AI Grammar And Vocabulary Checker

AI Grammar And Vocabulary Checker — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Visual servoing

  Visual servoing, also known as vision-based robot control and abbreviated VS, is a technique which uses feedback information extracted from a vision sensor (visual feedback) to control the motion of a robot. One of the earliest papers that talks about visual servoing was from the SRI International Labs in 1979. == Visual servoing taxonomy == There are two fundamental configurations of the robot end-effector (hand) and the camera: Eye-in-hand, or end-point open-loop control, where the camera is attached to the moving hand and observing the relative position of the target. Eye-to-hand, or end-point closed-loop control, where the camera is fixed in the world and observing the target and the motion of the hand. Visual Servoing control techniques are broadly classified into the following types: Image-based (IBVS) Position/pose-based (PBVS) Hybrid approach IBVS was proposed by Weiss and Sanderson. The control law is based on the error between current and desired features on the image plane, and does not involve any estimate of the pose of the target. The features may be the coordinates of visual features, lines or moments of regions. IBVS has difficulties with motions very large rotations, which has come to be called camera retreat. PBVS is a model-based technique (with a single camera). This is because the pose of the object of interest is estimated with respect to the camera and then a command is issued to the robot controller, which in turn controls the robot. In this case the image features are extracted as well, but are additionally used to estimate 3D information (pose of the object in Cartesian space), hence it is servoing in 3D. Hybrid approaches use some combination of the 2D and 3D servoing. There have been a few different approaches to hybrid servoing 2-1/2-D Servoing Motion partition-based Partitioned DOF Based == Survey == The following description of the prior work is divided into 3 parts Survey of existing visual servoing methods. Various features used and their impacts on visual servoing. Error and stability analysis of visual servoing schemes. === Survey of existing visual servoing methods === Visual servo systems, also called servoing, have been around since the early 1980s , although the term visual servo itself was only coined in 1987. Visual Servoing is, in essence, a method for robot control where the sensor used is a camera (visual sensor). Servoing consists primarily of two techniques, one involves using information from the image to directly control the degrees of freedom (DOF) of the robot, thus referred to as Image Based Visual Servoing (IBVS). While the other involves the geometric interpretation of the information extracted from the camera, such as estimating the pose of the target and parameters of the camera (assuming some basic model of the target is known). Other servoing classifications exist based on the variations in each component of a servoing system , e.g. the location of the camera, the two kinds are eye-in-hand and hand–eye configurations. Based on the control loop, the two kinds are end-point-open-loop and end-point-closed-loop. Based on whether the control is applied to the joints (or DOF) directly or as a position command to a robot controller the two types are direct servoing and dynamic look-and-move. Being one of the earliest works the authors proposed a hierarchical visual servo scheme applied to image-based servoing. The technique relies on the assumption that a good set of features can be extracted from the object of interest (e.g. edges, corners and centroids) and used as a partial model along with global models of the scene and robot. The control strategy is applied to a simulation of a two and three DOF robot arm. Feddema et al. introduced the idea of generating task trajectory with respect to the feature velocity. This is to ensure that the sensors are not rendered ineffective (stopping the feedback) for any the robot motions. The authors assume that the objects are known a priori (e.g. CAD model) and all the features can be extracted from the object. The work by Espiau et al. discusses some of the basic questions in visual servoing. The discussions concentrate on modeling of the interaction matrix, camera, visual features (points, lines, etc..). In an adaptive servoing system was proposed with a look-and-move servoing architecture. The method used optical flow along with SSD to provide a confidence metric and a stochastic controller with Kalman filtering for the control scheme. The system assumes (in the examples) that the plane of the camera and the plane of the features are parallel., discusses an approach of velocity control using the Jacobian relationship s˙ = Jv˙ . In addition the author uses Kalman filtering, assuming that the extracted position of the target have inherent errors (sensor errors). A model of the target velocity is developed and used as a feed-forward input in the control loop. Also, mentions the importance of looking into kinematic discrepancy, dynamic effects, repeatability, settling time oscillations and lag in response. Corke poses a set of very critical questions on visual servoing and tries to elaborate on their implications. The paper primarily focuses the dynamics of visual servoing. The author tries to address problems like lag and stability, while also talking about feed-forward paths in the control loop. The paper also, tries to seek justification for trajectory generation, methodology of axis control and development of performance metrics. Chaumette in provides good insight into the two major problems with IBVS. One, servoing to a local minima and second, reaching a Jacobian singularity. The author show that image points alone do not make good features due to the occurrence of singularities. The paper continues, by discussing the possible additional checks to prevent singularities namely, condition numbers of J_s and Jˆ+_s, to check the null space of ˆ J_s and J^T_s . One main point that the author highlights is the relation between local minima and unrealizable image feature motions. Over the years many hybrid techniques have been developed. These involve computing partial/complete pose from Epipolar Geometry using multiple views or multiple cameras. The values are obtained by direct estimation or through a learning or a statistical scheme. While others have used a switching approach that changes between image-based and position-based on a Lyapnov function. The early hybrid techniques that used a combination of image-based and pose-based (2D and 3D information) approaches for servoing required either a full or partial model of the object in order to extract the pose information and used a variety of techniques to extract the motion information from the image. used an affine motion model from the image motion in addition to a rough polyhedral CAD model to extract the object pose with respect to the camera to be able to servo onto the object (on the lines of PBVS). 2-1/2-D visual servoing developed by Malis et al. is a well known technique that breaks down the information required for servoing into an organized fashion which decouples rotations and translations. The papers assume that the desired pose is known a priori. The rotational information is obtained from partial pose estimation, a homography, (essentially 3D information) giving an axis of rotation and the angle (by computing the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the homography). The translational information is obtained from the image directly by tracking a set of feature points. The only conditions being that the feature points being tracked never leave the field of view and that a depth estimate be predetermined by some off-line technique. 2-1/2-D servoing has been shown to be more stable than the techniques that preceded it. Another interesting observation with this formulation is that the authors claim that the visual Jacobian will have no singularities during the motions. The hybrid technique developed by Corke and Hutchinson, popularly called portioned approach partitions the visual (or image) Jacobian into motions (both rotations and translations) relating X and Y axes and motions related to the Z axis. outlines the technique, to break out columns of the visual Jacobian that correspond to the Z axis translation and rotation (namely, the third and sixth columns). The partitioned approach is shown to handle the Chaumette Conundrum discussed in. This technique requires a good depth estimate in order to function properly. outlines a hybrid approach where the servoing task is split into two, namely main and secondary. The main task is keep the features of interest within the field of view. While the secondary task is to mark a fixation point and use it as a reference to bring the camera to the desired pose. The technique does need a depth estimate from an off-line procedure. The paper discusses two examples for which depth estimates are obtained from robot odometry and by assuming that all

