The National Library of Medicine (NLM) classification system is a library indexing system covering the fields of medicine and preclinical basic sciences. Operated and maintained by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, the NLM classification is patterned after the Library of Congress (LC) Classification system: alphabetical letters denote broad subject categories which are subdivided by numbers. For example, QW 279 would indicate a book on an aspect of microbiology or immunology. The one- or two-letter alphabetical codes in the NLM classification use a limited range of letters: only QS–QZ and W–WZ. This allows the NLM system to co-exist with the larger LC coding scheme as neither of these ranges are used in the LC system. There are, however, three pre-existing codes in the LC system which overlap with the NLM: Human Anatomy (QM), Microbiology (QR), and Medicine (R). To avoid further confusion, these three codes are not used in the NLM. The headings for the individual schedules (letters or letter pairs) are given in brief form (e.g., QW - Microbiology and Immunology; WG - Cardiovascular System) and together they provide an outline of the subjects covered by the NLM classification. Headings are interpreted broadly and include the physiological system, the specialties connected with them, the regions of the body chiefly concerned and subordinate related fields. The NLM system is hierarchical, and within each schedule, division by organ usually has priority. Each main schedule, as well as some sub-sections, begins with a group of form numbers ranging generally from 1–49 which classify materials by publication type, e.g., dictionaries, atlases, laboratory manuals, etc. The main schedules QS-QZ, W-WY, and WZ (excluding the range WZ 220–270) classify works published after 1913; the 19th century schedule is used for works published 1801–1913; and WZ 220-270 is used to provide century groupings for works published before 1801. == Classification categories == === Preclinical Sciences === QS Human Anatomy QT Physiology QU Biochemistry QV Pharmacology QW Microbiology & Immunology QX Parasitology QY Clinical Pathology QZ Pathology === Medicine and Related Subjects === W Health Professions WA Public Health WB Practice of Medicine WC Communicable Diseases WD Disorders of Systemic, Metabolic, or Environmental Origin, etc. WE Musculoskeletal System WF Respiratory System WG Cardiovascular System WH Hemic and Lymphatic Systems WI Digestive System WJ Urogenital System WK Endocrine System WL Nervous System WM Psychiatry WN Radiology. Diagnostic Imaging WO Surgery WP Gynecology WQ Obstetrics WR Dermatology WS Pediatrics WT Geriatrics. Chronic Disease WU Dentistry. Oral Surgery WV Otolaryngology WW Ophthalmology WX Hospitals & Other Health Facilities WY Nursing WZ History of Medicine 19th Century Schedule
Computer audition
Computer audition (CA) or machine listening is the general field of study of algorithms and systems for audio interpretation by machines. Since the notion of what it means for a machine to "hear" is very broad and somewhat vague, computer audition attempts to bring together several disciplines that originally dealt with specific problems or had a concrete application in mind. The engineer Paris Smaragdis, interviewed in Technology Review, talks about these systems — "software that uses sound to locate people moving through rooms, monitor machinery for impending breakdowns, or activate traffic cameras to record accidents." Inspired by models of human audition, CA deals with questions of representation, transduction, grouping, use of musical knowledge and general sound semantics for the purpose of performing intelligent operations on audio and music signals by the computer. Technically this requires a combination of methods from the fields of signal processing, auditory modelling, music perception and cognition, pattern recognition, and machine learning, as well as more traditional methods of artificial intelligence for musical knowledge representation. == Applications == Like computer vision versus image processing, computer audition versus audio engineering deals with understanding of audio rather than processing. It also differs from problems of speech understanding by machine since it deals with general audio signals, such as natural sounds and musical recordings. Applications of computer audition are widely varying, and include search for sounds, genre recognition, acoustic monitoring, music transcription, score following, audio texture, music improvisation, emotion in audio and so on. == Related disciplines == Computer Audition overlaps with the following disciplines: Music information retrieval: methods for search and analysis of similarity between music signals. Auditory scene analysis: understanding and description of audio sources and events. Computational musicology and mathematical music theory: use of algorithms that employ musical knowledge for analysis of music data. Computer music: use of computers in creative musical applications. Machine musicianship: audition driven interactive music systems. == Areas of study == Since audio signals are interpreted by the human ear–brain system, that complex perceptual mechanism should be simulated somehow in software for "machine listening". In other words, to perform on par with humans, the computer should hear and understand audio content much as humans do. Analyzing audio accurately involves several fields: electrical engineering (spectrum analysis, filtering, and audio transforms); artificial intelligence (machine learning and sound classification); psychoacoustics (sound perception); cognitive sciences (neuroscience and artificial intelligence); acoustics (physics of sound production); and music (harmony, rhythm, and timbre). Furthermore, audio transformations such as pitch shifting, time stretching, and sound object filtering, should be perceptually and musically meaningful. For best results, these transformations require perceptual understanding of spectral models, high-level feature extraction, and sound analysis/synthesis. Finally, structuring and coding the content of an audio file (sound and metadata) could benefit from efficient compression