Generalized filtering is a generic Bayesian filtering scheme for nonlinear state-space models. It is based on a variational principle of least action, formulated in generalized coordinates of motion. Note that "generalized coordinates of motion" are related to—but distinct from—generalized coordinates as used in (multibody) dynamical systems analysis. Generalized filtering furnishes posterior densities over hidden states (and parameters) generating observed data using a generalized gradient descent on variational free energy, under the Laplace assumption. Unlike classical (e.g. Kalman-Bucy or particle) filtering, generalized filtering eschews Markovian assumptions about random fluctuations. Furthermore, it operates online, assimilating data to approximate the posterior density over unknown quantities, without the need for a backward pass. Special cases include variational filtering, dynamic expectation maximization and generalized predictive coding. == Definition == Definition: Generalized filtering rests on the tuple ( Ω , U , X , S , p , q ) {\displaystyle (\Omega ,U,X,S,p,q)} : A sample space Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } from which random fluctuations ω ∈ Ω {\displaystyle \omega \in \Omega } are drawn Control states U ∈ R {\displaystyle U\in \mathbb {R} } – that act as external causes, input or forcing terms Hidden states X : X × U × Ω → R {\displaystyle X:X\times U\times \Omega \to \mathbb {R} } – that cause sensory states and depend on control states Sensor states S : X × U × Ω → R {\displaystyle S:X\times U\times \Omega \to \mathbb {R} } – a probabilistic mapping from hidden and control states Generative density p ( s ~ , x ~ , u ~ ∣ m ) {\displaystyle p({\tilde {s}},{\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}}\mid m)} – over sensory, hidden and control states under a generative model m {\displaystyle m} Variational density q ( x ~ , u ~ ∣ μ ~ ) {\displaystyle q({\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}}\mid {\tilde {\mu }})} – over hidden and control states with mean μ ~ ∈ R {\displaystyle {\tilde {\mu }}\in \mathbb {R} } Here ~ denotes a variable in generalized coordinates of motion: u ~ = [ u , u ′ , u ″ , … ] T {\displaystyle {\tilde {u}}=[u,u',u'',\ldots ]^{T}} === Generalized filtering === The objective is to approximate the posterior density over hidden and control states, given sensor states and a generative model – and estimate the (path integral of) model evidence p ( s ~ ( t ) | m ) {\displaystyle p({\tilde {s}}(t)\vert m)} to compare different models. This generally involves an intractable marginalization over hidden states, so model evidence (or marginal likelihood) is replaced with a variational free energy bound. Given the following definitions: μ ~ ( t ) = a r g m i n μ ~ { F ( s ~ ( t ) , μ ~ ) } {\displaystyle {\tilde {\mu }}(t)={\underset {\tilde {\mu }}{\operatorname {arg\,min} }}\{F({\tilde {s}}(t),{\tilde {\mu }})\}} G ( s ~ , x ~ , u ~ ) = − ln p ( s ~ , x ~ , u ~ | m ) {\displaystyle G({\tilde {s}},{\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}})=-\ln p({\tilde {s}},{\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}}\vert m)} Denote the Shannon entropy of the density q {\displaystyle q} by H [ q ] = E q [ − log ( q ) ] {\displaystyle H[q]=E_{q}[-\log(q)]} . We can then write the variational free energy in two ways: F ( s ~ , μ ~ ) = E q [ G ( s ~ , x ~ , u ~ ) ] − H [ q ( x ~ , u ~ | μ ~ ) ] = − ln p ( s ~ | m ) + D K L [ q ( x ~ , u ~ | μ ~ ) | | p ( x ~ , u ~ | s ~ , m ) ] {\displaystyle F({\tilde {s}},{\tilde {\mu }})=E_{q}[G({\tilde {s}},{\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}})]-H[q({\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}}\vert {\tilde {\mu }})]=-\ln p({\tilde {s}}\vert m)+D_{KL}[q({\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}}\vert {\tilde {\mu }})\vert \vert p({\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}}\vert {\tilde {s}},m)]} The second