  Read more →
• 

  Generalized canonical correlation

  In statistics, the generalized canonical correlation analysis (gCCA), is a way of making sense of cross-correlation matrices between the sets of random variables when there are more than two sets. While a conventional CCA generalizes principal component analysis (PCA) to two sets of random variables, a gCCA generalizes PCA to more than two sets of random variables. The canonical variables represent those common factors that can be found by a large PCA of all of the transformed random variables after each set underwent its own PCA. == Applications == The Helmert-Wolf blocking (HWB) method of estimating linear regression parameters can find an optimal solution only if all cross-correlations between the data blocks are zero. They can always be made to vanish by introducing a new regression parameter for each common factor. The gCCA method can be used for finding those harmful common factors that create cross-correlation between the blocks. However, no optimal HWB solution exists if the random variables do not contain enough information on all of the new regression parameters.

  Read more →
• 

  Semidefinite embedding

  Maximum Variance Unfolding (MVU), also known as Semidefinite Embedding (SDE), is an algorithm in computer science that uses semidefinite programming to perform non-linear dimensionality reduction of high-dimensional vectorial input data. It is motivated by the observation that kernel Principal Component Analysis (kPCA) does not reduce the data dimensionality, as it leverages the Kernel trick to non-linearly map the original data into an inner-product space. == Algorithm == MVU creates a mapping from the high dimensional input vectors to some low dimensional Euclidean vector space in the following steps: A neighbourhood graph is created. Each input is connected with its k-nearest input vectors (according to Euclidean distance metric) and all k-nearest neighbors are connected with each other. If the data is sampled well enough, the resulting graph is a discrete approximation of the underlying manifold. The neighbourhood graph is "unfolded" with the help of semidefinite programming. Instead of learning the output vectors directly, the semidefinite programming aims to find an inner product matrix that maximizes the pairwise distances between any two inputs that are not connected in the neighbourhood graph while preserving the nearest neighbors distances. The low-dimensional embedding is finally obtained by application of multidimensional scaling on the learned inner product matrix. The steps of applying semidefinite programming followed by a linear dimensionality reduction step to recover a low-dimensional embedding into a Euclidean space were first proposed by Linial, London, and Rabinovich. == Optimization formulation == Let X {\displaystyle X\,\!} be the original input and Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} be the embedding. If i , j {\displaystyle i,j\,\!} are two neighbors, then the local isometry constraint that needs to be satisfied is: | X i − X j | 2 = | Y i − Y j | 2 {\displaystyle |X_{i}-X_{j}|^{2}=|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\,\!} Let G , K {\displaystyle G,K\,\!} be the Gram matrices of X {\displaystyle X\,\!} and Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} (i.e.: G i j = X i ⋅ X j , K i j = Y i ⋅ Y j {\displaystyle G_{ij}=X_{i}\cdot X_{j},K_{ij}=Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}\,\!} ). We can express the above constraint for every neighbor points i , j {\displaystyle i,j\,\!} in term of G , K {\displaystyle G,K\,\!} : G i i + G j j − G i j − G j i = K i i + K j j − K i j − K j i {\displaystyle G_{ii}+G_{jj}-G_{ij}-G_{ji}=K_{ii}+K_{jj}-K_{ij}-K_{ji}\,\!} In addition, we also want to constrain the embedding Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} to center at the origin: 0 = | ∑ i Y i | 2 ⇔ ( ∑ i Y i ) ⋅ ( ∑ i Y i ) ⇔ ∑ i , j Y i ⋅ Y j ⇔ ∑ i , j K i j {\displaystyle 0=|\sum _{i}Y_{i}|^{2}\Leftrightarrow (\sum _{i}Y_{i})\cdot (\sum _{i}Y_{i})\Leftrightarrow \sum _{i,j}Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}\Leftrightarrow \sum _{i,j}K_{ij}} As described above, except the distances of neighbor points are preserved, the algorithm aims to maximize the pairwise distance of every pair of points. The objective function to be maximized is: T ( Y ) = 1 2 N ∑ i , j | Y i − Y j | 2 {\displaystyle T(Y)={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}} Intuitively, maximizing the function above is equivalent to pulling the points as far away from each other as possible and therefore "unfold" the manifold. The local isometry constraint Let τ = m a x { η i j | Y i − Y j | 2 } {\displaystyle \tau =max\{\eta _{ij}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\}\,\!} where η i j := { 1 if i is a neighbour of j 0 otherwise . {\displaystyle \eta _{ij}:={\begin{cases}1&{\mbox{if}}\ i{\mbox{ is a neighbour of }}j\\0&{\mbox{otherwise}}.\end{cases}}} prevents the objective function from diverging (going to infinity). Since the graph has N points, the distance between any two points | Y i − Y j | 2 ≤ N τ {\displaystyle |Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\leq N\tau \,\!} . We can then bound the objective function as follows: T ( Y ) = 1 2 N ∑ i , j | Y i − Y j | 2 ≤ 1 2 N ∑ i , j ( N τ ) 2 = N 3 τ 2 2 {\displaystyle T(Y)={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\leq {\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}(N\tau )^{2}={\dfrac {N^{3}\tau ^{2}}{2}}\,\!} The objective function can be rewritten purely in the form of the Gram matrix: T ( Y ) = 1 2 N ∑ i , j | Y i − Y j | 2 = 1 2 N ∑ i , j ( Y i 2 + Y j 2 − Y i ⋅ Y j − Y j ⋅ Y i ) = 1 2 N ( ∑ i , j Y i 2 + ∑ i , j Y j 2 − ∑ i , j Y i ⋅ Y j − ∑ i , j Y j ⋅ Y i ) = 1 2 N ( ∑ i , j Y i 2 + ∑ i , j Y j 2 − 0 − 0 ) = 1 N ( ∑ i Y i 2 ) = 1 N ( T r ( K ) ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}T(Y)&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}(Y_{i}^{2}+Y_{j}^{2}-Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}-Y_{j}\cdot Y_{i})\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}(\sum _{i,j}Y_{i}^{2}+\sum _{i,j}Y_{j}^{2}-\sum _{i,j}Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}-\sum _{i,j}Y_{j}\cdot Y_{i})\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}(\sum _{i,j}Y_{i}^{2}+\sum _{i,j}Y_{j}^{2}-0-0)\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{N}}(\sum _{i}Y_{i}^{2})={\dfrac {1}{N}}(Tr(K))\\\end{aligned}}\,\!} Finally, the optimization can be formulated as: Maximize T r ( K ) subject to K ⪰ 0 , ∑ i j K i j = 0 and G i i + G j j − G i j − G j i = K i i + K j j − K i j − K j i , ∀ i , j where η i j = 1 , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\text{Maximize}}&&Tr(\mathbf {K} )\\&{\text{subject to}}&&\mathbf {K} \succeq 0,\sum _{ij}\mathbf {K} _{ij}=0\\&{\text{and}}&&G_{ii}+G_{jj}-G_{ij}-G_{ji}=K_{ii}+K_{jj}-K_{ij}-K_{ji},\forall i,j{\mbox{ where }}\eta _{ij}=1,\end{aligned}}} After the Gram matrix K {\displaystyle K\,\!} is learned by semidefinite programming, the output Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} can be obtained via Cholesky decomposition. In particular, the Gram matrix can be written as K i j = ∑ α = 1 N ( λ α V α i V α j ) {\displaystyle K_{ij}=\sum _{\alpha =1}^{N}(\lambda _{\alpha }V_{\alpha i}V_{\alpha j})\,\!} where V α i {\displaystyle V_{\alpha i}\,\!} is the i-th element of eigenvector V α {\displaystyle V_{\alpha }\,\!} of the eigenvalue λ α {\displaystyle \lambda _{\alpha }\,\!} . It follows that the α {\displaystyle \alpha \,\!} -th element of the output Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}\,\!} is λ α V α i {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\lambda _{\alpha }}}V_{\alpha i}\,\!} .