schemes, which discard inaudible information in the sound. Computational models of music and sound perception and cognition can lead to a more meaningful representation, a more intuitive digital manipulation and generation of sound and music in musical human-machine interfaces. The study of CA could be roughly divided into the following sub-problems: Representation: signal and symbolic. This aspect deals with time-frequency representations, both in terms of notes and spectral models, including pattern playback and audio texture. Feature extraction: sound descriptors, segmentation, onset, pitch and envelope detection, chroma, and auditory representations. Musical knowledge structures: analysis of tonality, rhythm, and harmonies. Sound similarity: methods for comparison between sounds, sound identification, novelty detection, segmentation, and clustering. Sequence modeling: matching and alignment between signals and note sequences. Source separation: methods of grouping of simultaneous sounds, such as multiple pitch detection and time-frequency clustering methods. Auditory cognition: modeling of emotions, anticipation and familiarity, auditory surprise, and analysis of musical structure. Multi-modal analysis: finding correspondences between textual, visual, and audio signals. === Representation issues === Computer audition deals with audio signals that can be represented in a variety of fashions, from direct encoding of digital audio in two or more channels to symbolically represented synthesis instructions. Audio signals are usually represented in terms of analogue or digital recordings. Digital recordings are samples of acoustic waveform or parameters of audio compression algorithms. One of the unique properties of musical signals is that they often combine different types of representations, such as graphical scores and sequences of performance actions that are encoded as MIDI files. Since audio signals usually comprise multiple sound sources, then unlike speech signals that can be efficiently described in terms of specific models (such as source-filter model), it is hard to devise a parametric representation for general audio. Parametric audio representations usually use filter banks or sinusoidal models to capture multiple sound parameters, sometimes increasing the representation size in order to capture internal structure in the signal. Additional types of data that are relevant for computer audition are textual descriptions of audio contents, such as annotations, reviews, and visual information in the case of audio-visual recordings. === Features === Description of contents of general audio signals usually requires extraction of features that capture specific aspects of the audio signal. Generally speaking, one could divide the features into signal or mathematical descriptors such as energy, description of spectral shape etc., statistical characterization such as change or novelty detection, special representations that are better adapted to the nature of musical signals or the auditory system, such as logarithmic growth of sensitivity (bandwidth) in frequency or octave invariance (chroma). Since parametric models in audio usually require very many parameters, the features are used to summarize properties of multiple parameters in a more compact or salient representation. === Musical knowledge === Finding specific musical structures is possible by using musical knowledge as well as supervised and unsupervised machine learning methods. Examples of this include detection of tonality according to distribution of frequencies that correspond to patterns of occurrence of notes in musical scales, distribution of note onset times for detection of beat structure, distribution of energies in different frequencies to detect musical chords and so on. === Sound similarity and sequence modeling === Comparison of sounds can be done by comparison of features with or without reference to time. In some cases an overall similarity can be assessed by close values of features between two sounds. In other cases when temporal structure is important, methods of dynamic time warping need to be applied to "correct" for different temporal scales of acoustic events. Finding repetitions and similar sub-sequences of sonic events is important for tasks such as texture synthesis and machine improvisation. === Source separation === Since one of the basic characteristics of general audio is that it comprises multiple simultaneously sounding sources, such as multiple musical instruments, people talking, machine noises or animal vocalization, the ability to identify and separate individual sources is very desirable. Unfortunately, there are no methods that can solve this problem in a robust fashion. Existing methods of source separation rely sometimes on correlation between different audio channels in multi-channel recordings. The ability to separate sources from stereo signals requires different techniques than those usually applied in communications where multiple sensors are available. Other source separation methods rely on training or clustering of features in mono recording, such as tracking harmonically related partials for multiple pitch detection. Some methods, before explicit recognition, rely on revealing structures in data without knowing the structures (like recognizing objects in abstract pictures without attributing them meaningful labels) by finding the least complex data representations, for instance describing audio scenes as generated by a few tone patterns and their trajectories (polyphonic voices) and acoustical contours drawn by a tone (c
Representer theorem
