AI Avatar Of Deceased

AI Avatar Of Deceased — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Wix.com

  Wix.com Ltd. (Hebrew: וויקס.קום, romanized: wix.com) or simply Wix is an Israeli software company, publicly listed in the US, that provides cloud-based web development services. It offers tools for creating HTML5 websites for desktop and mobile platforms using online drag-and-drop editing. Along with its headquarters and other offices in Israel, Wix also has offices in Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Ireland, Japan, Lithuania, Poland, the Netherlands, the United States, Ukraine, and Singapore. Users can add applications for social media, e-commerce, online marketing, contact forms, e-mail marketing, and community forums to their websites. The Wix website builder is built on a freemium business model, earning its revenues through premium upgrades. According to the W3Techs technology survey website, Wix was used by 2.5% of websites as of September 2023; at the end of May 2025, it was 3.8%. == History == === Corporate affairs === Wix was founded in 2006 by Israeli developers Avishai Abrahami, Nadav Abrahami, and Giora Kaplan. With its main offices in Tel Aviv, Wix was backed by investors Insight Venture Partners, Mangrove Capital Partners, Bessemer Venture Partners, DAG Ventures, and Benchmark Capital. By April 2010, Wix had 3.5 million users and raised US$10 million in Series C funding provided by Benchmark Capital and existing investors Bessemer Venture Partners and Mangrove Capital Partners. In March 2011, Wix had 8.5 million users and raised US$40 million in Series D funding, bringing its total funding to that date to US$61 million. By August 2013, the Wix platform had more than 34 million registered users. On 5 November 2013, Wix had an initial public offering on NASDAQ, raising about US$127 million for the company and some share holders. In 2016, Mark Tluszcz became the chair of the board of directors. In 2020, Wix's revenue increased to $989 million, a 30% rise year-on-year, primarily due to the shift of businesses online during the coronavirus pandemic. The company added over 31 million new registered users in 2020, reaching a total of 196.7 million by year's end. Wix added approximately 1 million net new premium subscriptions in 2020, surpassing $1 billion in annual collections for the first time. By the end of the year, there were 5.5 million premium subscriptions, a 22% increase compared to the end of 2019. As of its most recent reporting in June 2024, Wix has over 260 million users worldwide. === Product development === ==== 2000s ==== Wix entered an open beta phase in 2007 using a platform based on Adobe Flash. ==== 2010s ==== In June 2011, Wix launched the Facebook store module, making its first step into social commerce. In March 2012, Wix launched a new HTML5 site builder, replacing the Adobe Flash technology. In October 2012, Wix launched an app market for users to sell applications built with the company's automated web development technology. In August 2014, Wix launched Wix Hotels, a booking system for hotels, bed and breakfasts, and vacation rentals that use Wix websites. In June 2016, Wix introduced Wix ADI (Artificial Design Intelligence), a platform that uses artificial intelligence to design websites. ==== 2020s ==== In 2020, Wix launched an additional CMS, EditorX, which included additional CSS features to the original builder. In July 2023, Wix announced that it would be building on its ADI technology to create an AI powered website generator In October 2023, Wix launched the Wix Studio website builder. Co-founder and CEO, Avishai Abrahami described the platform as a “product for agencies”. In March 2024, the AI web builder, which uses a chatbot to help users create content was launched to the public. In March 2025, the digital publisher CNET has identified Wix as the "Best overall website builder overall." In August 2025, Wix announced it would launch banking services—including checking accounts and loans for small businesses—via a partnership with Israeli fintech Unit Finance, as it sought to diversify amid what it described as threats to its core website-building business from artificial intelligence. In January 2026, Wix launched Wix Harmony. Wix harmony is an AI website builder that uses agentic technology, generative design and vibe coding—with manual editing features for additional control. In May 2026, Wix announced layoffs affecting approximately 1,000 employees, or 20% of its workforce. CEO Avishai Abrahami cited two factors: the need to restructure around artificial intelligence and the appreciation of the Israeli shekel against the US dollar, which increased the cost of its Israel-based workforce relative to its dollar-denominated revenue. === Acquisitions === In April 2014, Wix announced the acquisition of Appixia, an Israeli startup for creating native mobile commerce (mCommerce) apps. In October 2014, Wix announced its acquisition of OpenRest, a developer of online ordering systems for restaurants. In April 2015, Wix acquired Moment.me, a mobile website builder for events and marketing tools for social lead generation. On 23 February 2017, Wix acquired the online art community DeviantArt for US$36 million. In January 2017, the company acquired Flok, a provider of customer loyalty programs tools. In February 2020, Wix acquired Inkfrog for eBay sellers, a web design company that provides customized business management software for eBay sellers. On 2 March 2021, Wix acquired SpeedETab, a Miami-based restaurant online technology provider. In May 2021, Wix acquired Rise.ai, a gift card and customer re-engagement package for online brands. A month later, Wix acquired Modalyst, a marketplace and drop-shipping platform. In May 2025, Wix acquired Hour One, a startup specializing in AI-powered video creation tools, to enhance its generative AI capabilities. In June 2025, the company acquired Base44, owned by independent entrepreneur Maor Shlomo, with the intention of integrating Base44's artificial intelligence capabilities and conversational interface into Wix's website and app building platform. == Description == Wix uses a freemium business model. Users can create websites for free then must purchase premium packages to connect their sites to their own domains, remove Wix ads, access the form builder, add e-commerce capabilities, or buy extra data storage and bandwidth. Wix provides customizable website templates and a drag-and-drop HTML5 website builder that includes apps, graphics, image galleries, fonts, vectors, animations, and other options. Users also may opt to create their web sites from scratch. In October 2013, Wix introduced a mobile editor for mobile viewing customization. Wix App Market offers both free and subscription-based applications, with a revenue split of 80% for the developer and 20% for Wix. Customers can integrate third-party applications into their own web sites, such as photograph feeds, blogging, music playlists, online community, e-mail marketing, and file management. Custom JavaScript code can be inserted into Wix webpages using the Velo API. == Controversies == === Use of WordPress code === In October 2016, there was a controversy over Wix's use of WordPress's GPL-licensed code. In response, Avishai Abrahami, Wix's CEO, published a response describing which open-source code was used and how Wix says it collaborates with the open-source community. However, it was subsequently noted that collaboration with the open-source community was not sufficient under the terms of the GPL license, which requires any code built on GPL-licensed code to be released under the same license. === Censorship === On 31 May 2021, 2021 Hong Kong Charter, a Wix-hosted website run by exiled Hong Kong activists, was shut down at the request of the Hong Kong Police. This was the first known case of Hong Kong's National Security Law being used to censor content on an overseas website. Wix later apologized for "mistakenly removing the website" and reinstated the website after it had been down for four days. In October 2023, Wix fired an employee in Dublin, Ireland, for having made social media posts critical of Israel. This incident led to criticism of Wix from members of the Oireachtas (the Irish parliament) and from the head of the Irish government, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, who said it was "not okay to dismiss somebody because of their political views". Deputy head of government, Tánaiste Micheál Martin, also condemned their dismissal, stating "we tolerate debate with freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, and people have different opinions on these issues." The dismissed employee, Courtney Carey, successfully sued the company for unfair dismissal. Wix did not contest the charge, admitting liability. === Outreach abroad === In October 2023, The Irish Times reported that an Israeli advertising agency advised Wix staff how they can tailor posts for "outreach abroad". This included advice for Wix employees to “show Westernity” in social media posts supporting Israel, stating that “unlike the Gazans,

