congress." == Dimensions == Poole and Rosenthal demonstrate that—despite the many complexities of congressional representation and politics—roll call voting in both the House and the Senate can be organized and explained by no more than two dimensions throughout the sweep of American history. The first dimension (horizontal or x-axis) is the familiar left-right (or liberal-conservative) spectrum on economic matters. The second dimension (vertical or y-axis) picks up attitudes on cross-cutting, salient issues of the day (which include or have included slavery, bimetallism, civil rights, regional, and social/lifestyle issues). Rosenthal and Poole have initially argued that the first dimension refers to socio-economic matters and the second dimension to race-relations. However, the often confusing and residual nature of the second dimension has led to the second dimension being largely ignored by other researchers. For the most part, congressional voting is uni-dimensional, with most of the variation in voting patterns explained by placement along the liberal-conservative first dimension. While the first dimension of the DW-NOMINATE score is able to predict results at 83% accuracy, the addition of the second dimension only increases accuracy to 85%. Furthermore, the second dimension only provided a significant increase in accuracy for Congresses 1-99. As late as the 1990s, the second dimension was able to measure partisan splits in abortion and gun rights issues. However, a 2017 analysis found that since 1987, the votes of the US Congress had best fit a one-dimensional model, suggesting increasing party polarization after 1987. == Interpretation of nominate scores == For illustrative purposes, consider the following plots which use W-NOMINATE scores to scale members of Congress and uses the probabilistic voting model (in which legislators farther from the "cutting line" between "yea" and "nay" outcomes become more likely to vote in the predicted manner) to illustrate some major Congressional votes in the 1990s. Some of these votes, like the House's vote on President Clinton's welfare reform package (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996) are best modeled through the use of the first (economic liberal-conservative) dimension. On the welfare reform vote, nearly all Republicans joined the moderate-conservative bloc of House Democrats in voting for the bill, while opposition was virtually confined to the most liberal Democrats in the House. The errors (those representatives on the "wrong" side of the cutting line which separates predicted "yeas" and predicted "nays") are generally close to the cutting line, which is what we would expect. A legislator directly on the cutting line is indifferent between voting "yea" and "nay" on the measure. All members are shown on the left panel of the plot, while only errors are shown on the right panel: Economic ideology also dominates the Senate vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1995: On other votes, however, a second dimension (which has recently come to represent attitudes on cultural and lifestyle issues) is important. For example, roll call votes on gun control routinely split party coalitions, with socially conservative "blue dog" Democrats joining most Republicans in opposing additional regulation and socially liberal Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting gun control. The addition of the second dimension accounts for these inter-party differences, and the cutting line is more horizontal than vertical (meaning the cleavage is found on the second dimension rather than the first dimension on these votes) This pattern was evident in the 1991 House vote to require waiting periods on handguns: == Political ideology == DW-NOMINATE scores have been used widely to describe the political ideology of political actors, political parties and political institutions. For instance, a score in the first dimension that is close to either pole means that such score is located at one of the extremes in the liberal-conservative scale. So, a score closer to 1 is described as conservative whereas a score closer to −1 can be described as liberal. Finally, a score at zero or close to zero is described as moderate. == Political polarization == Poole and Rosenthal (beginning with their 1984 article "The Polarization of American Politics") have also used NOMINATE data to show that, since the 1970s, party delegations in Congress have become ideologically homogeneous and distant from one another (a phenomenon known as "polarization"). Using DW-NOMINATE scores (which permit direct comparisons between members of different Congress