For computer science, in statistical learning theory, a representer theorem is any of several related results stating that a minimizer f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} of a regularized empirical risk functional defined over a reproducing kernel Hilbert space can be represented as a finite linear combination of kernel products evaluated on the input points in the training set data. == Formal statement == The following Representer Theorem and its proof are due to Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola: Theorem: Consider a positive-definite real-valued kernel k : X × X → R {\displaystyle k:{\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } on a non-empty set X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} with a corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} . Let there be given a training sample ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ∈ X × R {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\dotsc ,(x_{n},y_{n})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} } , a strictly increasing real-valued function g : [ 0 , ∞ ) → R {\displaystyle g\colon [0,\infty )\to \mathbb {R} } , and an arbitrary error function E : ( X × R 2 ) n → R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle E\colon ({\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} ^{2})^{n}\to \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace \infty \rbrace } , which together define the following regularized empirical risk functional on H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} : f ↦ E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) . {\displaystyle f\mapsto E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right).} Then, any minimizer of the empirical risk f ∗ = argmin f ∈ H k { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) } , ( ∗ ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f\in H_{k}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)\right\rbrace ,\quad ()} admits a representation of the form: f ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) , {\displaystyle f^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i}),} where α i ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}\in \mathbb {R} } for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n {\displaystyle 1\leq i\leq n} . Proof: Define a mapping φ : X → H k φ ( x ) = k ( ⋅ , x ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\varphi \colon {\mathcal {X}}&\to H_{k}\\\varphi (x)&=k(\cdot ,x)\end{aligned}}} (so that φ ( x ) = k ( ⋅ , x ) {\displaystyle \varphi (x)=k(\cdot ,x)} is itself a map X → R {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } ). Since k {\displaystyle k} is a reproducing kernel, then φ ( x ) ( x ′ ) = k ( x ′ , x ) = ⟨ φ ( x ′ ) , φ ( x ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle \varphi (x)(x')=k(x',x)=\langle \varphi (x'),\varphi (x)\rangle ,} where ⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle } is the inner product on H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} . Given any x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} , one can use orthogonal projection to decompose any f ∈ H k {\displaystyle f\in H_{k}} into a sum of two functions, one lying in span { φ ( x 1 ) , … , φ ( x n ) } {\displaystyle \operatorname {span} \left\lbrace \varphi (x_{1}),\ldots ,\varphi (x_{n})\right\rbrace } , and the other lying in the orthogonal complement: f = ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v , {\displaystyle f=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v,} where ⟨ v , φ ( x i ) ⟩ = 0 {\displaystyle \langle v,\varphi (x_{i})\rangle =0} for all i {\displaystyle i} . The above orthogonal decomposition and the reproducing property together show that applying f {\displaystyle f} to any training point x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} produces f ( x j ) = ⟨ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v , φ ( x j ) ⟩ = ∑ i = 1 n α i ⟨ φ ( x i ) , φ ( x j ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle f(x_{j})=\left\langle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v,\varphi (x_{j})\right\rangle =\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\langle \varphi (x_{i}),\varphi (x_{j})\rangle ,} which we observe is independent of v {\displaystyle v} . Consequently, the value of the error function E {\displaystyle E} in () is likewise independent of v {\displaystyle v} . For the second term (the regularization term), since v {\displaystyle v} is orthogonal to ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})} and g {\displaystyle g} is strictly monotonic, we have g ( ‖ f ‖ ) = g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v ‖ ) = g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) ‖ 2 + ‖ v ‖ 2 ) ≥ g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) ‖ ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)&=g\left(\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v\rVert \right)\\&=g\left({\sqrt {\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})\rVert ^{2}+\lVert v\rVert ^{2}}}\right)\\&\geq g\left(\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})\rVert \right).\end{aligned}}} Therefore, setting v = 0 {\displaystyle v=0} does not affect the first term of (), while it strictly decreases the second term. Consequently, any minimizer f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} in () must have v = 0 {\displaystyle v=0} , i.e., it must be of the form f ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) , {\displaystyle f^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i}),} which is the desired result. == Generalizations == The Theorem stated above is a particular example of a family of results that are collectively referred to as "representer theorems"; here we describe several such. The first statement of a representer theorem was due to Kimeldorf and Wahba for the special case in which E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( f ( x i ) − y i ) 2 , g ( ‖ f ‖ ) = λ ‖ f ‖ 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(f(x_{i})-y_{i})^{2},\\g(\lVert f\rVert )&=\lambda \lVert f\rVert ^{2}\end{aligned}}} for λ > 0 {\displaystyle \lambda >0} . Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola generalized this result by relaxing the assumption of the squared-loss cost and allowing the regularizer to be any strictly monotonically increasing function g ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle g(\cdot )} of the Hilbert space norm. It is possible to generalize further by augmenting the regularized empirical risk functional through the addition of unpenalized offset terms. For example, Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola also consider the minimization f ~ ∗ = argmin { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ~ ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ~ ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) ∣ f ~ = f + h ∈ H k ⊕ span { ψ p ∣ 1 ≤ p ≤ M } } , ( † ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}=\operatorname {argmin} \left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},{\tilde {f}}(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},{\tilde {f}}(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)\mid {\tilde {f}}=f+h\in H_{k}\oplus \operatorname {span} \lbrace \psi _{p}\mid 1\leq p\leq M\rbrace \right\rbrace ,\quad (\dagger )} i.e., we consider functions of the form f ~ = f + h {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}=f+h} , where f ∈ H k {\displaystyle f\in H_{k}} and h {\displaystyle h} is an unpenalized function lying in the span of a finite set of real-valued functions { ψ p : X → R ∣ 1 ≤ p ≤ M } {\displaystyle \lbrace \psi _{p}\colon {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} \mid 1\leq p\leq M\rbrace } . Under the assumption that the n × M {\displaystyle n\times M} matrix ( ψ p ( x i ) ) i p {\displaystyle \left(\psi _{p}(x_{i})\right)_{ip}} has rank M {\displaystyle M} , they show that the minimizer f ~ ∗ {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}} in ( † ) {\displaystyle (\dagger )} admits a representation of the form f ~ ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) + ∑ p = 1 M β p ψ p ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i})+\sum _{p=1}^{M}\beta _{p}\psi _{p}(\cdot )} where α i , β p ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i},\beta _{p}\in \mathbb {R} } and the β p {\displaystyle \beta _{p}} are all uniquely determined. The conditions under which a representer theorem exists were investigated by Argyriou, Micchelli, and Pontil, who proved the following: Theorem: Let X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} be a nonempty set, k {\displaystyle k} a positive-definite real-valued kernel on X × X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}} with corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} , and let R : H k → R {\displaystyle R\colon H_{k}\to \mathbb {R} } be a differentiable regularization function. Then given a training sample ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ∈ X × R {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} } and an arbitrary error function E : ( X × R 2 ) m → R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle E\colon ({\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} ^{2})^{m}\to \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace \infty \rbrace } , a minimizer f ∗ = argmin f ∈ H k { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + R ( f ) } ( ‡ ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f\in H_{k}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+R(f)\right\rbrace \quad (\ddagger )} of the regularized empirical risk admits a repr
Modes of variation
In statistics, modes of variation are a continuously indexed set of vectors or functions that are centered at a mean and are used to depict the variation in a population or sample. Typically, variation patterns in the data can be decomposed in descending order of eigenvalues with the directions represented by the corresponding eigenvectors or eigenfunctions. Modes of variation provide a visualization of this decomposition and an efficient description of variation around the mean. Both in principal component analysis (PCA) and in functional principal component analysis (FPCA), modes of variation play an important role in visualizing and describing the variation in the data contributed by each eigencomponent. In real-world applications, the eigencomponents and associated modes of variation aid to interpret complex data, especially in exploratory data analysis (EDA). == Formulation == Modes of variation are a natural extension of PCA and FPCA. === Modes of variation in PCA === If a random vector X = ( X 1 , X 2 , ⋯ , X p ) T {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} =(X_{1},X_{2},\cdots ,X_{p})^{T}} has the mean vector μ p {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{p}} , and the covariance matrix Σ p × p {\displaystyle \mathbf {\Sigma } _{p\times p}} with eigenvalues λ 1 ≥ λ 2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ λ p ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \lambda _{1}\geq \lambda _{2}\geq \cdots \geq \lambda _{p}\geq 0} and corresponding orthonormal eigenvectors e 1 , e 2 , ⋯ , e p {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} _{1},\mathbf {e} _{2},\cdots ,\mathbf {e} _{p}} , by eigendecomposition of a real symmetric matrix, the covariance matrix Σ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\Sigma } } can be decomposed as Σ = Q Λ Q T , {\displaystyle \mathbf {\Sigma } =\mathbf {Q} \mathbf {\Lambda } \mathbf {Q} ^{T},} where Q {\displaystyle \mathbf {Q} } is an orthogonal matrix whose columns are the eigenvectors of Σ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\Sigma } } , and Λ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\Lambda } } is a diagonal matrix whose entries are the eigenvalues of Σ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\Sigma } } . By the Karhunen–Loève expansion for random vectors, one can express the centered random vector in the eigenbasis X − μ = ∑ k = 1 p ξ k e k , {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}=\sum _{k=1}^{p}\xi _{k}\mathbf {e} _{k},} where ξ k = e k T ( X − μ ) {\displaystyle \xi _{k}=\mathbf {e} _{k}^{T}(\mathbf {X} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }})} is the principal component associated with the k {\displaystyle k} -th eigenvector e k {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} _{k}} , with the properties E ( ξ k ) = 0 , Var ( ξ k ) = λ k , {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} (\xi _{k})=0,\operatorname {Var} (\xi _{k})=\lambda _{k},} and E ( ξ k ξ l ) = 0 for l ≠ k . {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} (\xi _{k}\xi _{l})=0\ {\text{for}}\ l\neq k.