  Read more →
• 

  Cultural algorithm

  Cultural algorithms (CA) are a branch of evolutionary computation where there is a knowledge component that is called the belief space in addition to the population component. In this sense, cultural algorithms can be seen as an extension to a conventional genetic algorithm. Cultural algorithms were introduced by Reynolds (see references). == Belief space == The belief space of a cultural algorithm is divided into distinct categories. These categories represent different domains of knowledge that the population has of the search space. The belief space is updated after each iteration by the best individuals of the population. The best individuals can be selected using a fitness function that assesses the performance of each individual in population much like in genetic algorithms. === List of belief space categories === Normative knowledge A collection of desirable value ranges for the individuals in the population component e.g. acceptable behavior for the agents in population. Domain specific knowledge Information about the domain of the cultural algorithm problem is applied to. Situational knowledge Specific examples of important events - e.g. successful/unsuccessful solutions Temporal knowledge History of the search space - e.g. the temporal patterns of the search process Spatial knowledge Information about the topography of the search space == Population == The population component of the cultural algorithm is approximately the same as that of the genetic algorithm. == Communication protocol == Cultural algorithms require an interface between the population and belief space. The best individuals of the population can update the belief space via the update function. Also, the knowledge categories of the belief space can affect the population component via the influence function. The influence function can affect population by altering the genome or the actions of the individuals. == Pseudocode for cultural algorithms == Initialize population space (choose initial population) Initialize belief space (e.g. set domain specific knowledge and normative value-ranges) Repeat until termination condition is met Perform actions of the individuals in population space Evaluate each individual by using the fitness function Select the parents to reproduce a new generation of offspring Let the belief space alter the genome of the offspring by using the influence function Update the belief space by using the accept function (this is done by letting the best individuals to affect the belief space) == Applications == Various optimization problems Social simulation Real-parameter optimization

  Read more →
• 

  FoundationDB

  FoundationDB is a free and open-source multi-model distributed NoSQL database owned by Apple Inc. with a shared-nothing architecture. The product was designed around a "core" database, with additional features supplied in "layers." The core database exposes an ordered key–value store with transactions. The transactions are able to read or write multiple keys stored on any machine in the cluster while fully supporting ACID properties. Transactions are used to implement a variety of data models via layers. The FoundationDB Alpha program began in January 2012 and concluded on March 4, 2013, with their public Beta release. Their 1.0 version was released for general availability on August 20, 2013. On March 24, 2015, it was reported that Apple has acquired the company. A notice on the FoundationDB web site indicated that the company has "evolved" its mission and would no longer offer downloads of the software. On April 19, 2018, Apple open sourced the software, releasing it under the Apache 2.0 license. == Main features == The main features of FoundationDB include the following: Ordered key–value store In addition to supporting standard key-based reads and writes, the ordering property enables range reads that can efficiently scan large swaths of data. Transactions Transaction processing employs multiversion concurrency control for reads and optimistic concurrency for writes. Transactions can span multiple keys stored on multiple machines. ACID properties FoundationDB guarantees serializable isolation and strong durability via redundant storage on disk before transactions are considered committed. Layers Layers map new data models, APIs, and query languages to the FoundationDB core. They employ FoundationDB's ability to update multiple data elements in a single transaction, ensuring consistency. An example is their SQL layer. Commodity clusters FoundationDB is designed for deployment on distributed clusters of commodity hardware running Linux. Replication FoundationDB stores each piece of data on multiple machines according to a configurable replication factor. Triple replication is the recommended mode for clusters of 5 or more machines. Scalability FoundationDB is designed to support horizontal scaling through the addition of machines to a cluster while automatically handling data replication and partitioning. Systems supported FoundationDB supports packages for Linux, Windows, and macOS. The Linux version supports production clusters, while the Windows and macOS versions support local operation for development purposes. Configurations on Amazon EC2 are also supported. Programming language bindings FoundationDB supports language bindings for Python, Go, Ruby, Node.js, Java, PHP, and C, all of which are made available with the product. == Design limitations == The design of FoundationDB results in several limitations: Long transactions FoundationDB does not support transactions running over five seconds. Large transactions Transaction size cannot exceed 10 MB of total written keys and values. Large keys and values Keys cannot exceed 10 kB in size. Values cannot exceed 100 kB in size. == History == FoundationDB, headquartered in Vienna, Virginia, was started in 2009 by Nick Lavezzo, Dave Rosenthal, and Dave Scherer, drawing on their experience in executive and technology roles at their previous company, Visual Sciences. In March 2015 the FoundationDB Community site was updated to state that the company had changed directions and would no longer be offering downloads of its product. The company was acquired by Apple Inc., which was confirmed March 25, 2015. On April 19, 2018, Apple open sourced the software, releasing it under the Apache 2.0 license.