  Read more →
• 

  Stochastic gradient descent

  Stochastic gradient descent (often abbreviated SGD) is an iterative method for optimizing an objective function with suitable smoothness properties (e.g. differentiable or subdifferentiable). It can be regarded as a stochastic approximation of gradient descent optimization, since it replaces the actual gradient (calculated from the entire data set) by an estimate thereof (calculated from a randomly selected subset of the data). Especially in high-dimensional optimization problems this reduces the very high computational burden, achieving faster iterations in exchange for a lower convergence rate. The basic idea behind stochastic approximation can be traced back to the Robbins–Monro algorithm of the 1950s. Today, stochastic gradient descent has become an important optimization method in machine learning. == Background == Both statistical estimation and machine learning consider the problem of minimizing an objective function that has the form of a sum: Q ( w ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n Q i ( w ) , {\displaystyle Q(w)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}Q_{i}(w),} where the parameter w {\displaystyle w} that minimizes Q ( w ) {\displaystyle Q(w)} is to be estimated. Each summand function Q i {\displaystyle Q_{i}} is typically associated with the i {\displaystyle i} -th observation in the data set (used for training). In classical statistics, sum-minimization problems arise in least squares and in maximum-likelihood estimation (for independent observations). The general class of estimators that arise as minimizers of sums are called M-estimators. However, in statistics, it has been long recognized that requiring even local minimization is too restrictive for some problems of maximum-likelihood estimation. Therefore, contemporary statistical theorists often consider stationary points of the likelihood function (or zeros of its derivative, the score function, and other estimating equations). The sum-minimization problem also arises for empirical risk minimization. There, Q i ( w ) {\displaystyle Q_{i}(w)} is the value of the loss function at i {\displaystyle i} -th example, and Q ( w ) {\displaystyle Q(w)} is the empirical risk. When used to minimize the above function, a standard (or "batch") gradient descent method would perform the following iterations: w := w − η ∇ Q ( w ) = w − η n ∑ i = 1 n ∇ Q i ( w ) . {\displaystyle w:=w-\eta \,\nabla Q(w)=w-{\frac {\eta }{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\nabla Q_{i}(w).} The step size is denoted by η {\displaystyle \eta } (sometimes called the learning rate in machine learning) and here " := {\displaystyle :=} " denotes the update of a variable in the algorithm. In many cases, the summand functions have a simple form that enables inexpensive evaluations of the sum-function and the sum gradient. For example, in statistics, one-parameter exponential families allow economical function-evaluations and gradient-evaluations. However, in other cases, evaluating the sum-gradient may require expensive evaluations of the gradients from all summand functions. When the training set is enormous and no simple formulas exist, evaluating the sums of gradients becomes very expensive, because evaluating the gradient requires evaluating all the summand functions' gradients. To economize on the computational cost at every iteration, stochastic gradient descent samples a subset of summand functions at every step. This is very effective in the case of large-scale machine learning problems. == Iterative method == In stochastic (or "on-line") gradient descent, the true gradient of Q ( w ) {\displaystyle Q(w)} is approximated by a gradient at a single sample: w := w − η ∇ Q i ( w ) . {\displaystyle w:=w-\eta \,\nabla Q_{i}(w).} As the algorithm sweeps through the training set, it performs the above update for each training sample. Several passes can be made over the training set until the algorithm converges. If this is done, the data can be shuffled for each pass to prevent cycles. Typical implementations may use an adaptive learning rate so that the algorithm converges. In pseudocode, stochastic gradient descent can be presented as : A compromise between computing the true gradient and the gradient at a single sample is to compute the gradient against more than one training sample (called a "mini-batch") at each step. This can perform significantly better than "true" stochastic gradient descent described, because the code can make use of vectorization libraries rather than computing each step separately as was first shown in where it was called "the bunch-mode back-propagation algorithm". It may also result in smoother convergence, as the gradient computed at each step is averaged over more training samples. The convergence of stochastic gradient descent has been analyzed using the theories of convex minimization and of stochastic approximation. Briefly, when the learning rates η {\displaystyle \eta } decrease with an appropriate rate, and subject to relatively mild assumptions, stochastic gradient descent converges almost surely to a global minimum when the objective function is convex or pseudoconvex, and otherwise converges almost surely to a local minimum. This is in fact a consequence of the Robbins–Siegmund theorem. == Linear regression == Suppose we want to fit a straight line y ^ = w 1 + w 2 x {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=w_{1}+w_{2}x} to a training set with observations ( ( x 1 , y 1 ) , ( x 2 , y 2 ) … , ( x n , y n ) ) {\displaystyle ((x_{1},y_{1}),(x_{2},y_{2})\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n}))} and corresponding estimated responses ( y ^ 1 , y ^ 2 , … , y ^ n ) {\displaystyle ({\hat {y}}_{1},{\hat {y}}_{2},\ldots ,{\hat {y}}_{n})} using least squares. The objective function to be minimized is Q ( w ) = ∑ i = 1 n Q i ( w ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( y ^ i − y i ) 2 = ∑ i = 1 n ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) 2 . {\displaystyle Q(w)=\sum _{i=1}^{n}Q_{i}(w)=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\hat {y}}_{i}-y_{i}\right)^{2}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i}\right)^{2}.} The last line in the above pseudocode for this specific problem will become: [ w 1 w 2 ] ← [ w 1 w 2 ] − η [ ∂ ∂ w 1 ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) 2 ∂ ∂ w 2 ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) 2 ] = [ w 1 w 2 ] − η [ 2 ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) 2 x i ( w 1 + w 2 x i − y i ) ] . {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}w_{1}\\w_{2}\end{bmatrix}}\leftarrow {\begin{bmatrix}w_{1}\\w_{2}\end{bmatrix}}-\eta {\begin{bmatrix}{\frac {\partial }{\partial w_{1}}}(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i})^{2}\\{\frac {\partial }{\partial w_{2}}}(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i})^{2}\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}w_{1}\\w_{2}\end{bmatrix}}-\eta {\begin{bmatrix}2(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i})\\2x_{i}(w_{1}+w_{2}x_{i}-y_{i})\end{bmatrix}}.} Note that in each iteration or update step, the gradient is only evaluated at a single x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . This is the key difference between stochastic gradient descent and batched gradient descent. In general, given a linear regression y ^ = ∑ k ∈ 1 : m w k x k {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}=\sum _{k\in 1:m}w_{k}x_{k}} problem, stochastic gradient descent behaves differently when m < n {\displaystyle m

• 

  Learning classifier system

  Learning classifier systems, or LCS, are a paradigm of rule-based machine learning methods that combine a discovery component (e.g. typically a genetic algorithm in evolutionary computation) with a learning component (performing either supervised learning, reinforcement learning, or unsupervised learning). Learning classifier systems seek to identify a set of context-dependent rules that collectively store and apply knowledge in a piecewise manner in order to make predictions (e.g. behavior modeling, classification, data mining, regression, function approximation, or game strategy). This approach allows complex solution spaces to be broken up into smaller, simpler parts for the reinforcement learning that is inside artificial intelligence research. The founding concepts behind learning classifier systems came from attempts to model complex adaptive systems, using rule-based agents to form an artificial cognitive system (i.e. artificial intelligence). == Methodology == The architecture and components of a given learning classifier system can be quite variable. It is useful to think of an LCS as a machine consisting of several interacting components. Components may be added or removed, or existing components modified/exchanged to suit the demands of a given problem domain (like algorithmic building blocks) or to make the algorithm flexible enough to function in many different problem domains. As a result, the LCS paradigm can be flexibly applied to many problem domains that call for machine learning. The major divisions among LCS implementations are as follows: (1) Michigan-style architecture vs. Pittsburgh-style architecture, (2) reinforcement learning vs. supervised learning, (3) incremental learning vs. batch learning, (4) online learning vs. offline learning, (5) strength-based fitness vs. accuracy-based fitness, and (6) complete action mapping vs best action mapping. These divisions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, XCS, the best known and best studied LCS algorithm, is Michigan-style, was designed for reinforcement learning but can also perform supervised learning, applies incremental learning that can be either online or offline, applies accuracy-based fitness, and seeks to generate a complete action mapping. === Elements of a generic LCS algorithm === Keeping in mind that LCS is a paradigm for genetic-based machine learning rather than a specific method, the following outlines key elements of a generic, modern (i.e. post-XCS) LCS algorithm. For simplicity let us focus on Michigan-style architecture with supervised learning. See the illustrations on the right laying out the sequential steps involved in this type of generic LCS. ==== Environment ==== The environment is the source of data upon which an LCS learns. It can be an offline, finite training dataset (characteristic of a data mining, classification, or regression problem), or an online sequential stream of live training instances. Each training instance is assumed to include some number of features (also referred to as attributes, or independent variables), and a single endpoint of interest (also referred to as the class, action, phenotype, prediction, or dependent variable). Part of LCS learning can involve feature selection, therefore not all of the features in the training data need to be informative. The set of feature values of an instance is commonly referred to as the state. For simplicity let's assume an example problem domain with Boolean/binary features and a Boolean/binary class. For Michigan-style systems, one instance from the environment is trained on each learning cycle (i.e. incremental learning). Pittsburgh-style systems perform batch learning, where rule sets are evaluated in each iteration over much or all of the training data. ==== Rule/classifier/population ==== A rule is a context dependent relationship between state values and some prediction. Rules typically take the form of an {IF:THEN} expression, (e.g. {IF 'condition' THEN 'action'}, or as a more specific example, {IF 'red' AND 'octagon' THEN 'stop-sign'}). A critical concept in LCS and rule-based machine learning alike, is that an individual rule is not in itself a model, since the rule is only applicable when its condition is satisfied. Think of a rule as a "local-model" of the solution space. Rules can be represented in many different ways to handle different data types (e.g. binary, discrete-valued, ordinal, continuous-valued). Given binary data LCS traditionally applies a ternary rule representation (i.e. rules can include either a 0, 1, or '#' for each feature in the data). The 'don't care' symbol (i.e. '#') serves as a wild card within a rule's condition allowing rules, and the system as a whole to generalize relationships between features and the target endpoint to be predicted. Consider the following rule (#1###0 ~ 1) (i.e. condition ~ action). This rule can be interpreted as: IF the second feature = 1 AND the sixth feature = 0 THEN the class prediction = 1. We would say that the second and sixth features were specified in this rule, while the others were generalized. This rule, and the corresponding prediction are only applicable to an instance when the condition of the rule is satisfied by the instance. This is more commonly referred to as matching. In Michigan-style LCS, each rule has its own fitness, as well as a number of other rule-parameters associated with it that can describe the number of copies of that rule that exist (i.e. the numerosity), the age of the rule, its accuracy, or the accuracy of its reward predictions, and other descriptive or experiential statistics. A rule along with its parameters is often referred to as a classifier. In Michigan-style systems, classifiers are contained within a population [P] that has a user defined maximum number of classifiers. Unlike most stochastic search algorithms (e.g. evolutionary algorithms), LCS populations start out empty (i.e. there is no need to randomly initialize a rule population). Classifiers will instead be initially introduced to the population with a covering mechanism. In any LCS, the trained model is a set of rules/classifiers, rather than any single rule/classifier. In Michigan-style LCS, the entire trained (and optionally, compacted) classifier population forms the prediction model. ==== Matching ==== One of the most critical and often time-consuming elements of an LCS is the matching process. The first step in an LCS learning cycle takes a single training instance from the environment and passes it to [P] where matching takes place. In step two, every rule in [P] is now compared to the training instance to see which rules match (i.e. are contextually relevant to the current instance). In step three, any matching rules are moved to a match set [M]. A rule matches a training instance if all feature values specified in the rule condition are equivalent to the corresponding feature value in the training instance. For example, assuming the training instance is (001001 ~ 0), these rules would match: (###0## ~ 0), (00###1 ~ 0), (#01001 ~ 1), but these rules would not (1##### ~ 0), (000##1 ~ 0), (#0#1#0 ~ 1). Notice that in matching, the endpoint/action specified by the rule is not taken into consideration. As a result, the match set may contain classifiers that propose conflicting actions. In the fourth step, since we are performing supervised learning, [M] is divided into a correct set [C] and an incorrect set [I]. A matching rule goes into the correct set if it proposes the correct action (based on the known action of the training instance), otherwise it goes into [I]. In reinforcement learning LCS, an action set [A] would be formed here instead, since the correct action is not known. ==== Covering ==== At this point in the learning cycle, if no classifiers made it into either [M] or [C] (as would be the case when the population starts off empty), the covering mechanism is applied (fifth step). Covering is a form of online smart population initialization. Covering randomly generates a rule that matches the current training instance (and in the case of supervised learning, that rule is also generated with the correct action. Assuming the training instance is (001001 ~ 0), covering might generate any of the following rules: (#0#0## ~ 0), (001001 ~ 0), (#010## ~ 0). Covering not only ensures that each learning cycle there is at least one correct, matching rule in [C], but that any rule initialized into the population will match at least one training instance. This prevents LCS from exploring the search space of rules that do not match any training instances. ==== Parameter updates/credit assignment/learning ==== In the sixth step, the rule parameters of any rule in [M] are updated to reflect the new experience gained from the current training instance. Depending on the LCS algorithm, a number of updates can take place at this step. For supervised learning, we can simply update the accuracy/error of a