Persian Speech Corpus

The Persian Speech Corpus is a Modern Persian speech corpus for speech synthesis. The corpus contains phonetic and orthographic transcriptions of about 2.5 hours of Persian speech aligned with recorded speech on the phoneme level, including annotations of word boundaries. Previous spoken corpora of Persian include FARSDAT, which consists of read aloud speech from newspaper texts from 100 Persian speakers and the Telephone FARsi Spoken language DATabase (TFARSDAT) which comprises seven hours of read and spontaneous speech produced by 60 native speakers of Persian from ten regions of Iran. The Persian Speech Corpus was built using the same methodologies laid out in the doctoral project on Modern Standard Arabic of Nawar Halabi at the University of Southampton. The work was funded by MicroLinkPC, who own an exclusive license to commercialise the corpus, though the corpus is available for non-commercial use through the corpus' website. It is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. The corpus was built for speech synthesis purposes, but has been used for building HMM based voices in Persian. It can also be used to automatically align other speech corpora with their phonetic transcript and could be used as part of a larger corpus for training speech recognition systems. == Contents == The corpus is downloadable from its website, and contains the following: 396 .wav files containing spoken utterances 396 .lab files containing text utterances 396 .TextGrid files containing the phoneme labels with time stamps of the boundaries where these occur in the .wav files. phonetic-transcript.txt which has the form "[wav_filename]" "[Phoneme Sequence]" in every line orthographic-transcript.txt which has the form "[wav_filename]" "[Orthographic Transcript]" in every line