  Read more →
• 

  Generalized multidimensional scaling

  Generalized multidimensional scaling (GMDS) is an extension of metric multidimensional scaling, in which the target space is non-Euclidean. When the dissimilarities are distances on a surface and the target space is another surface, GMDS allows finding the minimum-distortion embedding of one surface into another. GMDS is an emerging research direction. Currently, main applications are recognition of deformable objects (e.g. for three-dimensional face recognition) and texture mapping.

  Read more →
• 

  Gaussian adaptation

  Gaussian adaptation (GA), also called normal or natural adaptation (NA) is an evolutionary algorithm designed for the maximization of manufacturing yield due to statistical deviation of component values of signal processing systems. In short, GA is a stochastic adaptive process where a number of samples of an n-dimensional vector x[xT = (x1, x2, ..., xn)] are taken from a multivariate Gaussian distribution, N(m, M), having mean m and moment matrix M. The samples are tested for fail or pass. The first- and second-order moments of the Gaussian restricted to the pass samples are m and M. The outcome of x as a pass sample is determined by a function s(x), 0 < s(x) < q ≤ 1, such that s(x) is the probability that x will be selected as a pass sample. The average probability of finding pass samples (yield) is P ( m ) = ∫ s ( x ) N ( x − m ) d x {\displaystyle P(m)=\int s(x)N(x-m)\,dx} Then the theorem of GA states: For any s(x) and for any value of P < q, there always exist a Gaussian p. d. f. [ probability density function ] that is adapted for maximum dispersion. The necessary conditions for a local optimum are m = m and M proportional to M. The dual problem is also solved: P is maximized while keeping the dispersion constant (Kjellström, 1991). Proofs of the theorem may be found in the papers by Kjellström, 1970, and Kjellström & Taxén, 1981. Since dispersion is defined as the exponential of entropy/disorder/average information it immediately follows that the theorem is valid also for those concepts. Altogether, this means that Gaussian adaptation may carry out a simultaneous maximisation of yield and average information (without any need for the yield or the average information to be defined as criterion functions). The theorem is valid for all regions of acceptability and all Gaussian distributions. It may be used by cyclic repetition of random variation and selection (like the natural evolution). In every cycle a sufficiently large number of Gaussian distributed points are sampled and tested for membership in the region of acceptability. The centre of gravity of the Gaussian, m, is then moved to the centre of gravity of the approved (selected) points, m. Thus, the process converges to a state of equilibrium fulfilling the theorem. A solution is always approximate because the centre of gravity is always determined for a limited number of points. It was used for the first time in 1969 as a pure optimization algorithm making the regions of acceptability smaller and smaller (in analogy to simulated annealing, Kirkpatrick 1983). Since 1970 it has been used for both ordinary optimization and yield maximization. == Natural evolution and Gaussian adaptation == It has also been compared to the natural evolution of populations of living organisms. In this case s(x) is the probability that the individual having an array x of phenotypes will survive by giving offspring to the next generation; a definition of individual fitness given by Hartl 1981. The yield, P, is replaced by the mean fitness determined as a mean over the set of individuals in a large population. Phenotypes are often Gaussian distributed in a large population and a necessary condition for the natural evolution to be able to fulfill the theorem of Gaussian adaptation, with respect to all Gaussian quantitative characters, is that it may push the centre of gravity of the Gaussian to the centre of gravity of the selected individuals. This may be accomplished by the Hardy–Weinberg law. This is possible because the theorem of Gaussian adaptation is valid for any region of acceptability independent of the structure (Kjellström, 1996). In this case the rules of genetic variation such as crossover, inversion, transposition etcetera may be seen as random number generators for the phenotypes. So, in this sense Gaussian adaptation may be seen as a genetic algorithm. == How to climb a mountain == Mean fitness may be calculated provided that the distribution of parameters and the structure of the landscape is known. The real landscape is not known, but figure below shows a fictitious profile (blue) of a landscape along a line (x) in a room spanned by such parameters. The red curve is the mean based on the red bell curve at the bottom of figure. It is obtained by letting the bell curve slide along the x-axis, calculating the mean at every location. As can be seen, small peaks and pits are smoothed out. Thus, if evolution is started at A with a relatively small variance (the red bell curve), then climbing will take place on the red curve. The process may get stuck for millions of years at B or C, as long as the hollows to the right of these points remain, and the mutation rate is too small. If the mutation rate is sufficiently high, the disorder or variance may increase and the parameter(s) may become distributed like the green bell curve. Then the climbing will take place on the green curve, which is even more smoothed out. Because the hollows to the right of B and C have now disappeared, the process may continue up to the peaks at D. But of course the landscape puts a limit on the disorder or variability. Besides — dependent on the landscape — the process may become very jerky, and if the ratio between the time spent by the process at a local peak and the time of transition to the next peak is very high, it may as well look like a punctuated equilibrium as suggested by Gould (see Ridley). == Computer simulation of Gaussian adaptation == Thus far the theory only considers mean values of continuous distributions corresponding to an infinite number of individuals. In reality however, the number of individuals is always limited, which gives rise to an uncertainty in the estimation of m and M (the moment matrix of the Gaussian). And this may also affect the efficiency of the process. Unfortunately very little is known about this, at least theoretically. The implementation of normal adaptation on a computer is a fairly simple task. The adaptation of m may be done by one sample (individual) at a time, for example m(i + 1) = (1 – a) m(i) + ax where x is a pass sample, and a < 1 a suitable constant so that the inverse of a represents the number of individuals in the population. M may in principle be updated after every step y leading to a feasible point x = m + y according to: M(i + 1) = (1 – 2b) M(i) + 2byyT, where yT is the transpose of y and b << 1 is another suitable constant. In order to guarantee a suitable increase of average information, y should be normally distributed with moment matrix μ2M, where the scalar μ > 1 is used to increase average information (information entropy, disorder, diversity) at a suitable rate. But M will never be used in the calculations. Instead we use the matrix W defined by WWT = M. Thus, we have y = Wg, where g is normally distributed with the moment matrix μU, and U is the unit matrix. W and WT may be updated by the formulas W = (1 – b)W + bygT and WT = (1 – b)WT + bgyT because multiplication gives M = (1 – 2b)M + 2byyT, where terms including b2 have been neglected. Thus, M will be indirectly adapted with good approximation. In practice it will suffice to update W only W(i + 1) = (1 – b)W(i) + bygT. This is the formula used in a simple 2-dimensional model of a brain satisfying the Hebbian rule of associative learning; see the next section (Kjellström, 1996 and 1999). The figure below illustrates the effect of increased average information in a Gaussian p.d.f. used to climb a mountain Crest (the two lines represent the contour line). Both the red and green cluster have equal mean fitness, about 65%, but the green cluster has a much higher average information making the green process much more efficient. The effect of this adaptation is not very salient in a 2-dimensional case, but in a high-dimensional case, the efficiency of the search process may be increased by many orders of magnitude. == The evolution in the brain == In the brain the evolution of DNA-messages is supposed to be replaced by an evolution of signal patterns and the phenotypic landscape is replaced by a mental landscape, the complexity of which will hardly be second to the former. The metaphor with the mental landscape is based on the assumption that certain signal patterns give rise to a better well-being or performance. For instance, the control of a group of muscles leads to a better pronunciation of a word or performance of a piece of music. In this simple model it is assumed that the brain consists of interconnected components that may add, multiply and delay signal values. A nerve cell kernel may add signal values, a synapse may multiply with a constant and An axon may delay values. This is a basis of the theory of digital filters and neural networks consisting of components that may add, multiply and delay signalvalues and also of many brain models, Levine 1991. In the figure below the brain stem is supposed to deliver Gaussian distributed signal patterns. This may be possible since certai