} Then the k {\displaystyle k} -th mode of variation of X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } is the set of vectors, indexed by α {\displaystyle \alpha } , m k , α = μ ± α λ k e k , α ∈ [ − A , A ] , {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} _{k,\alpha }={\boldsymbol {\mu }}\pm \alpha {\sqrt {\lambda _{k}}}\mathbf {e} _{k},\alpha \in [-A,A],} where A {\displaystyle A} is typically selected as 2 or 3 {\displaystyle 2\ {\text{or}}\ 3} . === Modes of variation in FPCA === For a square-integrable random function X ( t ) , t ∈ T ⊂ R p {\displaystyle X(t),t\in {\mathcal {T}}\subset R^{p}} , where typically p = 1 {\displaystyle p=1} and T {\displaystyle {\mathcal {T}}} is an interval, denote the mean function by μ ( t ) = E ( X ( t ) ) {\displaystyle \mu (t)=\operatorname {E} (X(t))} , and the covariance function by G ( s , t ) = Cov ( X ( s ) , X ( t ) ) = ∑ k = 1 ∞ λ k φ k ( s ) φ k ( t ) , {\displaystyle G(s,t)=\operatorname {Cov} (X(s),X(t))=\sum _{k=1}^{\infty }\lambda _{k}\varphi _{k}(s)\varphi _{k}(t),} where λ 1 ≥ λ 2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \lambda _{1}\geq \lambda _{2}\geq \cdots \geq 0} are the eigenvalues and { φ 1 , φ 2 , ⋯ } {\displaystyle \{\varphi _{1},\varphi _{2},\cdots \}} are the orthonormal eigenfunctions of the linear Hilbert–Schmidt operator G : L 2 ( T ) → L 2 ( T ) , G ( f ) = ∫ T G ( s , t ) f ( s ) d s . {\displaystyle G:L^{2}({\mathcal {T}})\rightarrow L^{2}({\mathcal {T}}),\,G(f)=\int _{\mathcal {T}}G(s,t)f(s)ds.} By the Karhunen–Loève theorem, one can express the centered function in the eigenbasis, X ( t ) − μ ( t ) = ∑ k = 1 ∞ ξ k φ k ( t ) , {\displaystyle X(t)-\mu (t)=\sum _{k=1}^{\infty }\xi _{k}\varphi _{k}(t),} where ξ k = ∫ T ( X ( t ) − μ ( t ) ) φ k ( t ) d t {\displaystyle \xi _{k}=\int _{\mathcal {T}}(X(t)-\mu (t))\varphi _{k}(t)dt} is the k {\displaystyle k} -th principal component with the properties E ( ξ k ) = 0 , Var ( ξ k ) = λ k , {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} (\xi _{k})=0,\operatorname {Var} (\xi _{k})=\lambda _{k},} and E ( ξ k ξ l ) = 0 for l ≠ k . {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} (\xi _{k}\xi _{l})=0{\text{ for }}l\neq k.} Then the k {\displaystyle k} -th mode of variation of X ( t ) {\displaystyle X(t)} is the set of functions, indexed by α {\displaystyle \alpha } , m k , α ( t ) = μ ( t ) ± α λ k φ k ( t ) , t ∈ T , α ∈ [ − A , A ] {\displaystyle m_{k,\alpha }(t)=\mu (t)\pm \alpha {\sqrt {\lambda _{k}}}\varphi _{k}(t),\ t\in {\mathcal {T}},\ \alpha \in [-A,A]} that are viewed simultaneously over the range of α {\displaystyle \alpha } , usually for A = 2 or 3 {\displaystyle A=2\ {\text{or}}\ 3} . == Estimation == The formulation above is derived from properties of the population. Estimation is needed in real-world applications. The key idea is to estimate mean and covariance. === Modes of variation in PCA === Suppose the data x 1 , x 2 , ⋯ , x n {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{1},\mathbf {x} _{2},\cdots ,\mathbf {x} _{n}} represent n {\displaystyle n} independent drawings from some p {\displaystyle p} -dimensional population X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } with mean vector μ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\mu }}} and covariance matrix Σ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\Sigma } } . These data yield the sample mean vector x ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {\mathbf {x} }}} , and the sample covariance matrix S {\displaystyle \mathbf {S} } with eigenvalue-eigenvector pairs ( λ ^ 1 , e ^ 1 ) , ( λ ^ 2 , e ^ 2 ) , ⋯ , ( λ ^ p , e ^ p ) {\displaystyle ({\hat {\lambda }}_{1},{\hat {\mathbf {e} }}_{1}),({\hat {\lambda }}_{2},{\hat {\mathbf {e} }}_{2}),\cdots ,({\hat {\lambda }}_{p},{\hat {\mathbf {e} }}_{p})} . Then the k {\displaystyle k} -th mode of variation of X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } can be estimated by m ^ k , α = x ¯ ± α λ ^ k e ^ k , α ∈ [ − A , A ] . {\displaystyle {\hat {\mathbf {m} }}_{k,\alpha }={\overline {\mathbf {x} }}\pm \alpha {\sqrt {{\hat {\lambda }}_{k}}}{\hat {\mathbf {e} }}_{k},\alpha \in [-A,A].} === Modes of variation in FPCA === Consider n {\displaystyle n} realizations X 1 ( t ) , X 2 ( t ) , ⋯ , X n ( t ) {\displaystyle X_{1}(t),X_{2}(t),\cdots ,X_{n}(t)} of a square-integrable random function X ( t ) , t ∈ T {\displaystyle X(t),t\in {\mathcal {T}}} with the mean function μ ( t ) = E ( X ( t ) ) {\displaystyle \mu (t)=\operatorname {E} (X(t))} and the covariance function G ( s , t ) = Cov ( X ( s ) , X ( t ) ) {\displaystyle G(s,t)=\operatorname {Cov} (X(s),X(t))} . Functional principal component analysis provides methods for the estimation of μ ( t ) {\displaystyle \mu (t)} and G ( s , t ) {\displaystyle G(s,t)} in detail, often involving point wise estimate and interpolation. Substituting estimates for the unknown quantities, the k {\displaystyle k} -th mode of variation of X ( t ) {\displaystyle X(t)} can be estimated by m ^ k , α ( t ) = μ ^ ( t ) ± α λ ^ k φ ^ k ( t ) , t ∈ T , α ∈ [ − A , A ] . {\displaystyle {\hat {m}}_{k,\alpha }(t)={\hat {\mu }}(t)\pm \alpha {\sqrt {{\hat {\lambda }}_{k}}}{\hat {\varphi }}_{k}(t),t\in {\mathcal {T}},\alpha \in [-A,A].} == Applications == Modes of variation are useful to visualize and describe the variation patterns in the data sorted by the eigenvalues. In real-world applications, modes of variation associated with eigencomponents allow to interpret complex data, such as the evolution of function traits and other infinite-dimensional data. To illustrate how modes of variation work in practice, two examples are shown in the graphs to the right, which display the first two modes of variation. The solid curve represents the sample mean function. The dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted curves correspond to modes of variation with α = ± 1 , ± 2 , {\displaystyle \alpha =\pm 1,\pm 2,} and ± 3 {\displaystyle \pm 3} , respectively. The first graph displays the first two modes of variation of female mortality data from 41 countries in 2003. The object of interest is log hazard function between ages 0 and 100 years. The first mode of variation suggests that the variation of female mortality is smaller for ages around 0 or 100, and larger for ages around 25. An appropriate and intuitive interpretation is that mortality around 25 is driven by accidental death, while around 0 or 100, mortality is related to congenital disease or natural death. Compared to female mortality