Characteristic samples

Characteristic samples is a concept in the field of grammatical inference, related to passive learning. In passive learning, an inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} is given a set of pairs of strings and labels S {\displaystyle S} , and returns a representation R {\displaystyle R} that is consistent with S {\displaystyle S} . Characteristic samples consider the scenario when the goal is not only finding a representation consistent with S {\displaystyle S} , but finding a representation that recognizes a specific target language. A characteristic sample of language L {\displaystyle L} is a set of pairs of the form ( s , l ( s ) ) {\displaystyle (s,l(s))} where: l ( s ) = 1 {\displaystyle l(s)=1} if and only if s ∈ L {\displaystyle s\in L} l ( s ) = − 1 {\displaystyle l(s)=-1} if and only if s ∉ L {\displaystyle s\notin L} Given the characteristic sample S {\displaystyle S} , I {\displaystyle I} 's output on it is a representation R {\displaystyle R} , e.g. an automaton, that recognizes L {\displaystyle L} . == Formal Definition == === The Learning Paradigm associated with Characteristic Samples === There are three entities in the learning paradigm connected to characteristic samples, the adversary, the teacher and the inference algorithm. Given a class of languages C {\displaystyle \mathbb {C} } and a class of representations for the languages R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } , the paradigm goes as follows: The adversary A {\displaystyle A} selects a language L ∈ C {\displaystyle L\in \mathbb {C} } and reports it to the teacher The teacher T {\displaystyle T} then computes a set of strings and label them correctly according to L {\displaystyle L} , trying to make sure that the inference algorithm will compute L {\displaystyle L} The adversary can add correctly labeled words to the set in order to confuse the inference algorithm The inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} gets the sample and computes a representation R ∈ R {\displaystyle R\in \mathbb {R} } consistent with the sample. The goal is that when the inference algorithm receives a characteristic sample for a language L {\displaystyle L} , or a sample that subsumes a characteristic sample for L {\displaystyle L} , it will return a representation that recognizes exactly the language L {\displaystyle L} . === Sample === Sample S {\displaystyle S} is a set of pairs of the form ( s , l ( s ) ) {\displaystyle (s,l(s))} such that l ( s ) ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle l(s)\in \{-1,1\}} ==== Sample consistent with a language ==== We say that a sample S {\displaystyle S} is consistent with language L {\displaystyle L} if for every pair ( s , l ( s ) ) {\displaystyle (s,l(s))} in S {\displaystyle S} : l ( s ) = 1 if and only if s ∈ L {\displaystyle l(s)=1{\text{ if and only if }}s\in L} l ( s ) = − 1 if and only if s ∉ L {\displaystyle l(s)=-1{\text{ if and only if }}s\notin L} === Characteristic sample === Given an inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} and a language L {\displaystyle L} , a sample S {\displaystyle S} that is consistent with L {\displaystyle L} is called a characteristic sample of L {\displaystyle L} for I {\displaystyle I} if: I {\displaystyle I} 's output on S {\displaystyle S} is a representation R {\displaystyle R} that recognizes L {\displaystyle L} . For every sample D {\displaystyle D} that is consistent with L {\displaystyle L} and also fulfils S ⊆ D {\displaystyle S\subseteq D} , I {\displaystyle I} 's output on D {\displaystyle D} is a representation R {\displaystyle R} that recognizes L {\displaystyle L} . A Class of languages C {\displaystyle \mathbb {C} } is said to have charistaristic samples if every L ∈ C {\displaystyle L\in \mathbb {C} } has a characteristic sample. == Related Theorems == === Theorem === If equivalence is undecidable for a class C {\textstyle \mathbb {C} } over Σ {\textstyle \Sigma } of cardinality bigger than 1, then C {\textstyle \mathbb {C} } doesn't have characteristic samples. ==== Proof ==== Given a class of representations C {\textstyle \mathbb {C} } such that equivalence is undecidable, for every polynomial p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} and every n ∈ N {\displaystyle n\in \mathbb {N} } , there exist two representations r 1 {\displaystyle r_{1}} and r 2 {\displaystyle r_{2}} of sizes bounded by n {\displaystyle n} , that recognize different languages but are inseparable by any string of size bounded by p ( n ) {\displaystyle p(n)} . Assuming this is not the case, we can decide if r 1 {\displaystyle r_{1}} and r 2 {\displaystyle r_{2}} are equivalent by simulating their run on all strings of size smaller than p ( n ) {\displaystyle p(n)} , contradicting the assumption that equivalence is undecidable. === Theorem === If S 1 {\displaystyle S_{1}} is a characteristic sample for L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} and is also consistent with L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , then every characteristic sample of L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , is inconsistent with L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} . ==== Proof ==== Given a class C {\textstyle \mathbb {C} } that has characteristic samples, let R 1 {\displaystyle R_{1}} and R 2 {\displaystyle R_{2}} be representations that recognize L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} and L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} respectively. Under the assumption that there is a characteristic sample for L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} , S 1 {\displaystyle S_{1}} that is also consistent with L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , we'll assume falsely that there exist a characteristic sample for L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , S 2 {\displaystyle S_{2}} that is consistent with L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} . By the definition of characteristic sample, the inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} must return a representation which recognizes the language if given a sample that subsumes the characteristic sample itself. But for the sample S 1 ∪ S 2 {\displaystyle S_{1}\cup S_{2}} , the answer of the inferring algorithm needs to recognize both L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} and L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , in contradiction. === Theorem === If a class is polynomially learnable by example based queries, it is learnable with characteristic samples. == Polynomialy characterizable classes == === Regular languages === The proof that DFA's are learnable using characteristic samples, relies on the fact that every regular language has a finite number of equivalence classes with respect to the right congruence relation, ∼ L {\displaystyle \sim _{L}} (where x ∼ L y {\displaystyle x\sim _{L}y} for x , y ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle x,y\in \Sigma ^{}} if and only if ∀ z ∈ Σ ∗ : x z ∈ L ↔ y z ∈ L {\displaystyle \forall z\in \Sigma ^{}:xz\in L\leftrightarrow yz\in L} ). Note that if x {\displaystyle x} , y {\displaystyle y} are not congruent with respect to ∼ L {\displaystyle \sim _{L}} , there exists a string z {\displaystyle z} such that x z ∈ L {\displaystyle xz\in L} but y z ∉ L {\displaystyle yz\notin L} or vice versa, this string is called a separating suffix. ==== Constructing a characteristic sample ==== The construction of a characteristic sample for a language L {\displaystyle L} by the teacher goes as follows. Firstly, by running a depth first search on a deterministic automaton A {\displaystyle A} recognizing L {\displaystyle L} , starting from its initial state, we get a suffix closed set of words, W {\displaystyle W} , ordered in shortlex order. From the fact above, we know that for every two states in the automaton, there exists a separating suffix that separates between every two strings that the run of A {\displaystyle A} on them ends in the respective states. We refer to the set of separating suffixes as S {\displaystyle S} . The labeled set (sample) of words the teacher gives the adversary is { ( w , l ( w ) ) | w ∈ W ⋅ S ∪ W ⋅ Σ ⋅ S } {\displaystyle \{(w,l(w))|w\in W\cdot S\cup W\cdot \Sigma \cdot S\}} where l ( w ) {\displaystyle l(w)} is the correct label of w {\displaystyle w} (whether it is in L {\displaystyle L} or not). We may assume that ϵ ∈ S {\displaystyle \epsilon \in S} . ==== Constructing a deterministic automata ==== Given the sample from the adversary W {\displaystyle W} , the construction of the automaton by the inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} starts with defining P = prefix ( W ) {\displaystyle P={\text{prefix}}(W)} and S = suffix ( W ) {\displaystyle S={\text{suffix}}(W)} , which are the set of prefixes and suffixes of W {\displaystyle W} respectively. Now the algorithm constructs a matrix M {\displaystyle M} where the elements of P {\displaystyle P} function as the rows, ordered by the shortlex order, and the elements of S {\displaystyle S} function as the columns, ordered by the shortlex order. Next, the cells in the matrix are filled in the following manner for prefix p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} and suffix s j {\displaystyle s_{j}} : If p i s j ∈ W → M i j = l ( p i s j ) {\displaystyle p_{i}s_{j}\in W\rightarrow M_{ij}=l(p_{i}s_{j})} else, M i j = 0 {\displaystyle M_{ij}=0} Now, we say row i {\displaystyle i} and t {\displaystyle t} are distinguishable if there exi