  Read more →
• 

  Receptron

  The receptron (short for "reservoir perceptron") is a neuromorphic data processing model — specifically neuromorphic computing — that generalizes the traditional perceptron, by incorporating non-linear interactions between inputs. Unlike classical perceptron, which rely on linearly independent weights, the receptron leverages complexity in physical substrates, such as the electric conduction properties of nanostructured materials or optical speckle fields, to perform classification tasks. The receptron bridges unconventional computing and neural network principles, enabling solutions that do not require the training approaches typical of artificial neural networks based on the perceptron model. == Algorithm == The receptron is an algorithm for supervised learning of binary classifiers, so a classification algorithm that makes its predictions based on a predictor function, combining a set of weights with the feature vector. The mathematical model is based on the sum of inputs with non-linear interactions: S = ∑ k = 1 n x j w ~ j ( x → ) | S ∈ R {\displaystyle S=\sum _{k=1}^{n}x_{j}{\widetilde {w}}_{j}({\vec {x}})|S\in R} (1) where j ∈ [ 1 , n ] {\displaystyle j\in [1,n]} and w ~ j {\displaystyle {\widetilde {w}}_{j}} are non-linear weight functions depending on the inputs, x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} . Nonlinearity will typically make the system extremely complex, and allowing for the solution of problems not solvable through the simpler rules of a linear system, such as the perceptron or McCulloch Pitts neurons, which is based on the sum of linearly independent weights: S = ∑ k = 1 n x j w j p {\displaystyle S=\sum _{k=1}^{n}x_{j}w_{j}^{p}} (2) where w j {\displaystyle w_{j}} are constant real values. A consequence of this simplicity is the limitation to linearly separable functions, which necessitates multi-layer architectures and training algorithms like backpropagation As in the perceptron case, the summation in Eq. 1 origins the activation of the receptron output through the thresholding process, Y ( x 1 , . . . , x n ) = { 1 if S > th 0 if S ≤ th {\displaystyle Y(x_{1},...,x_{n})={\begin{cases}1&{\text{if }}S>{\text{th}}\\0&{\text{if }}S\leq {\text{th}}\end{cases}}} (3) where th is a constant threshold parameter. Equation 3 can be written by using the Heaviside step function. The weight functions w ~ ( x → ) {\displaystyle {\widetilde {w}}({\vec {x}})} can be written with a finite number of parameters w j 1 . . . j n {\displaystyle w_{j_{1}...j_{n}}} , simplifying the model representation. One can Taylor-expand w ~ ( x → ) {\displaystyle {\widetilde {w}}({\vec {x}})} and use the idempotency of Boolean variables ( x j ) q = x j ∀ q ≥ 1 {\displaystyle (x_{j})^{q}=x_{j}\forall q\geq 1} such that S ′ = b + ∑ k = 1 n x j w ~ j ( x → ) {\displaystyle S'=b+\sum _{k=1}^{n}x_{j}{\widetilde {w}}_{j}({\vec {x}})} can be written as S ′ ( x → ) = b + ∑ j w j x j + ∑ j < k w j k x j x k + ∑ j < k < l w j k l x j x k x l + . . . {\displaystyle S'({\vec {x}})=b+\sum _{j}w_{j}x_{j}+\sum _{j Read more →

• 

  Image formation

  The study of image formation encompasses the radiometric and geometric processes by which 2D images of 3D objects are formed. In the case of digital images, the image formation process also includes analog to digital conversion and sampling. == Imaging == The imaging process is a mapping of an object to an image plane. Each point on the image corresponds to a point on the object. An illuminated object will scatter light toward a lens and the lens will collect and focus the light to create the image. The ratio of the height of the image to the height of the object is the magnification. The spatial extent of the image surface and the focal length of the lens determines the field of view of the lens. Image formation of mirror these have a center of curvature and its focal length of the mirror is half of the center of curvature. == Illumination == An object may be illuminated by the light from an emitting source such as the sun, a light bulb or a Light Emitting Diode. The light incident on the object is reflected in a manner dependent on the surface properties of the object. For rough surfaces, the reflected light is scattered in a manner described by the Bi-directional Reflectance Distribution Function (BRDF) of the surface. The BRDF of a surface is the ratio of the exiting power per square meter per steradian (radiance) to the incident power per square meter (irradiance). The BRDF typically varies with angle and may vary with wavelength, but a specific important case is a surface that has constant BRDF. This surface type is referred to as Lambertian and the magnitude of the BRDF is R/π, where R is the reflectivity of the surface. The portion of scattered light that propagates toward the lens is collected by the entrance pupil of the imaging lens over the field of view. == Field of view and imagery == The Field of view of a lens is limited by the size of the image plane and the focal length of the lens. The relationship between a location on the image and a location on the object is y = ftan(θ), where y is the max extent of the image plane, f is the focal length of the lens and θ is the field of view. If y is the max radial size of the image then θ is the field of view of the lens. While the image created by a lens is continuous, it can be modeled as a set of discrete field points, each representing a point on the object. The quality of the image is limited by the aberrations in the lens and the diffraction created by the finite aperture stop. == Pupils and stops == The aperture stop of a lens is a mechanical aperture which limits the light collection for each field point. The entrance pupil is the image of the aperture stop created by the optical elements on the object side of the lens. The light scattered by an object is collected by the entrance pupil and focused onto the image plane via a series of refractive elements. The cone of the focused light at the image plane is set by the size of the entrance pupil and the focal length of the lens. This is often referred to as the f-stop or f-number of the lens. f/# = f/D where D is the diameter of the entrance pupil. == Pixelation and color vs. monochrome == In typical digital imaging systems, a sensor is placed at the image plane. The light is focused on to the sensor and the continuous image is pixelated. The light incident on each pixel in the sensor will be integrated within the pixel and a proportional electronic signal will be generated. The angular geometric resolution of a pixel is given by atan(p/f), where p is the pitch of the pixel. This is also called the pixel field of view. The sensor may be monochrome or color. In the case of a monochrome sensor, the light incident on each pixel is integrated and the resulting image is a grayscale like picture. For color images, a mosaic color filter is typically placed over the pixels to create a color image. An example is a Bayer filter. The signal incident on each pixel is then digitized to a bit stream. == Image quality == The quality of an image is dependent upon both geometric and physical items. Geometrically, higher density of pixels across an image will give less blocky pixelation and thus a better geometric image quality. Lens aberrations also contribute to the quality of the image. Physically, diffraction due to the aperture stop will limit the resolvable spatial frequencies as a function of f-number. In the frequency domain, Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) is a measure of the quality of the imaging system. The MTF is a measure of the visibility of a sinusoidal variation in irradiance on the image plane as a function of the frequency of the sinusoid. It includes the effects of diffraction, aberrations and pixelation. For the lens, the MTF is the autocorrelation of the pupil function, so it accounts for the finite pupil extent and the lens aberrations. The sensor MTF is the Fourier Transform of the pixel geometry. For a square pixel, MTF(ξ) = sin(πξp)/πξp where p is the pixel width and ξ is the spatial frequency. The MTF of the combination of the lens and detector is the product of the two component MTFs. == Perception == Color images can be perceived via two means. In the case of computer vision the light incident on the sensor comprises the image. In the case of visual perception, the human eye has a color dependent response to light so this must be accounted for. This is important consideration when converting to grayscale. == Image formation in eye == The principal difference between the lens of the eye and an ordinary optical lens is that the former is flexible. The radius of the curvature of the anterior surface of the lens is greater than the radius of its posterior surface. The shape of the lens is controlled by tension in the fibers of the ciliary body. To focus on distant objects, the controlling muscles cause the lens to be relatively flattened. Similarly, these muscles allow the lens to become thicker in order to focus on objects near the eye. The distance between the center of the lens and the retina (focal length) varies from approximately 17 mm to about 14 mm, as the refractive power of the lens increases from its minimum to its maximum. When the eye focuses on an object farther away than about 3 m, the lens exhibits its lowest refractive power. When the eye focuses on a close object, the lens is most strongly refractive.