  Read more →
• 

  Distribution learning theory

  The distributional learning theory or learning of probability distribution is a framework in computational learning theory. It has been proposed from Michael Kearns, Yishay Mansour, Dana Ron, Ronitt Rubinfeld, Robert Schapire and Linda Sellie in 1994 and it was inspired from the PAC-framework introduced by Leslie Valiant. In this framework the input is a number of samples drawn from a distribution that belongs to a specific class of distributions. The goal is to find an efficient algorithm that, based on these samples, determines with high probability the distribution from which the samples have been drawn. Because of its generality, this framework has been used in a large variety of different fields like machine learning, approximation algorithms, applied probability and statistics. This article explains the basic definitions, tools and results in this framework from the theory of computation point of view. == Definitions == Let X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} be the support of the distributions of interest. As in the original work of Kearns et al. if X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} is finite it can be assumed without loss of generality that X = { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle \textstyle X=\{0,1\}^{n}} where n {\displaystyle \textstyle n} is the number of bits that have to be used in order to represent any y ∈ X {\displaystyle \textstyle y\in X} . We focus in probability distributions over X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . There are two possible representations of a probability distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} over X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . probability distribution function (or evaluator) an evaluator E D {\displaystyle \textstyle E_{D}} for D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} takes as input any y ∈ X {\displaystyle \textstyle y\in X} and outputs a real number E D [ y ] {\displaystyle \textstyle E_{D}[y]} which denotes the probability that of y {\displaystyle \textstyle y} according to D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} , i.e. E D [ y ] = Pr [ Y = y ] {\displaystyle \textstyle E_{D}[y]=\Pr[Y=y]} if Y ∼ D {\displaystyle \textstyle Y\sim D} . generator a generator G D {\displaystyle \textstyle G_{D}} for D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} takes as input a string of truly random bits y {\displaystyle \textstyle y} and outputs G D [ y ] ∈ X {\displaystyle \textstyle G_{D}[y]\in X} according to the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} . Generator can be interpreted as a routine that simulates sampling from the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} given a sequence of fair coin tosses. A distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} is called to have a polynomial generator (respectively evaluator) if its generator (respectively evaluator) exists and can be computed in polynomial time. Let C X {\displaystyle \textstyle C_{X}} a class of distribution over X, that is C X {\displaystyle \textstyle C_{X}} is a set such that every D ∈ C X {\displaystyle \textstyle D\in C_{X}} is a probability distribution with support X {\displaystyle \textstyle X} . The C X {\displaystyle \textstyle C_{X}} can also be written as C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} for simplicity. In order to evaluate learnability, it is necessary to have a way to measure how well an approximated distribution D ′ {\displaystyle \textstyle D'} fits the sampled distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} . There are several ways to measure the divergence between two distributions. Three common possibilities are Kullback–Leibler divergence Total variation distance of probability measures Kolmogorov distance Total variation and Kolmogorov distance are true metrics, while KL divergence is not (it lacks symmetry). These measures are ordered by convergence strength: closeness in KL divergence implies closeness in total variation (via Pinsker's inequality), which in turn implies closeness in Kolmogorov distance. Therefore, a learnability result proven under KL divergence automatically holds under the weaker measures, but not vice versa. Since certain measures may be more appropriate in specific applications, we will use d ( D , D ′ ) {\displaystyle \textstyle d(D,D')} to denote a selected divergence between the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} and the distribution D ′ {\displaystyle \textstyle D'} . The basic input that we use in order to learn a distribution is a number of samples drawn by this distribution. For the computational point of view the assumption is that such a sample is given in a constant amount of time. So it's like having access to an oracle G E N ( D ) {\displaystyle \textstyle GEN(D)} that returns a sample from the distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} . Sometimes the interest is, apart from measuring the time complexity, to measure the number of samples that have to be used in order to learn a specific distribution D {\displaystyle \textstyle D} in class of distributions C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} . This quantity is called sample complexity of the learning algorithm. In order for the problem of distribution learning to be more clear consider