FERET database
The Facial Recognition Technology (FERET) database is a dataset used for facial recognition system evaluation as part of the Face Recognition Technology (FERET) program. It was first established in 1993 under a collaborative effort between Harry Wechsler at George Mason University and Jonathon Phillips at the Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, Maryland. The FERET database serves as a standard database of facial images for researchers to use to develop various algorithms and report results. The use of a common database also allowed one to compare the effectiveness of different approaches in methodology and gauge their strengths and weaknesses. The facial images for the database were collected between December 1993 and August 1996, accumulating a total of 14,126 images pertaining to 1,199 individuals along with 365 duplicate sets of images that were taken on a different day. In 2003, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) released a high-resolution, 24-bit color version of these images. The dataset tested includes 2,413 still facial images, representing 856 individuals. The FERET database has been used by more than 460 research groups and is managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Central Equipment Identity Register
A Central Equipment Identity Register (CEIR) is a database of mobile equipment identifiers (IMEI – for networks of GSM standard, MEID – for networks of CDMA standard). Such an identifier is assigned to each SIM slot of the mobile device. Different kinds of IMEIs could be, White, for devices that are allowed to register in the cellular network; Black, for devices that are prohibited to register in the cellular network; and Grey, for devices in intermediate status (when it is not yet defined in which of the lists - black or white - the device should be placed). Depending on the rules of mobile equipment registration in a country the CEIR database may contain other lists or fields beside IMEI. For example, the subscriber number (MSISDN), which is bound to the IMEI, the ID of the individual (passport data, National ID, etc.) who registered IMEI in the database, details of the importer who brought the device into the country, etc. == History == Originally abbreviation CEIR stood for IMEI Database, created and provided by GSM Association. It was proposed to blacklist the IMEIs of stolen or lost phones. It was assumed that any MNO would be able to receive this list to block the registration of such devices on their network. Thus, it turns out that a stolen phone, once blacklisted by the GSMA CEIR, cannot be used on a large number of cellular networks, which means that the theft of mobile devices will become meaningless. However, it soon became clear that the MNOs on their initiative were not going to do this because if many phones stopped working in their networks, but works in another, it puts them at a disadvantage and can lead to an outflow of subscribers. It became clear that the blocking of stolen devices should be introduced simultaneously in all mobile networks of the country by legislative measures at the initiative of the communications regulator. In this case, as a rule, a national IMEI database is created, which contains general lists of blocked IMEIs. Since the registration in the cellular operator's network is directly blocked by a network node called EIR (Equipment Identity Register), the system that contains the national IMEI base became known as Central EIR (CEIR). To avoid confusion the database of GSM Association was renamed to IMEI Database - IMEI DB (it was in 2003-2008, see “Document History” at IMEI Database File Format Specification). Also sometimes a common IMEI database for several EIRs is called SEIR (Shared EIR). In each country, the CEIR can interact with IMEI DB differently. National CEIR may not communicate with IMEI DB at all. Firstly, it is separately decided whether CEIR will send information about its blacklist to IMEI DB (which IMEIs are placed in it or removed from there). Secondly, upon receipt of the blacklist from IMEI DB, the regulator decides from which countries it will receive it (IMEI DB stores the information exactly who blacklisted the IMEI). For example, you can get a list from neighboring countries, from countries in your region, from around the world. In addition to the blacklist, the GSMA is developing a list of IMEIs allocated to manufacturers for use in their devices. The manufacturer for each new device model gets at least one TAC (Type Allocation Code) allocated by GSMA, consisting of 8 digits, to which he can add a 6-digit serial number to obtain the IMEI. Thus, with one TAC, a manufacturer can release up to 1 million devices with a unique IMEI. Usually, CEIR receives a list of allocated TACs from the GSMA, since if the first 8 digits of the IMEI of a device are not in this list, this is a sign that it is counterfeit. If the central database of identifiers does not work with GSM networks, but with CDMA, then for the same purposes it is necessary to interact with another worldwide database that contains MEIDs – MEID Database. A system that directly blocks the registration of a mobile device on a cellular network – EIR. Each MNO must have at least one EIR, to which IMEI check requests (CheckIMEI) are sent when registering a device on the network. A typical EIR and CERI interaction scheme: The CEIR accumulates black, white, and grey lists using various data sources and verification methods. These lists are periodically transmitted to all EIRs. EIR uses them when processing every CheckIMEI request to determine whether to allow the device on the network or not. EIR can transmit some data to the CEIR database too. Usually, changes in a grey list – new IMEIs on the network that are not in any list – are transmitted from EIR to CEIR. In addition to synchronizing lists across multiple networks, the main function of CEIR is to implement the scenarios of changes at these lists. This usually requires interaction