  Read more →
• 

  Cartesian genetic programming

  Cartesian genetic programming is a form of genetic programming that uses a graph representation to encode computer programs. It grew from a method of evolving digital circuits developed by Julian F. Miller and Peter Thomson in 1997. The term ‘Cartesian genetic programming’ first appeared in 1999 and was proposed as a general form of genetic programming in 2000. It is called ‘Cartesian’ because it represents a program using a two-dimensional grid of nodes. Miller's keynote explains how CGP works. He edited a book entitled Cartesian Genetic Programming, published in 2011 by Springer. The open source project dCGP implements a differentiable version of CGP developed at the European Space Agency by Dario Izzo, Francesco Biscani and Alessio Mereta able to approach symbolic regression tasks, to find solution to differential equations, find prime integrals of dynamical systems, represent variable topology artificial neural networks and more.

  Read more →
• 

  Markov blanket

  In statistics and machine learning, a Markov blanket of a random variable is a set of variables that renders the variable conditionally independent of all other variables in the system. This concept is central in probabilistic graphical models and feature selection. If a Markov blanket is minimal—meaning that no variable in it can be removed without losing this conditional independence—it is called a Markov boundary. Identifying a Markov blanket or boundary allows for efficient inference and helps isolate relevant variables for prediction or causal reasoning. The terms Markov blanket and Markov boundary were coined by Judea Pearl in 1988. A Markov blanket may be derived from the structure of a probabilistic graphical model such as a Bayesian network or Markov random field. == Definition == A Markov blanket of a random variable Y {\displaystyle Y} in a random variable set S = { X 1 , … , X n } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}=\{X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n}\}} is any subset S 1 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{1}} of S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} , conditioned on which other variables are independent with Y {\displaystyle Y} : Y ⊥ ⊥ S ∖ S 1 ∣ S 1 {\displaystyle Y\perp \!\!\!\perp {\mathcal {S}}\smallsetminus {\mathcal {S}}_{1}\mid {\mathcal {S}}_{1}} It means that S 1 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{1}} contains at least all the information one needs to infer Y {\displaystyle Y} , where the variables in S ∖ S 1 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}\smallsetminus {\mathcal {S}}_{1}} are redundant. In general, a given Markov blanket is not unique. Any set in S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} that contains a Markov blanket is also a Markov blanket itself. Specifically, S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is a Markov blanket of Y {\displaystyle Y} in S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} . === Example === In a Bayesian network, the Markov blanket of a node consists of its parents, its children, and its children's other parents (i.e., co-parents). Knowing the values of these nodes makes the target node conditionally independent of the rest of the network. In a Markov random field, the Markov blanket of a node is simply its immediate neighbors. == Markov condition == The concept of a Markov blanket is rooted in the Markov condition, which states that in a probabilistic graphical model, each variable is conditionally independent of its non-descendants given its parents. This condition implies the existence of a minimal separating set — the Markov blanket — that shields a variable from the rest of the network. For instance, when a person holds an object stationary against gravity, the object’s acceleration is fully determined by its direct causes—namely, the upward force from the hand and the downward gravitational pull. Other variables such as air pressure or temperature are causally irrelevant. == Markov boundary == A Markov boundary of Y {\displaystyle Y} in S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} is a subset S 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{2}} of S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} , such that S 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{2}} itself is a Markov blanket of Y {\displaystyle Y} , but any proper subset of S 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}_{2}} is not a Markov blanket of Y {\displaystyle Y} . In other words, a Markov boundary is a minimal Markov blanket. The Markov boundary of a node A {\displaystyle A} in a Bayesian network is the set of nodes composed of A {\displaystyle A} 's parents, A {\displaystyle A} 's children, and A {\displaystyle A} 's children's other parents. In a Markov random field, the Markov boundary for a node is the set of its neighboring nodes. In a dependency network, the Markov boundary for a node is the set of its parents. === Uniqueness of Markov boundary === The Markov boundary always exists. Under some mild conditions, the Markov boundary is unique. However, for most practical and theoretical scenarios multiple Markov boundaries may provide alternative solutions. When there are multiple Markov boundaries, quantities measuring causal effect could fail. == In cognitive science == In the study of consciousness, brain function, and complex adaptive systems, Markov blankets are proposed as a mathematical mechanism which delimits the extent of cognitive entities, whether it be physical or causal.

  Read more →
• 

  Moral graph

  In graph theory, a moral graph is used to find the equivalent undirected form of a directed acyclic graph. It is a key step of the junction tree algorithm, used in belief propagation on graphical models. The moralized counterpart of a directed acyclic graph is formed by adding edges between all pairs of non-adjacent nodes that have a common child, and then making all edges in the graph undirected. Equivalently, a moral graph of a directed acyclic graph G is an undirected graph in which each node of the original G is now connected to its Markov blanket. The name stems from the fact that, in a moral graph, two nodes that have a common child are required to be married by sharing an edge. Moralization may also be applied to mixed graphs, called in this context "chain graphs". In a chain graph, a connected component of the undirected subgraph is called a chain. Moralization adds an undirected edge between any two vertices that both have outgoing edges to the same chain, and then forgets the orientation of the directed edges of the graph. == Weakly recursively simplicial == A graph is weakly recursively simplicial if it has a simplicial vertex and the subgraph after removing a simplicial vertex and some edges (possibly none) between its neighbours is weakly recursively simplicial. A graph is moral if and only if it is weakly recursively simplicial. A chordal graph (a.k.a., recursive simplicial) is a special case of weakly recursively simplicial when no edge is removed during the elimination process. Therefore, a chordal graph is also moral. But a moral graph is not necessarily chordal. == Recognising moral graphs == Unlike chordal graphs that can be recognised in polynomial time, Verma & Pearl (1993) proved that deciding whether or not a graph is moral is NP-complete.