the problem of supervised learning as defined in. In this framework of statistical learning theory a training set S = { ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) } {\displaystyle \textstyle S=\{(x_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\}} and the goal is to find a target function f : X → Y {\displaystyle \textstyle f:X\rightarrow Y} that minimizes some loss function, e.g. the square loss function. More formally f = arg ⁡ min g ∫ V ( y , g ( x ) ) d ρ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f=\arg \min _{g}\int V(y,g(x))d\rho (x,y)} , where V ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle V(\cdot ,\cdot )} is the loss function, e.g. V ( y , z ) = ( y − z ) 2 {\displaystyle V(y,z)=(y-z)^{2}} and ρ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \rho (x,y)} the probability distribution according to which the elements of the training set are sampled. If the conditional probability distribution ρ x ( y ) {\displaystyle \rho _{x}(y)} is known then the target function has the closed form f ( x ) = ∫ y y d ρ x ( y ) {\displaystyle f(x)=\int _{y}yd\rho _{x}(y)} . So the set S {\displaystyle S} is a set of samples from the probability distribution ρ ( x , y ) {\displaystyle \rho (x,y)} . Now the goal of distributional learning theory if to find ρ {\displaystyle \rho } given S {\displaystyle S} which can be used to find the target function f {\displaystyle f} . Definition of learnability A class of distributions C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} is called efficiently learnable if for every ϵ > 0 {\displaystyle \textstyle \epsilon >0} and 0 < δ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle \textstyle 0<\delta \leq 1} given access to G E N ( D ) {\displaystyle \textstyle GEN(D)} for an unknown distribution D ∈ C {\displaystyle \textstyle D\in C} , there exists a polynomial time algorithm A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} , called learning algorithm of C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} , that outputs a generator or an evaluator of a distribution D ′ {\displaystyle \textstyle D'} such that Pr [ d ( D , D ′ ) ≤ ϵ ] ≥ 1 − δ {\displaystyle \Pr[d(D,D')\leq \epsilon ]\geq 1-\delta } If we know that D ′ ∈ C {\displaystyle \textstyle D'\in C} then A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} is called proper learning algorithm, otherwise is called improper learning algorithm. In some settings the class of distributions C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} is a class with well known distributions which can be described by a set of parameters. For instance C {\displaystyle \textstyle C} could be the class of all the Gaussian distributions N ( μ , σ 2 ) {\displaystyle \textstyle N(\mu ,\sigma ^{2})} . In this case the algorithm A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} should be able to estimate the parameters μ , σ {\displaystyle \textstyle \mu ,\sigma } . In this case A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} is called parameter learning algorithm. Obviously the parameter learning for simple distributions is a very well studied field that is called statistical estimation and there is a very long bibliography on different estimators for different kinds of simple known distributions. But distributions learning theory deals with learning class of distributions that have more complicated description. == First results == In their seminal work, Kearns et al. deal with the case where A {\displaystyle \textstyle A} is described in term of a finite polynomial sized circuit and they proved the following for some specific classes of distribution. O R {\displaystyle \textstyle OR} gate distributions for this kind of distributions there is no polynomial-sized evaluator, unless # P ⊆ P / poly {\displaystyle \textstyle \#P\subseteq P/{\text{poly}}} . On the other hand, this class is efficiently learnable with generator. Parity gate distributions this class is efficiently learnable with both generator and evaluator. Mixtures of Hamming Balls this class is efficiently learnable with both generator and evaluator. Probabilistic Finite Automata this class is not efficiently learnable with evaluator under the Noisy Parity Assumption which is an impossibility assumption in the PAC learning fram

  Read more →
• 

  Google Clips

  Google Clips is a discontinued miniature clip-on camera device developed by Google. == History == It was announced on October 4, 2017 and went on sale on January 27, 2018. Google Clips automatically captured video clips (without audio) at moments its machine learning algorithms determined to be interesting or relevant. An indicator flashed when the camera was looking for scenes to capture. Google Clips' artificial intelligence (AI) could learn the faces of people to take photographs with certain people, and could automatically set lighting and framing. It had 16 GB of storage built-in storage and could record clips for up to 3 hours. This camera was originally priced at US$249 in the United States. It was withdrawn from sale on October 15, 2019, but supported until the end of December 2021. == Reception == The Independent wrote that Google Clips is "an impressive little device, but one that also has the potential to feel very creepy." According to The Verge's generally negative review, "it didn't capture anything special" over two weeks of testing.