with various IT systems (databases) of other organizations and/or with subscribers. Еxamples of such scenarios: Whitelisting the IMEI of devices imported by the legal entity Whitelisting the IMEI of devices manufactured domestically Whitelisting the IMEI of devices imported by individual Blacklisting the IMEI of stolen/lost devices Binding IMEI to the subscriber's number and, vice versa, unbinding IMEI from the subscriber == System implementation results == The goals and results of CEIR implementation in a country are usually: Reducing mobile phone theft Reducing the import of devices stolen in other countries Reducing the presence of counterfeit devices on the market (null IMEI, incorrect IMEI, changed IMEI) Reducing illegal imports of mobile devices (increase in the collection of customs duties) Additionally, CEIR most often contributes to the solution of such problems: Combating various mobile fraud schemes Obtaining more accurate statistics on the state of the mobile communications market for the regulator Fight against terrorism (the ability to block the device at once in all mobile networks of the country). Known results achieved in some countries: Great Britain – reducing mobile phone theft. Turkey – reducing mobile phone theft, decreasing the current account deficit of Turkey and maximizing tax revenues. Uzbekistan – preventing black import of mobile devices by 98%, increase in revenues from the import of mobile devices by 700%. Kenya – disposing the market of counterfeit mobile equipment. Azerbaijan – disposing the market of counterfeit mobile equipment. Ukraine – increasing of legally imported mobile devices by 95%, increase in revenues from the import of mobile devices. == CEIR and EIR manufacturers == Some countries have used local developers to implement CEIR for their country (Great Britain, Turkey, India, and Azerbaijan). EIR is a system that is standardized in a 2G-5G networks. Such system may be established at mobile network even it doesn’t use black list and there are no CEIR in a country. Some developers of MNO’s signal core include EIR in a complex solution. However, its standard capabilities are usually lacking for specific requirements when implementing CEIR.
Radial basis function network
In the field of mathematical modeling, a radial basis function network is an artificial neural network that uses radial basis functions as activation functions. The output of the network is a linear combination of radial basis functions of the inputs and neuron parameters. Radial basis function networks have many uses, including function approximation, time series prediction, classification, and system control. They were first formulated in a 1988 paper by Broomhead and Lowe, both researchers at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment. == Network architecture == Radial basis function (RBF) networks typically have three layers: an input layer, a hidden layer with a non-linear RBF activation function and a linear output layer. The input can be modeled as a vector of real numbers x ∈ R n {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . The output of the network is then a scalar function of the input vector, φ : R n → R {\displaystyle \varphi :\mathbb {R} ^{n}\to \mathbb {R} } , and is given by φ ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 N a i ρ ( | | x − c i | | ) {\displaystyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )=\sum _{i=1}^{N}a_{i}\rho (||\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}||)} where N {\displaystyle N} is the number of neurons in the hidden layer, c i {\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{i}} is the center vector for neuron i {\displaystyle i} , and a i {\displaystyle a_{i}} is the weight of neuron i {\displaystyle i} in the linear output neuron. Functions that depend only on the distance from a center vector are radially symmetric about that vector, hence the name radial basis function. In the basic form, all inputs are connected to each hidden neuron. The norm is typically taken to be the Euclidean distance (although the Mahalanobis distance appears to perform better with pattern recognition) and the radial basis function is commonly taken to be Gaussian ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) = exp [ − β i ‖ x − c i ‖ 2 ] {\displaystyle \rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}=\exp \left[-\beta _{i}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert ^{2}\right]} . The Gaussian basis functions are local to the center vector in the sense that lim | | x | | → ∞ ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) = 0 {\displaystyle \lim _{||x||\to \infty }\rho (\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert )=0} i.e. changing parameters of one neuron has only a small effect for input values that are far away from the center of that neuron. Given certain mild conditions on the shape of the activation function, RBF networks are universal approximators on a compact subset of R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . This means that an RBF network with enough hidden neurons can approximate any continuous function on a closed, bounded set with arbitrary precision. The parameters a i {\displaystyle a_{i}} , c i {\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{i}} , and β i {\displaystyle \beta _{i}} are determined in a manner that optimizes the fit between φ {\displaystyle \varphi } and the data. === Normalization === ==== Normalized architecture ==== In addition to the above unnormalized architecture, RBF networks can be normalized. In this case the mapping is φ ( x ) = d e f ∑ i = 1 N a i ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) ∑ i = 1 N ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) = ∑ i = 1 N a i u ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) {\displaystyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )\ {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\ {\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{N}a_{i}\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}}{\sum _{i=1}^{N}\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}}}=\sum _{i=1}^{N}a_{i}u{\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}} where u ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) = d e f ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) ∑ j = 1 N ρ ( ‖ x − c j ‖ ) {\displaystyle u{\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}\ {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\ {\frac {\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}}{\sum _{j=1}^{N}\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{j}\right\Vert {\big )}}}} is known as a normalized radial basis function. ==== Theoretical motivation for normalization ==== There is theoretical justification for this architecture in the case of stochastic data flow. Assume a stochastic kernel approximation for the joint probability density P ( x ∧ y ) = 1 N ∑ i = 1 N ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) σ ( | y − e i | ) {\displaystyle P\left(\mathbf {x} \land y\right)={1 \over N}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\,\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}\,\sigma {\big (}\left\vert y-e_{i}\right\vert {\big )}} where the weights c i {\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{i}} and e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} are exemplars from the data and we require the kernels to be normalized ∫ ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) d n x = 1 {\displaystyle \int \rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}\,d^{n}\mathbf {x} =1} and ∫ σ ( | y − e i | ) d y = 1 {\displaystyle \int \sigma {\big (}\left\vert y-e_{i}\right\vert {\big )}\,dy=1} . The probability densities in the input and output spaces are P ( x ) = ∫ P ( x ∧ y ) d y = 1 N ∑ i = 1 N ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) {\displaystyle P\left(\mathbf {x} \right)=\int P\left(\mathbf {x} \land y\right)\,dy={1 \over N}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\,\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}} and The expectation of y given an input x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } is φ ( x ) = d e f E ( y ∣ x ) = ∫ y P ( y ∣ x ) d y {\displaystyle \varphi \left(\mathbf {x} \right)\ {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\ E\left(y\mid \mathbf {x} \right)=\int y\,P\left(y\mid \mathbf {x} \right)dy} where P ( y ∣ x ) {\displaystyle P\left(y\mid \mathbf {x} \right)} is the conditional probability of y given x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . The conditional probability is related to the joint probability through Bayes' theorem P ( y ∣ x ) = P ( x ∧ y ) P ( x ) {\displaystyle P\left(y\mid \mathbf {x} \right)={\frac {P\left(\mathbf {x} \land y\right)}{P\left(\mathbf {x} \right)}}} which yields φ ( x ) = ∫ y P ( x ∧ y ) P ( x ) d y {\displaystyle \varphi \left(\mathbf {x} \right)=\int y\,{\frac {P\left(\mathbf {x} \land y\right)}{P\left(\mathbf {x} \right)}}\,dy} . This becomes φ ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 N e i ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) ∑ i = 1 N ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) = ∑ i = 1 N e i u ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) {\displaystyle \varphi \left(\mathbf {x} \right)={\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}}{\sum _{i=1}^{N}\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}}}=\sum _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}u{\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}} when the integrations are performed. === Local linear models === It is sometimes convenient to expand the architecture to include local linear models. In that case the architectures become, to first order, φ ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 N ( a i + b i ⋅ ( x − c i ) ) ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) {\displaystyle \varphi \left(\mathbf {x} \right)=\sum _{i=1}^{N}\left(a_{i}+\mathbf {b} _{i}\cdot \left(\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right)\right)\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}} and φ ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 N ( a i + b i ⋅ ( x − c i ) ) u ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) {\displaystyle \varphi \left(\mathbf {x} \right)=\sum _{i=1}^{N}\left(a_{i}+\mathbf {b} _{i}\cdot \left(\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right)\right)u{\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )}} in the unnormalized and normalized cases, respectively. Here b i {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} _{i}} are weights to be determined. Higher order linear terms are also possible. This result can be written φ ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 2 N ∑ j = 1 n e i j v i j ( x − c i ) {\displaystyle \varphi \left(\mathbf {x} \right)=\sum _{i=1}^{2N}\sum _{j=1}^{n}e_{ij}v_{ij}{\big (}\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}{\big )}} where e i j = { a i , if i ∈ [ 1 , N ] b i j , if i ∈ [ N + 1 , 2 N ] {\displaystyle e_{ij}={\begin{cases}a_{i},&{\mbox{if }}i\in [1,N]\\b_{ij},&{\mbox{if }}i\in [N+1,2N]\end{cases}}} and v i j ( x − c i ) = d e f { δ i j ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) , if i ∈ [ 1 , N ] ( x i j − c i j ) ρ ( ‖ x − c i ‖ ) , if i ∈ [ N + 1 , 2 N ] {\displaystyle v_{ij}{\big (}\mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}{\big )}\ {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\ {\begin{cases}\delta _{ij}\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )},&{\mbox{if }}i\in [1,N]\\\left(x_{ij}-c_{ij}\right)\rho {\big (}\left\Vert \mathbf {x} -\mathbf {c} _{i}\right\Vert {\big )},&{\mbox{if }}i\in [N+1,2N]\end{cases}}} in the unnormalized case and in the normalized case. Here δ i j {\displaystyle \delta _{ij}} is a Kronecker delta function defined as δ i j = { 1 , if i = j 0 , if i ≠ j {\displaystyle \delta _{ij}={\begin{cases}1,&{\mbox{if }}i=j\\0,&{\mbox{if }}i\neq j\end{cases}}} . == Training == RBF networks are typically trained from pairs of input and target values x ( t ) , y ( t ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} (t),y(t)} , t = 1 , … , T {\displaystyle t=1,\dots ,T} by a two-step algorithm. In the first step, the center vectors c i {\displaystyle \mathbf {c} _{i}} of the RBF functions in the hidden layer