  Read more →
• 

  Stochastic parrot

  In machine learning, the term stochastic parrot is a metaphor that frames large language models as systems that statistically mimic text without real understanding. The word "stochastic" – from the ancient Greek "στοχαστικός" (stokhastikos, 'based on guesswork') – is a term from probability theory meaning "randomly determined". The word "parrot" refers to parrots' ability to mimic human speech. The term was introduced in a 2021 paper on AI ethics titled "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜" and authored by Timnit Gebru, Emily M. Bender, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Margaret Mitchell. The paper outlined possible risks associated with large language models (LLMs). In December 2020, it was the subject of a workplace dispute between Gebru (then co-leader of Google's Ethical Artificial Intelligence Team) and Google, which had requested the retraction of the paper. The incident culminated in Gebru's controversial departure from the company. The paper was later presented at the 2021 ACM Conference, and the term "stochastic parrot" has seen widespread use in academic research concerning generative AI and LLMs. The term has been interpreted negatively as an insult towards AI. == Background == Timnit Gebru is an AI ethics researcher, Emily M. Bender is a linguist specializing in computational linguistics, and Margaret Mitchell is a computer scientist specializing in algorithmic bias. Gebru had joined Google in 2018, where she co-led a team on the ethics of artificial intelligence with Mitchell. In late 2020, the paper "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜" was co-written by Gebru and five other researchers, four of whom were Google employees. The paper argues that large language models (LLMs) present significant risks such as environmental and financial costs, inscrutability leading to unknown dangerous biases, and potential for deception as LLMs do not understand the concepts underlying what they learn. The paper states that LLMs are "stitching together sequences of linguistic forms ... observed in its vast training data, according to probabilistic information about how they combine, but without any reference to meaning." Therefore, they are labeled "stochastic parrots". === Dismissal of Gebru by Google === After the paper was submitted for consideration to the 2021 ACM Conference, Google requested that Gebru either retract the paper from the conference or remove the names of Google employees from it. Gebru refused to do so without further discussion, and emailed Google Research vice president Megan Kacholia that if the company could not explain the request for retraction and address other concerns regarding similar projects, she would plan to resign after a transition period, stating that they could "work on a last date". The following day, on December 2, 2020, Gebru received an email saying that Google was "accepting her resignation". Her abrupt firing sparked protests by Google employees and negative publicity for the company. == Usage == The phrase has been used by AI skeptics to signify that LLMs lack understanding of the meaning of their outputs. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, used the term shortly after the release of ChatGPT in December 2022, tweeting "i am a stochastic parrot, and so r u". The term was nominated as the 2023 AI-related Word of the Year by the American Dialect Society. == Debate == Some LLMs, such as ChatGPT, have become capable of interacting with users in convincingly human-like conversations. The development of these new systems has deepened the discussion of the extent to which LLMs understand or are simply "parroting". According to machine learning researchers Lindholm, Wahlström, Lindsten, and Schön, the term "stochastic parrot" highlights two vital limitations of LLMs: LLMs are limited by the data they are trained on and are simply stochastically repeating contents of datasets. Because they are just making up outputs based on training data, LLMs do not understand if they are saying something incorrect or inappropriate. Lindholm et al. noted that, with poor quality datasets and other limitations, a learning machine might produce results that are "dangerously wrong". === Subjective experience === In the mind of a human being, words and language correspond to things one has experienced. For LLMs, according to proponents of the theory, words correspond only to other words and patterns of usage fed into their training data. Proponents of the idea of stochastic parrots thus conclude that statements about LLMs are due to "the human tendency to attribute meaning to text", and claim this occurs despite the LLMs not actually understanding language. === Fine-tuning === Kelsey Piper argued that the claim that LLMs are stochastic parrots or mere "next-token predictors" focuses on pre-training, ignoring that modern LLMs are also fine-tuned to follow instructions and to prefer accurate answers. === Hallucinations and mistakes === The tendency of LLMs to pass off false information as fact is held as support. Called hallucinations or confabulations, LLMs will occasionally synthesize information that matches some pattern. LLMs may fail to distinguish fact and fiction, which leads to the claim that they can't connect words to a comprehension of the world, as humans do. Furthermore, LLMs may fail to decipher complex or ambiguous grammar cases that rely on understanding the meaning of language. For example: The wet newspaper that fell down off the table is my favorite newspaper. But now that my favorite newspaper fired the editor I might not like reading it anymore. Can I replace 'my favorite newspaper' by 'the wet newspaper that fell down off the table' in the second sentence? GPT-4, an LLM released in March 2023, responded yes, not understanding that the meaning of "newspaper" is different in these two contexts; it is first an object and second an institution. === Benchmarks and experiments === One argument against the hypothesis that LLMs are stochastic parrot is their results on benchmarks for reasoning, common sense and language understanding. In 2023, some LLMs have shown good results on many language understanding tests, such as the Super General Language Understanding Evaluation (SuperGLUE). GPT-4 scored in the >90th-percentile on the Uniform Bar Examination and achieved 93% accuracy on the MATH benchmark of high-school Olympiad problems, results that exceed rote pattern-matching expectations. Such tests, and the smoothness of many LLM responses, help as many as 51% of AI professionals believe they can truly understand language with enough data, according to a 2022 survey. === Expert rebuttals === Some AI researchers dispute the notion that LLMs merely "parrot" their training data. Geoffrey Hinton, a pioneering figure in neural networks, counters that the metaphor misunderstands the prerequisite for accurate language prediction. He argues that "to predict the next word accurately, you have to understand the sentence", a view he presented on 60 Minutes in 2023. From this perspective, understanding is not an alternative to statistical prediction, but rather an emergent property required to perform it effectively at scale. Hinton also uses logical puzzles to demonstrate that LLMs actually understand language. A 2024 Scientific American investigation described a closed Berkeley workshop where state-of-the-art models solved novel tier-4 mathematics problems and produced coherent proofs, indicating reasoning abilities beyond memorization. The GPT-4 Technical Report showed human-level results on professional and academic exams (e.g., the Uniform Bar Exam and USMLE), challenging the "parrot" characterization. Anthropic conducted mechanistic interpretability research on Claude, using attribution graphs to identify circuits. The research showed how the LLM processes information via chains of fuzzy logical inference, and indicated an ability to plan ahead. They found that Claude 3.5 Haiku "employs remarkably general abstractions", forms "internally generated plans for its future outputs" and "works backwards from its longer-term goals". They noted that "The mechanisms of the model can apparently only be faithfully described using an overwhelmingly large causal graph." They also found that the model includes "mechanisms that could underlie a simple form of metacognition", in that it "thinks about" the level of its own knowledge before reaching its answer. === Interpretability === Another line of evidence against the 'stochastic parrot' claim comes from mechanistic interpretability, a research field dedicated to reverse-engineering LLMs to understand their internal workings. Rather than only observing the model's input-output behavior, these techniques probe the model's internal activations, which can be used to determine if they contain structured representations of the world. The goal is to investigate whether LLMs are merely manipulating surface statistics or if t

  Read more →
• 

  Independent component analysis

  In signal processing, independent component analysis (ICA) is a computational method for separating a multivariate signal into additive subcomponents. This is done by assuming that at most one subcomponent is Gaussian and that the subcomponents are statistically independent from each other. ICA was invented by Jeanny Hérault and Christian Jutten in 1985. ICA is a special case of blind source separation. A common example application of ICA is the "cocktail party problem" of listening in on one person's speech in a noisy room. == Introduction == Independent component analysis attempts to decompose a multivariate signal into independent non-Gaussian signals. As an example, sound is usually a signal that is composed of the numerical addition, at each time t, of signals from several sources. The question then is whether it is possible to separate these contributing sources from the observed total signal. When the statistical independence assumption is correct, blind ICA separation of a mixed signal gives very good results. It is also used for signals that are not supposed to be generated by mixing for analysis purposes. A simple application of ICA is the "cocktail party problem", where the underlying speech signals are separated from a sample data consisting of people talking simultaneously in a room. Usually the problem is simplified by assuming no time delays or echoes. Note that a filtered and delayed signal is a copy of a dependent component, and thus the statistical independence assumption is not violated. Mixing weights for constructing the M {\textstyle M} observed signals from the N {\textstyle N} components can be placed in an M × N {\textstyle M\times N} matrix. An important thing to consider is that if N {\textstyle N} sources are present, at least N {\textstyle N} observations (e.g. microphones if the observed signal is audio) are needed to recover the original signals. When there are an equal number of observations and source signals, the mixing matrix is square ( M = N {\textstyle M=N} ). Other cases of underdetermined ( M < N {\textstyle M N {\textstyle M>N} ) have been investigated. The success of ICA separation of mixed signals relies on two assumptions and three effects of mixing source signals. Two assumptions: The source signals are independent of each other. The values in each source signal have non-Gaussian distributions. Three effects of mixing source signals: Independence: As per assumption 1, the source signals are independent; however, their signal mixtures are not. This is because the signal mixtures share the same source signals. Normality: According to the Central Limit Theorem, the distribution of a sum of independent random variables with finite variance tends towards a Gaussian distribution.Loosely speaking, a sum of two independent random variables usually has a distribution that is closer to Gaussian than any of the two original variables. Here we consider the value of each signal as the random variable. Complexity: The temporal complexity of any signal mixture is greater than that of its simplest constituent source signal. Those principles contribute to the basic establishment of ICA. If the signals extracted from a set of mixtures are independent and have non-Gaussian distributions or have low complexity, then they must be source signals. Another common example is image steganography, where ICA is used to embed one image within another. For instance, two grayscale images can be linearly combined to create mixed images in which the hidden content is visually imperceptible. ICA can then be used to recover the original source images from the mixtures. This technique underlies digital watermarking, which allows the embedding of ownership information into images, as well as more covert applications such as undetected information transmission. The method has even been linked to real-world cyberespionage cases. In such applications, ICA serves to unmix the data based on statistical independence, making it possible to extract hidden components that are not apparent in the observed data. Steganographic techniques, including those potentially involving ICA-based analysis, have been used in real-world cyberespionage cases. In 2010, the FBI uncovered a Russian spy network known as the "Illegals Program" (Operation Ghost Stories), where agents used custom-built steganography tools to conceal encrypted text messages within image files shared online. In another case, a former General Electric engineer, Xiaoqing Zheng, was convicted in 2022 for economic espionage. Zheng used steganography to exfiltrate sensitive turbine technology by embedding proprietary data within image files for transfer to entities in China. == Defining component independence == ICA finds the independent components (also called factors, latent variables or sources) by maximizing the statistical independence of the estimated components. We may choose one of many ways to define a proxy for independence, and this choice governs the form of the ICA algorithm. The two broadest definitions of independence for ICA are Minimization of mutual information Maximization of non-Gaussianity The Minimization-of-Mutual information (MMI) family of ICA algorithms uses measures like Kullback-Leibler Divergence and maximum entropy. The non-Gaussianity family of ICA algorithms, motivated by the central limit theorem, uses kurtosis and negentropy. Typical algorithms for ICA use centering (subtract the mean to create a zero mean signal), whitening (usually with the eigenvalue decomposition), and dimensionality reduction as preprocessing steps in order to simplify and reduce the complexity of the problem for the actual iterative algorithm. == Mathematical definitions == Linear independent component analysis can be divided into noiseless and noisy cases, where noiseless ICA is a special case of noisy ICA. Nonlinear ICA should be considered as a separate case. === General Derivation === In the classical ICA model, it is assumed that the observed data x i ∈ R m {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{m}} at time t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} is generated from source signals s i ∈ R m {\displaystyle \mathbf {s} _{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{m}} via a linear transformation x i = A s i {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{i}=A\mathbf {s} _{i}} , where A {\displaystyle A} is an unknown, invertible mixing matrix. To recover the source signals, the data is first centered (zero mean), and then whitened so that the transformed data has unit covariance. This whitening reduces the problem from estimating a general matrix A {\displaystyle A} to estimating an orthogonal matrix V {\displaystyle V} , significantly simplifying the search for independent components. If the covariance matrix of the centered data is Σ x = A A ⊤ {\displaystyle \Sigma _{x}=AA^{\top }} , then using the eigen-decomposition Σ x = Q D Q ⊤ {\displaystyle \Sigma _{x}=QDQ^{\top }} , the whitening transformation can be taken as D − 1 / 2 Q ⊤ {\displaystyle D^{-1/2}Q^{\top }} . This step ensures that the recovered sources are uncorrelated and of unit variance, leaving only the task of rotating the whitened data to maximize statistical independence. This general derivation underlies many ICA algorithms and is foundational in understanding the ICA model. ==== Reduced Mixing Problem ==== Independent component analysis (ICA) addresses the problem of recovering a set of unobserved source signals s i = ( s i 1 , s i 2 , … , s i m ) T {\displaystyle s_{i}=(s_{i1},s_{i2},\dots ,s_{im})^{T}} from observed mixed signals x i = ( x i 1 , x i 2 , … , x i m ) T {\displaystyle x_{i}=(x_{i1},x_{i2},\dots ,x_{im})^{T}} , based on the linear mixing model: x i = A s i , {\displaystyle x_{i}=A\,s_{i},} where the A {\displaystyle A} is an m × m {\displaystyle m\times m} invertible matrix called the mixing matrix, s i {\displaystyle s_{i}} represents the m‑dimensional vector containing the values of the sources at time t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} , and x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is the corresponding vector of observed values at time t i {\displaystyle t_{i}} . The goal is to estimate both A {\displaystyle A} and the source signals { s i } {\displaystyle \{s_{i}\}} solely from the observed data { x i } {\displaystyle \{x_{i}\}} . After centering, the Gram matrix is computed as: ( X ∗ ) T X ∗ = Q D Q T , {\displaystyle (X^{})^{T}X^{}=Q\,D\,Q^{T},} where D is a diagonal matrix with positive entries (assuming X ∗ {\displaystyle X^{}} has maximum rank), and Q is an orthogonal matrix. Writing the SVD of the mixing matrix A = U Σ V T {\displaystyle A=U\Sigma V^{T}} and comparing with A A T = U Σ 2 U T {\displaystyle AA^{T}=U\Sigma ^{2}U^{T}} the mixing A has the form A = Q D 1 / 2 V T . {\displaystyle A=Q\,D^{1/2}\,V^{T}.} So, the normalized source values satisfy s i ∗ = V y i ∗ {\displaystyle s_{i}^{}=V\,y_{i}^{}} , where y i ∗ = D − 1 2 Q T x i ∗ . {\displaystyle y_{i}^{}=D^{-{\tfrac {1}{2}}}Q^{T}x_{i}^{}.} Thus, ICA reduces