Euratlas

Euratlas is a Switzerland-based software company dedicated to elaborate digital history maps of Europe. Founded in 2001, Euratlas has created a collection of history maps of Europe from year 1 AD to year 2000 AD that present the evolution of every country from the Roman Empire to present times. The evolution includes sovereign states and their administrative subdivisions, but also unorganized peoples and dependent territories. The maps show European country borders at regular intervals of 100 years, but not year by year. This leaves out many important turning points in history. Euratlas is considered a digital humanities company, and a scholar research software used in the field of historic cartography. It is broadly known among American and European universities, who mainly use Euratlas as a research tool and as a digital library atlas. == Sequential mapping policy == This concept was first designed by the German scholar Christian Kruse (1753–1827). Kruse, well aware that historical accounts are often biased for geographical, philosophical or political reasons, created a set of sequential maps in order to give a global vision of the successive political situations. Nowadays, the majority of atlases don't use this approach, but are event-based, like the well-known Penguin Atlas of History. The sequential approach intends to make the sequence of maps more neutral and suitable for students, historians and professionals of several fields. Although, this approach has been discussed as it leaves out many important history events that are not reflected on any of the maps because of the century interval. == Geo-referenced historical data == Initially, the European maps by century were developed as vector maps. From 2006 on, they have been converted to a geographic information system (GIS) database, enabling geo-referenced data capabilities. The map information is distributed in several layers: physical (geography information layer); political information layer (supranational entities, sovereign states, administrative divisions, dependent states and autonomous peoples); and special layers for cities and uncertain borders. The software database also contains much non-geographical information about political relationships between the various kinds of territories. == Map projection == Euratlas History Maps uses a Mercator projection, with the center in Europe. The maps include the North-African coast and the Near-East, offering a complete view of the Mediterranean Basin. The European Russia plains are shown, but not Scandinavia, specially Finland, which is cropped off the map view.

Sammon mapping

Sammon mapping or Sammon projection is an algorithm that maps a high-dimensional space to a space of lower dimensionality (see multidimensional scaling) by trying to preserve the structure of inter-point distances in high-dimensional space in the lower-dimension projection. It is particularly suited for use in exploratory data analysis. The method was proposed by John W. Sammon in 1969. It is considered a non-linear approach as the mapping cannot be represented as a linear combination of the original variables as possible in techniques such as principal component analysis, which also makes it more difficult to use for classification applications. Denote the distance between ith and jth objects in the original space by d i j ∗ {\displaystyle \scriptstyle d_{ij}^{}} , and the distance between their projections by d i j {\displaystyle \scriptstyle d_{ij}^{}} . Sammon's mapping aims to minimize the following error function, which is often referred to as Sammon's stress or Sammon's error: E = 1 ∑ i < j d i j ∗ ∑ i < j ( d i j ∗ − d i j ) 2 d i j ∗ . {\displaystyle E={\frac {1}{\sum \limits _{i