  Read more →
• 

  Operational taxonomic unit

  An operational taxonomic unit (OTU) is an operational definition used to classify groups of closely related individuals. The term was originally introduced in 1963 by Robert R. Sokal and Peter H. A. Sneath in the context of numerical taxonomy, where an "operational taxonomic unit" is simply the group of organisms currently being studied. In this sense, an OTU is a pragmatic definition to group individuals by similarity, equivalent to but not necessarily in line with classical Linnaean taxonomy or modern evolutionary taxonomy. Nowadays, however, the term is commonly used in a different context and refers to clusters of (uncultivated or unknown) organisms, grouped by DNA sequence similarity of a specific taxonomic marker gene (originally coined as mOTU; molecular OTU). In other words, OTUs are pragmatic proxies for "species" at different taxonomic levels, in the absence of traditional systems of biological classification as are available for macroscopic organisms. For several years, OTUs have been the most commonly used units of diversity, especially when analysing small subunit 16S (for prokaryotes) or 18S rRNA (for eukaryotes) marker gene sequence datasets. == Molecular OTU by clustering of marker gene sequences == In the approach represented by DNA barcoding, a particular locus is chosen to be used as the marker gene for classification. This locus should be universally present in the scope selected, variable enough to be different among close-related species, and be flanked by conservative sequences that allow for easy amplification and detection. There are databases containing sequences for such marker genes from many different species, allowing for comparison. (Sometimes only using one locus does not provide sufficient resolution, so multiple marker genes are used. This is the case for plants, where rbcL+matK is common.) Sequences obtained this way can be clustered according to their similarity to one another, and operational taxonomic units are defined based on the similarity threshold set by the researcher. The exact threshold depends on the taxa in question and the mutational rates of the selected locus in the taxon. 97–99% are commonly used, but "it is now recognized to be somewhat arbitrary as sequence variation within and among species varies across taxa". 100% similarity (fully identical) is also common, also known as single variants. It remains debatable how well this commonly used method recapitulates true microbial species phylogeny or ecology. Although OTUs can be calculated differently when using different algorithms or thresholds, research by Schmidt et al. (2014) demonstrated that 16S-derived microbial OTUs were generally ecologically consistent across habitats and several clustering approaches. The number of OTUs defined may be inflated due to errors in DNA sequencing. === OTU clustering approaches === There are three main approaches to clustering OTUs: De novo, for which the clustering is based on similarities between sequencing reads. Closed-reference, for which the clustering is performed against a reference database of sequences. Open-reference, where clustering is first performed against a reference database of sequences, then any remaining sequences that could not be mapped to the reference are clustered de novo. Using a reference provides taxonomic context for the OTUs found. Alternatively, taxonomic context can be found after the construction of clusters by comparing representative sequences from clusters against a reference database. There are also specialized classifiers for this purpose which are much faster than naive comparison using BLAST. === OTU clustering algorithms === Hierarchical clustering algorithms (HCA): uclust & cd-hit & ESPRIT Bayesian clustering: CROP == Molecular OTU by other methods == In addition to similarity-based grouping, marker gene sequences can be sorted into OTUs using molecular phylogeny, k-mer composition, or hybrid methods combining these methods with similarity. There are also Bayesian tree-less methods and machine learning approaches. Using phylogeny often involves manually assigning terminal clades or single nodes to an OTU, so this is usually only done for refinement. Genome skimming can be used to obtain high-copy DNA without the need to choose marker genes or to design PCR primers for the chosen genes. It can provide fairly good coverage of organelle DNA and repetitive elements such as ribosomal DNA, both of which can be used like marker genes in OTU analysis. Whole-genome sequencing is more expensive and involves the production and processing of more data. By considering the entire genome, many (sometimes over 100) marker genes can be used at the same time, producing highly resolved phylogenies that correctly identify problematic taxa. It is also possible to use entire genomes for OTU assignment. For example, genomes from different bacterial species almost always have an average nucleotide identity lower than 95%, a fact that can be used to define new OTUs (and likely new species).

  Read more →
• 

  Structured kNN

  Structured k-nearest neighbours (SkNN) is a machine learning algorithm that generalizes k-nearest neighbors (k-NN). k-NN supports binary classification, multiclass classification, and regression, whereas SkNN allows training of a classifier for general structured output. For instance, a data sample might be a natural language sentence, and the output could be an annotated parse tree. Training a classifier consists of showing many instances of ground truth sample-output pairs. After training, the SkNN model is able to predict the corresponding output for new, unseen sample instances; that is, given a natural language sentence, the classifier can produce the most likely parse tree. == Training == As a training set, SkNN accepts sequences of elements with class labels. The type of element does not matter; the only requirement is a defined metric function that gives a distance between each pair of elements of a set. SkNN is based on idea of creating a graph, with each node representing a class label. There is an edge between a pair of nodes if there is a sequence of two elements in the training set with corresponding classes. The first step of SkNN training is the construction of such a graph from training sequences. There are two special nodes in the graph corresponding to sentence beginnings and ends: if a sequence starts with class C, the edge between node START and node C should be created. Like regular k-NN, the second part of SkNN training consists of storing the elements of a training sequence in a certain way. Each element of the training sequences is stored in the node related to the class of the previous element in the sequence. Every first element is stored in the START node. == Inference == Labelling input sequences by SkNN consists of finding the sequence of transitions in the graph, starting from node START. Each transition corresponds to a single element of the input sequence. As a result, the label of each element is determined as the target node label of the transition. The cost of the path is defined as the sum of all transitions, with the cost of transition from node A to node B being the distance from the current input sequence element to the nearest element of class B, stored in node A. Determining an optimal path may be performed using a modified Viterbi algorithm (where the sum of the distances is minimized, unlike the original algorithm which maximizes the product of probabilities).