  Read more →
• 

  Multiple kernel learning

  Multiple kernel learning refers to a set of machine learning methods that use a predefined set of kernels and learn an optimal linear or non-linear combination of kernels as part of the algorithm. Reasons to use multiple kernel learning include a) the ability to select for an optimal kernel and parameters from a larger set of kernels, reducing bias due to kernel selection while allowing for more automated machine learning methods, and b) combining data from different sources (e.g. sound and images from a video) that have different notions of similarity and thus require different kernels. Instead of creating a new kernel, multiple kernel algorithms can be used to combine kernels already established for each individual data source. Multiple kernel learning approaches have been used in many applications, such as event recognition in video, object recognition in images, and biomedical data fusion. == Algorithms == Multiple kernel learning algorithms have been developed for supervised, semi-supervised, as well as unsupervised learning. Most work has been done on the supervised learning case with linear combinations of kernels, however, many algorithms have been developed. The basic idea behind multiple kernel learning algorithms is to add an extra parameter to the minimization problem of the learning algorithm. As an example, consider the case of supervised learning of a linear combination of a set of n {\displaystyle n} kernels K {\displaystyle K} . We introduce a new kernel K ′ = ∑ i = 1 n β i K i {\displaystyle K'=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\beta _{i}K_{i}} , where β {\displaystyle \beta } is a vector of coefficients for each kernel. Because the kernels are additive (due to properties of reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces), this new function is still a kernel. For a set of data X {\displaystyle X} with labels Y {\displaystyle Y} , the minimization problem can then be written as min β , c E ( Y , K ′ c ) + R ( K , c ) {\displaystyle \min _{\beta ,c}\mathrm {E} (Y,K'c)+R(K,c)} where E {\displaystyle \mathrm {E} } is an error function and R {\displaystyle R} is a regularization term. E {\displaystyle \mathrm {E} } is typically the square loss function (Tikhonov regularization) or the hinge loss function (for SVM algorithms), and R {\displaystyle R} is usually an ℓ n {\displaystyle \ell _{n}} norm or some combination of the norms (i.e. elastic net regularization). This optimization problem can then be solved by standard optimization methods. Adaptations of existing techniques such as the Sequential Minimal Optimization have also been developed for multiple kernel SVM-based methods. === Supervised learning === For supervised learning, there are many other algorithms that use different methods to learn the form of the kernel. The following categorization has been proposed by Gonen and Alpaydın (2011) ==== Fixed rules approaches ==== Fixed rules approaches such as the linear combination algorithm described above use rules to set the combination of the kernels. These do not require parameterization and use rules like summation and multiplication to combine the kernels. The weighting is learned in the algorithm. Other examples of fixed rules include pairwise kernels, which are of the form k ( ( x 1 i , x 1 j ) , ( x 2 i , x 2 j ) ) = k ( x 1 i , x 2 i ) k ( x 1 j , x 2 j ) + k ( x 1 i , x 2 j ) k ( x 1 j , x 2 i ) {\displaystyle k((x_{1i},x_{1j}),(x_{2i},x_{2j}))=k(x_{1i},x_{2i})k(x_{1j},x_{2j})+k(x_{1i},x_{2j})k(x_{1j},x_{2i})} . These pairwise approaches have been used in predicting protein-protein interactions. ==== Heuristic approaches ==== These algorithms use a combination function that is parameterized. The parameters are generally defined for each individual kernel based on single-kernel performance or some computation from the kernel matrix. Examples of these include the kernel from Tenabe et al. (2008). Letting π m {\displaystyle \pi _{m}} be the accuracy obtained using only K m {\displaystyle K_{m}} , and letting δ {\displaystyle \delta } be a threshold less than the minimum of the single-kernel accuracies, we can define β m = π m − δ ∑ h = 1 n ( π h − δ ) {\displaystyle \beta _{m}={\frac {\pi _{m}-\delta }{\sum _{h=1}^{n}(\pi _{h}-\delta )}}} Other approaches use a definition of kernel similarity, such as A ( K 1 , K 2 ) = ⟨ K 1 , K 2 ⟩ ⟨ K 1 , K 1 ⟩ ⟨ K 2 , K 2 ⟩ {\displaystyle A(K_{1},K_{2})={\frac {\langle K_{1},K_{2}\rangle }{\sqrt {\langle K_{1},K_{1}\rangle \langle K_{2},K_{2}\rangle }}}} Using this measure, Qui and Lane (2009) used the following heuristic to define β m = A ( K m , Y Y T ) ∑ h = 1 n A ( K h , Y Y T ) {\displaystyle \beta _{m}={\frac {A(K_{m},YY^{T})}{\sum _{h=1}^{n}A(K_{h},YY^{T})}}} ==== Optimization approaches ==== These approaches solve an optimization problem to determine parameters for the kernel combination function. This has been done with similarity measures and structural risk minimization approaches. For similarity measures such as the one defined above, the problem can be formulated as follows: max β , tr ⁡ ( K t r a ′ ) = 1 , K ′ ≥ 0 A ( K t r a ′ , Y Y T ) . {\displaystyle \max _{\beta ,\operatorname {tr} (K'_{tra})=1,K'\geq 0}A(K'_{tra},YY^{T}).} where K t r a ′ {\displaystyle K'_{tra}} is the kernel of the training set. Structural risk minimization approaches that have been used include linear approaches, such as that used by Lanckriet et al. (2002). We can define the implausibility of a kernel ω ( K ) {\displaystyle \omega (K)} to be the value of the objective function after solving a canonical SVM problem. We can then solve the following minimization problem: min tr ⁡ ( K t r a ′ ) = c ω ( K t r a ′ ) {\displaystyle \min _{\operatorname {tr} (K'_{tra})=c}\omega (K'_{tra})} where c {\displaystyle c} is a positive constant. Many other variations exist on the same idea, with different methods of refining and solving the problem, e.g. with nonnegative weights for individual kernels and using non-linear combinations of kernels. ==== Bayesian approaches ==== Bayesian approaches put priors on the kernel parameters and learn the parameter values from the priors and the base algorithm. For example, the decision function can be written as f ( x ) = ∑ i = 0 n α i ∑ m = 1 p η m K m ( x i m , x m ) {\displaystyle f(x)=\sum _{i=0}^{n}\alpha _{i}\sum _{m=1}^{p}\eta _{m}K_{m}(x_{i}^{m},x^{m})} η {\displaystyle \eta } can be modeled with a Dirichlet prior and α {\displaystyle \alpha } can be modeled with a zero-mean Gaussian and an inverse gamma variance prior. This model is then optimized using a customized multinomial probit approach with a Gibbs sampler. These methods have been used successfully in applications such as protein fold recognition and protein homology problems ==== Boosting approaches ==== Boosting approaches add new kernels iteratively until some stopping criteria that is a function of performance is reached. An example of this is the MARK model developed by Bennett et al. (2002) f ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 N ∑ m = 1 P α i m K m ( x i m , x m ) + b {\displaystyle f(x)=\sum _{i=1}^{N}\sum _{m=1}^{P}\alpha _{i}^{m}K_{m}(x_{i}^{m},x^{m})+b} The parameters α i m {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}^{m}} and b {\displaystyle b} are learned by gradient descent on a coordinate basis. In this way, each iteration of the descent algorithm identifies the best kernel column to choose at each particular iteration and adds that to the combined kernel. The model is then rerun to generate the optimal weights α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} and b {\displaystyle b} . === Semisupervised learning === Semisupervised learning approaches to multiple kernel learning are similar to other extensions of supervised learning approaches. An inductive procedure has been developed that uses a log-likelihood empirical loss and group LASSO regularization with conditional expectation consensus on unlabeled data for image categorization. We can define the problem as follows. Let L = ( x i , y i ) {\displaystyle L={(x_{i},y_{i})}} be the labeled data, and let U = x i {\displaystyle U={x_{i}}} be the set of unlabeled data. Then, we can write the decision function as follows. f ( x ) = α 0 + ∑ i = 1 | L | α i K i ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)=\alpha _{0}+\sum _{i=1}^{|L|}\alpha _{i}K_{i}(x)} The problem can be written as min f L ( f ) + λ R ( f ) + γ Θ ( f ) {\displaystyle \min _{f}L(f)+\lambda R(f)+\gamma \Theta (f)} where L {\displaystyle L} is the loss function (weighted negative log-likelihood in this case), R {\displaystyle R} is the regularization parameter (Group LASSO in this case), and Θ {\displaystyle \Theta } is the conditional expectation consensus (CEC) penalty on unlabeled data. The CEC penalty is defined as follows. Let the marginal kernel density for all the data be g m π ( x ) = ⟨ ϕ m π , ψ m ( x ) ⟩ {\displaystyle g_{m}^{\pi }(x)=\langle \phi _{m}^{\pi },\psi _{m}(x)\rangle } where ψ m ( x ) = [ K m ( x 1 , x ) , … , K m ( x L , x ) ] T {\displaystyle \psi _{m}(x)=[K_{m}(x_{1},x),\ldots ,K_{m}(x_{L},x)]^{T}} (the kernel distance between the labe

  Read more →
• 

  Yooreeka

  Yooreeka is a library for data mining, machine learning, soft computing, and mathematical analysis. The project started with the code of the book "Algorithms of the Intelligent Web". Although the term "Web" prevailed in the title, in essence, the algorithms are valuable in any software application. It covers all major algorithms and provides many examples. Yooreeka 2.x is licensed under the Apache License rather than the somewhat more restrictive LGPL (which was the license of v1.x). The library is written 100% in the Java language. == Algorithms == The following algorithms are covered: Clustering Hierarchical—Agglomerative (e.g. MST single link; ROCK) and Divisive Partitional (e.g. k-means) Classification Bayesian Decision trees Neural Networks Rule based (via Drools) Recommendations Collaborative filtering Content based Search PageRank DocRank Personalization

  Read more →
• 

  Tango (platform)

  Tango (named Project Tango while in testing) was an augmented reality computing platform, developed and authored by the Advanced Technology and Projects (ATAP), a skunkworks division of Google. It used computer vision to enable mobile devices, such as smartphones and tablets, to detect their position relative to the world around them without using GPS or other external signals. This allowed application developers to create user experiences that include indoor navigation, 3D mapping, physical space measurement, environmental recognition, augmented reality, and windows into a virtual world. The first product to emerge from ATAP, Tango was developed by a team led by computer scientist Johnny Lee, a core contributor to Microsoft's Kinect. In an interview in June 2015, Lee said, "We're developing the hardware and software technologies to help everything and everyone understand precisely where they are, anywhere." Google produced two devices to demonstrate the Tango technology: the Peanut phone and the Yellowstone 7-inch tablet. More than 3,000 of these devices had been sold as of June 2015, chiefly to researchers and software developers interested in building applications for the platform. In the summer of 2015, Qualcomm and Intel both announced that they were developing Tango reference devices as models for device manufacturers who use their mobile chipsets. At CES, in January 2016, Google announced a partnership with Lenovo to release a consumer smartphone during the summer of 2016 to feature Tango technology marketed at consumers, noting a less than $500 price-point and a small form factor below 6.5 inches. At the same time, both companies also announced an application incubator to get applications developed to be on the device on launch. On 15 December 2017, Google announced that they would be ending support for Tango on March 1, 2018, in favor of ARCore. == Overview == Tango was different from other contemporary 3D-sensing computer vision products, in that it was designed to run on a standalone mobile phone or tablet and was chiefly concerned with determining the device's position and orientation within the environment. The software worked by integrating three types of functionality: Motion-tracking: using visual features of the environment, in combination with accelerometer and gyroscope data, to closely track the device's movements in space Area learning: storing environment data in a map that can be re-used later, shared with other Tango devices, and enhanced with metadata such as notes, instructions, or points of interest Depth perception: detecting distances, sizes, and surfaces in the environment Together, these generate data about the device in "six degrees of freedom" (3 axes of orientation plus 3 axes of position) and detailed three-dimensional information about the environment. Project Tango was also the first project to graduate from Google X in 2012 Applications on mobile devices use Tango's C and Java APIs to access this data in real time. In addition, an API was also provided for integrating Tango with the Unity game engine; this enabled the conversion or creation of games that allow the user to interact and navigate in the game space by moving and rotating a Tango device in real space. These APIs were documented on the Google developer website. == Applications == Tango enabled apps to track a device's position and orientation within a detailed 3D environment, and to recognize known environments. This allowed the creations of applications such as in-store navigation, visual measurement and mapping utilities, presentation and design tools, and a variety of immersive games. At Augmented World Expo 2015, Johnny Lee demonstrated a construction game that builds a virtual structure in real space, an AR showroom app that allows users to view a full-size virtual automobile and customize its features, a hybrid Nerf gun with mounted Tango screen for dodging and shooting AR monsters superimposed on reality, and a multiplayer VR app that lets multiple players converse in a virtual space where their avatar movements match their real-life movements. Tango apps are distributed through Play. Google has encouraged the development of more apps with hackathons, an app contest, and promotional discounts on the development tablet. == Devices == As a platform for software developers and a model for device manufacturers, Google created two Tango devices. === The Peanut phone === "Peanut" was the first production Tango device, released in the first quarter of 2014. It was a small Android phone with a Qualcomm MSM8974 quad-core processor and additional special hardware including a fisheye motion camera, "RGB-IR" camera for color image and infrared depth detection, and Movidius Vision processing units. A high-performance accelerometer and gyroscope were added after testing several competing models in the MARS lab at the University of Minnesota. Several hundred Peanut devices were distributed to early-access partners including university researchers in computer vision and robotics, as well as application developers and technology startups. Google stopped supporting the Peanut device in September 2015, as by then the Tango software stack had evolved beyond the versions of Android that run on the device. === The Yellowstone tablet === "Yellowstone" was a 7-inch tablet with full Tango functionality, released in June 2014, and sold as the Project Tango Tablet Development Kit. It featured a 2.3 GHz quad-core Nvidia Tegra K1 processor, 128GB flash memory, 1920x1200-pixel touchscreen, 4MP color camera, fisheye-lens (motion-tracking) camera, an IR projector with RGB-IR camera for integrated depth sensing, and 4G LTE connectivity. As of May 27, 2017, the Tango tablet is considered officially unsupported by Google. ==== Testing by NASA ==== In May 2014, two Peanut phones were delivered to the International Space Station to be part of a NASA project to develop autonomous robots that navigate in a variety of environments, including outer space. The soccer-ball-sized, 18-sided polyhedral SPHERES robots were developed at the NASA Ames Research Center, adjacent to the Google campus in Mountain View, California. Andres Martinez, SPHERES manager at NASA, said "We are researching how effective [Tango's] vision-based navigation abilities are for performing localization and navigation of a mobile free flyer on ISS. === Intel RealSense smartphone === Announced at Intel's Developer Forum in August 2015, and offered to public through a Developer Kit since January 2016. It incorporated a RealSense ZR300 camera which had optical features required for Tango, such as the fisheye camera. === Lenovo Phab 2 Pro === Lenovo Phab 2 Pro was the first commercial smartphone with the Tango Technology, the device was announced at the beginning of 2016, launched in August, and available for purchase in the US in November. The Phab 2 Pro had a 6.4 inch screen, a Snapdragon 652 processor, and 64 GB of internal storage, with a rear facing 16 Megapixels camera and 8 MP front camera. === Asus Zenfone AR === Asus Zenfone AR, announced at CES 2017, was the second commercial smartphone with the Tango Technology. It ran Tango AR & Daydream VR on Snapdragon 821, with 6GB or 8GB of RAM and 128 or 256GB of internal memory depending on the configuration.