  Read more →
• 

  Sharpness aware minimization

  Sharpness Aware Minimization (SAM) is an optimization algorithm used in machine learning that aims to improve model generalization. The method seeks to find model parameters that are located in regions of the loss landscape with uniformly low loss values, rather than parameters that only achieve a minimal loss value at a single point. This approach is described as finding "flat" minima instead of "sharp" ones. The rationale is that models trained this way are less sensitive to variations between training and test data, which can lead to better performance on unseen data. The algorithm was introduced in a 2020 paper by a team of researchers including Pierre Foret, Ariel Kleiner, Hossein Mobahi, and Behnam Neyshabur. == Underlying Principle == SAM modifies the standard training objective by minimizing a "sharpness-aware" loss. This is formulated as a minimax problem where the inner objective seeks to find the highest loss value in the immediate neighborhood of the current model weights, and the outer objective minimizes this value: min w max ‖ ϵ ‖ p ≤ ρ L train ( w + ϵ ) + λ ‖ w ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \min _{w}\max _{\|\epsilon \|_{p}\leq \rho }L_{\text{train}}(w+\epsilon )+\lambda \|w\|_{2}^{2}} In this formulation: w {\displaystyle w} represents the model's parameters (weights). L train {\displaystyle L_{\text{train}}} is the loss calculated on the training data. ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } is a perturbation applied to the weights. ρ {\displaystyle \rho } is a hyperparameter that defines the radius of the neighborhood (an L p {\displaystyle L_{p}} ball) to search for the highest loss. An optional L2 regularization term, scaled by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } , can be included. A direct solution to the inner maximization problem is computationally expensive. SAM approximates it by taking a single gradient ascent step to find the perturbation ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } . This is calculated as: ϵ ( w ) = ρ ∇ L train ( w ) ‖ ∇ L train ( w ) ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \epsilon (w)=\rho {\frac {\nabla L_{\text{train}}(w)}{\|\nabla L_{\text{train}}(w)\|_{2}}}} The optimization process for each training step involves two stages. First, an "ascent step" computes a perturbed set of weights, w adv = w + ϵ ( w ) {\displaystyle w_{\text{adv}}=w+\epsilon (w)} , by moving towards the direction of the highest local loss. Second, a "descent step" updates the original weights w {\displaystyle w} using the gradient calculated at these perturbed weights, ∇ L train ( w adv ) {\displaystyle \nabla L_{\text{train}}(w_{\text{adv}})} . This update is typically performed using a standard optimizer like SGD or Adam. == Application and Performance == SAM has been applied in various machine learning contexts, primarily in computer vision. Research has shown it can improve generalization performance in models such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Vision Transformers (ViTs) on image datasets including ImageNet, CIFAR-10, and CIFAR-100. The algorithm has also been found to be effective in training models with noisy labels, where it performs comparably to methods designed specifically for this problem. Some studies indicate that SAM and its variants can improve out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization, which is a model's ability to perform well on data from distributions not seen during training. Other areas where it has been applied include gradual domain adaptation and mitigating overfitting in scenarios with repeated exposure to training examples. == Limitations == A primary limitation of SAM is its computational cost. By requiring two gradient computations (one for the ascent and one for the descent) per optimization step, it approximately doubles the training time compared to standard optimizers. The theoretical convergence properties of SAM are still under investigation. Some research suggests that with a constant step size, SAM may not converge to a stationary point. The accuracy of the single gradient step approximation for finding the worst-case perturbation may also decrease during the training process. The effectiveness of SAM can also be domain-dependent. While it has shown benefits for computer vision tasks, its impact on other areas, such as GPT-style language models where each training example is seen only once, has been reported as limited in some studies. Furthermore, while SAM seeks flat minima, some research suggests that not all flat minima necessarily lead to good generalization. The algorithm also introduces the neighborhood size ρ {\displaystyle \rho } as a new hyperparameter, which requires tuning. == Research, Variants, and Enhancements == Active research on SAM focuses on reducing its computational overhead and improving its performance. Several variants have been proposed to make the algorithm more efficient. These include methods that attempt to parallelize the two gradient computations, apply the perturbation to only a subset of parameters, or reduce the number of computation steps required. Other approaches use historical gradient information or apply SAM steps intermittently to lower the computational burden. To improve performance and robustness, variants have been developed that adapt the neighborhood size based on model parameter scales (Adaptive SAM or ASAM) or incorporate information about the curvature of the loss landscape (Curvature Regularized SAM or CR-SAM). Other research explores refining the perturbation step by focusing on specific components of the gradient or combining SAM with techniques like random smoothing. Theoretical work continues to analyze the algorithm's behavior, including its implicit bias towards flatter minima and the development of broader frameworks for sharpness-aware optimization that use different measures of sharpness.

  Read more →
• 

  Imix video cube

  The Imix (also known as ImMix) Video Cube is one of the first computer non-linear editing systems that was a full broadcast quality online video finishing machine. After its release in 1994, Imix released a more advanced version, the Imix Turbo Cube, which boasted 4 channels of real time layered visual effects. It was a hardware computer system controlled by an Apple Macintosh computer.

  Read more →
• 

  Ni1000

  The Ni1000 is an artificial neural network chip developed by Nestor Corporation and Intel, developed in the 1990s. It is Intel's second-generation neural network chip, but the first all-digital chip. The chip is aimed at image analysis applications– containing more than 3 million transistors – and can analyze 40,000 patterns per second. Prototypes running Nestor's OCR software in 1994 were capable of recognizing around 100 handwritten characters per second. The development was funded with money from DARPA and Office of Naval Research.

  Read more →
• 

  Rule-based machine learning

  Rule-based machine learning (RBML) is a term in computer science intended to encompass any machine learning method that identifies, learns, or evolves 'rules' to store, manipulate or apply. The defining characteristic of a rule-based machine learner is the identification and utilization of a set of relational rules that collectively represent the knowledge captured by the system. Rule-based machine learning approaches include learning classifier systems, association rule learning, artificial immune systems, and any other method that relies on a set of rules, each covering contextual knowledge. While rule-based machine learning is conceptually a type of rule-based system, it is distinct from traditional rule-based systems, which are often hand-crafted, and other rule-based decision makers. This is because rule-based machine learning applies some form of learning algorithm such as Rough sets theory to identify and minimise the set of features and to automatically identify useful rules, rather than a human needing to apply prior domain knowledge to manually construct rules and curate a rule set. == Rules == Rules typically take the form of an '{IF:THEN} expression', (e.g. {IF 'condition' THEN 'result'}, or as a more specific example, {IF 'red' AND 'octagon' THEN 'stop-sign}). An individual rule is not in itself a model, since the rule is only applicable when its condition is satisfied. Therefore rule-based machine learning methods typically comprise a set of rules, or knowledge base, that collectively make up the prediction model usually known as decision algorithm. Rules can also be interpreted in various ways depending on the domain knowledge, data types(discrete or continuous) and in combinations. == RIPPER == Repeated incremental pruning to produce error reduction (RIPPER) is a propositional rule learner proposed by William W. Cohen as an optimized version of IREP.

  Read more →