  Read more →
• 

  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

  Read more →
• 

  Low-rank approximation

  In mathematics, low-rank approximation refers to the process of approximating a given matrix by a matrix of lower rank. More precisely, it is a minimization problem, in which the cost function measures the fit between a given matrix (the data) and an approximating matrix (the optimization variable), subject to a constraint that the approximating matrix has reduced rank. The problem is used for mathematical modeling and data compression. The rank constraint is related to a constraint on the complexity of a model that fits the data. In applications, often there are other constraints on the approximating matrix apart from the rank constraint, e.g., non-negativity and Hankel structure. Low-rank approximation is closely related to numerous other techniques, including principal component analysis, factor analysis, total least squares, latent semantic analysis, orthogonal regression, and dynamic mode decomposition. == Definition == Given structure specification S : R n p → R m × n {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}:\mathbb {R} ^{n_{p}}\to \mathbb {R} ^{m\times n}} , vector of structure parameters p ∈ R n p {\displaystyle p\in \mathbb {R} ^{n_{p}}} , norm ‖ ⋅ ‖ {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|} , and desired rank r {\displaystyle r} , minimize over p ^ ‖ p − p ^ ‖ subject to rank ⁡ ( S ( p ^ ) ) ≤ r . {\displaystyle {\text{minimize}}\quad {\text{over }}{\widehat {p}}\quad \|p-{\widehat {p}}\|\quad {\text{subject to}}\quad \operatorname {rank} {\big (}{\mathcal {S}}({\widehat {p}}){\big )}\leq r.} == Applications == Linear system identification, in which case the approximating matrix is Hankel structured. Machine learning, in which case the approximating matrix is nonlinearly structured. Recommender systems, in which cases the data matrix has missing values and the approximation is categorical. Distance matrix completion, in which case there is a positive definiteness constraint. Natural language processing, in which case the approximation is nonnegative. Computer algebra, in which case the approximation is Sylvester structured. Matrix product states, in which case the approximation is usually rescaled to have fixed Frobenius norm. == Basic low-rank approximation problem == The unstructured problem with fit measured by the Frobenius norm, i.e., minimize over D ^ ‖ D − D ^ ‖ F subject to rank ⁡ ( D ^ ) ≤ r {\displaystyle {\text{minimize}}\quad {\text{over }}{\widehat {D}}\quad \|D-{\widehat {D}}\|_{\text{F}}\quad {\text{subject to}}\quad \operatorname {rank} {\big (}{\widehat {D}}{\big )}\leq r} has an analytic solution in terms of the singular value decomposition of the data matrix. The result is referred to as the matrix approximation lemma or Eckart–Young–Mirsky theorem. This problem was originally solved by Erhard Schmidt in the infinite dimensional context of integral operators (although his methods easily generalize to arbitrary compact operators on Hilbert spaces) and later rediscovered by C. Eckart and G. Young. L. Mirsky generalized the result to arbitrary unitarily invariant norms. Let D = U Σ V ⊤ ∈ R m × n , m ≥ n {\displaystyle D=U\Sigma V^{\top }\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times n},\quad m\geq n} be the singular value decomposition of D {\displaystyle D} , where Σ =: diag ⁡ ( σ 1 , … , σ r ) {\displaystyle \Sigma =:\operatorname {diag} (\sigma _{1},\ldots ,\sigma _{r})} , where r ≤ min { m , n } = n {\displaystyle r\leq \min\{m,n\}=n} , is the m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} rectangular diagonal matrix with r {\displaystyle r} non-zero singular values σ 1 ≥ … ≥ σ r > σ r + 1 = … = σ n = 0 {\displaystyle \sigma _{1}\geq \ldots \geq \sigma _{r}>\sigma _{r+1}=\ldots =\sigma _{n}=0} . For a given k ∈ { 1 , … , r } {\displaystyle k\in \{1,\dots ,r\}} , partition U {\displaystyle U} , Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } , and V {\displaystyle V} as follows: U =: [ U 1 U 2 ] , Σ =: [ Σ 1 0 0 Σ 2 ] , and V =: [ V 1 V 2 ] , {\displaystyle U=:{\begin{bmatrix}U_{1}&U_{2}\end{bmatrix}},\quad \Sigma =:{\begin{bmatrix}\Sigma _{1}&0\\0&\Sigma _{2}\end{bmatrix}},\quad {\text{and}}\quad V=:{\begin{bmatrix}V_{1}&V_{2}\end{bmatrix}},} where U 1 {\displaystyle U_{1}} is m × k {\displaystyle m\times k} , Σ 1 {\displaystyle \Sigma _{1}} is k × k {\displaystyle k\times k} , and V 1 {\displaystyle V_{1}} is n × k {\displaystyle n\times k} . Then the rank k {\displaystyle k} matrix D ^ ∗ := U 1 Σ 1 V 1 ⊤ , {\displaystyle {\widehat {D}}^{}:=U_{1}\Sigma _{1}V_{1}^{\top },} obtained from the truncated singular value decomposition is such that ‖ D − D ^ ∗ ‖ F = min rank ⁡ ( D ^ ) ≤ k ‖ D − D ^ ‖ F = σ k + 1 2 + ⋯ + σ r 2 . {\displaystyle \|D-{\widehat {D}}^{}\|_{\text{F}}=\min _{\operatorname {rank} ({\widehat {D}})\leq k}\|D-{\widehat {D}}\|_{\text{F}}={\sqrt {\sigma _{k+1}^{2}+\cdots +\sigma _{r}^{2}}}.} The minimizer D ^ ∗ {\displaystyle {\widehat {D}}^{}} is unique if and only if σ k > σ k + 1 {\displaystyle \sigma _{k}>\sigma _{k+1}} . == Proof of Eckart–Young–Mirsky theorem (for spectral norm) == Let A ∈ R m × n {\displaystyle A\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times n}} be a real (possibly rectangular) matrix with m ≤ n {\displaystyle m\leq n} . Suppose that A = U Σ V ⊤ {\displaystyle A=U\Sigma V^{\top }} is the singular value decomposition of A {\displaystyle A} . Recall that U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} are orthogonal matrices, and Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is an m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} diagonal matrix with entries ( σ 1 , σ 2 , ⋯ , σ m ) {\displaystyle (\sigma _{1},\sigma _{2},\cdots ,\sigma _{m})} such that σ 1 ≥ σ 2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ σ m ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \sigma _{1}\geq \sigma _{2}\geq \cdots \geq \sigma _{m}\geq 0} . We claim that the best rank- k {\displaystyle k} approximation to A {\displaystyle A} in the spectral norm, denoted by ‖ ⋅ ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{2}} , is given by A k := ∑ i = 1 k σ i u i v i ⊤ {\displaystyle A_{k}:=\sum _{i=1}^{k}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }} where u i {\displaystyle u_{i}} and v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} denote the i {\displaystyle i} th column of U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} , respectively. First, note that we have ‖ A − A k ‖ 2 = ‖ ∑ i = 1 n σ i u i v i ⊤ − ∑ i = 1 k σ i u i v i ⊤ ‖ 2 = ‖ ∑ i = k + 1 n σ i u i v i ⊤ ‖ 2 = σ k + 1 {\displaystyle \|A-A_{k}\|_{2}=\left\|\sum _{i=1}^{\color {red}{n}}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }-\sum _{i=1}^{\color {red}{k}}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }\right\|_{2}=\left\|\sum _{i=\color {red}{k+1}}^{n}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }\right\|_{2}=\sigma _{k+1}} Therefore, we need to show that if B k = X Y ⊤ {\displaystyle B_{k}=XY^{\top }} where X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} have k {\displaystyle k} columns then ‖ A − A k ‖ 2 = σ k + 1 ≤ ‖ A − B k ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \|A-A_{k}\|_{2}=\sigma _{k+1}\leq \|A-B_{k}\|_{2}} . Since Y {\displaystyle Y} has k {\displaystyle k} columns, then there must be a nontrivial linear combination of the first k + 1 {\displaystyle k+1} columns of V {\displaystyle V} , i.e., w = γ 1 v 1 + ⋯ + γ k + 1 v k + 1 , {\displaystyle w=\gamma _{1}v_{1}+\cdots +\gamma _{k+1}v_{k+1},} such that Y ⊤ w = 0 {\displaystyle Y^{\top }w=0} . Without loss of generality, we can scale w {\displaystyle w} so that ‖ w ‖ 2 = 1 {\displaystyle \|w\|_{2}=1} or (equivalently) γ 1 2 + ⋯ + γ k + 1 2 = 1 {\displaystyle \gamma _{1}^{2}+\cdots +\gamma _{k+1}^{2}=1} . Therefore, ‖ A − B k ‖ 2 2 ≥ ‖ ( A − B k ) w ‖ 2 2 = ‖ A w ‖ 2 2 = γ 1 2 σ 1 2 + ⋯ + γ k + 1 2 σ k + 1 2 ≥ σ k + 1 2 . {\displaystyle \|A-B_{k}\|_{2}^{2}\geq \|(A-B_{k})w\|_{2}^{2}=\|Aw\|_{2}^{2}=\gamma _{1}^{2}\sigma _{1}^{2}+\cdots +\gamma _{k+1}^{2}\sigma _{k+1}^{2}\geq \sigma _{k+1}^{2}.} The result follows by taking the square root of both sides of the above inequality. == Proof of Eckart–Young–Mirsky theorem (for Frobenius norm) == Let A ∈ R m × n {\displaystyle A\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times n}} be a real (possibly rectangular) matrix with m ≤ n {\displaystyle m\leq n} . Suppose that A = U Σ V ⊤ {\displaystyle A=U\Sigma V^{\top }} is the singular value decomposition of A {\displaystyle A} . We claim that the best rank k {\displaystyle k} approximation to A {\displaystyle A} in the Frobenius norm, denoted by ‖ ⋅ ‖ F {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{F}} , is given by A k = ∑ i = 1 k σ i u i v i ⊤ {\displaystyle A_{k}=\sum _{i=1}^{k}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }} where u i {\displaystyle u_{i}} and v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} denote the i {\displaystyle i} th column of U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} , respectively. First, note that we have ‖ A − A k ‖ F 2 = ‖ ∑ i = k + 1 n σ i u i v i ⊤ ‖ F 2 = ∑ i = k + 1 n σ i 2 {\displaystyle \|A-A_{k}\|_{F}^{2}=\left\|\sum _{i=k+1}^{n}\sigma _{i}u_{i}v_{i}^{\top }\right\|_{F}^{2}=\sum _{i=k+1}^{n}\sigma _{i}^{2}} Therefore, we need to show that if B k = X Y ⊤ {\displaystyle B_{k}=XY^{\top }} where X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} have k {\displaystyle k} columns then ‖ A − A k ‖ F 2 = ∑ i = k + 1 n σ i 2 ≤ ‖ A − B k ‖ F 2 . {\displaystyle \|A-A_{k}\|_{F}^{2}=\sum _{i=k+1}^{n}\sigma _{i}^{2}\leq \|A-B_{k}\|_{F}^{2}.} By the triangle inequality with the spectral norm

  Read more →