equality shows that minimizing variational free energy (i) minimizes the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the variational and true posterior density and (ii) renders the variational free energy (a bound approximation to) the negative log evidence (because the divergence can never be less than zero). Under the Laplace assumption q ( x ~ , u ~ ∣ μ ~ ) = N ( μ ~ , C ) {\displaystyle q({\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}}\mid {\tilde {\mu }})={\mathcal {N}}({\tilde {\mu }},C)} the variational density is Gaussian and the precision that minimizes free energy is C − 1 = Π = ∂ μ ~ μ ~ G ( μ ~ ) {\displaystyle C^{-1}=\Pi =\partial _{{\tilde {\mu }}{\tilde {\mu }}}G({\tilde {\mu }})} . This means that free-energy can be expressed in terms of the variational mean (omitting constants): F = G ( μ ~ ) + 1 2 ln | ∂ μ ~ μ ~ G ( μ ~ ) | {\displaystyle F=G({\tilde {\mu }})+\textstyle {1 \over 2}\ln \vert \partial _{{\tilde {\mu }}{\tilde {\mu }}}G({\tilde {\mu }})\vert } The variational means that minimize the (path integral) of free energy can now be recovered by solving the generalized filter: μ ~ ˙ = D μ ~ − ∂ μ ~ F ( s ~ , μ ~ ) {\displaystyle {\dot {\tilde {\mu }}}=D{\tilde {\mu }}-\partial _{\tilde {\mu }}F({\tilde {s}},{\tilde {\mu }})} where D {\displaystyle D} is a block matrix derivative operator of identify matrices such that D u ~ = [ u ′ , u ″ , … ] T {\displaystyle D{\tilde {u}}=[u',u'',\ldots ]^{T}} === Variational basis === Generalized filtering is based on the following lemma: The self-consistent solution to μ ~ ˙ = D μ ~ − ∂ μ ~ F ( s , μ ~ ) {\displaystyle {\dot {\tilde {\mu }}}=D{\tilde {\mu }}-\partial _{\tilde {\mu }}F(s,{\tilde {\mu }})} satisfies the variational principle of stationary action, where action is the path integral of variational free energy S = ∫ d t F ( s ~ ( t ) , μ ~ ( t ) ) {\displaystyle S=\int dt\,F({\tilde {s}}(t),{\tilde {\mu }}(t))} Proof: self-consistency requires the motion of the mean to be the mean of the motion and (by the fundamental lemma of variational calculus) μ ~ ˙ = D μ ~ ⇔ ∂ μ ~ F ( s ~ , μ ~ ) = 0 ⇔ δ μ ~ S = 0 {\displaystyle {\dot {\tilde {\mu }}}=D{\tilde {\mu }}\Leftrightarrow \partial _{\tilde {\mu }}F({\tilde {s}},{\tilde {\mu }})=0\Leftrightarrow \delta _{\tilde {\mu }}S=0} Put simply, small perturbations to the path of the mean do not change variational free energy and it has the least action of all possible (local) paths. Remarks: Heuristically, generalized filtering performs a gradient descent on variational free energy in a moving frame of reference: μ ~ ˙ − D μ ~ = − ∂ μ ~ F ( s , μ ~ ) {\displaystyle {\dot {\tilde {\mu }}}-D{\tilde {\mu }}=-\partial _{\tilde {\mu }}F(s,{\tilde {\mu }})} , where the frame itself minimizes variational free energy. For a related example in statistical physics, see Kerr and Graham who use ensemble dynamics in generalized coordinates to provide a generalized phase-space version of Langevin and associated Fokker-Planck equations. In practice, generalized filtering uses local linearization over intervals Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} to recover discrete updates Δ μ ~ = ( exp ( Δ t ⋅ J ) − I ) J − 1 μ ~ ˙ J = ∂ μ ~ μ ~ ˙ = D − ∂ μ ~ μ ~ F ( s ~ , μ ~ ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\Delta {\tilde {\mu }}&=(\exp(\Delta t\cdot J)-I)J^{-1}{\dot {\tilde {\mu }}}\\J&=\partial _{\tilde {\mu }}{\dot {\tilde {\mu }}}=D-\partial _{{\tilde {\mu }}{\tilde {\mu }}}F({\tilde {s}},{\tilde {\mu }})\end{aligned}}} This updates the means of hidden variables at each interval (usually the interval between observations). == Generative (state-space) models in generalized coordinates == Usually, the generative density or model is specified in terms of a nonlinear input-state-output model with continuous nonlinear functions: s = g ( x , u ) + ω s x ˙ = f ( x , u ) + ω x {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}s&=g(x,u)+\omega _{s}\\{\dot {x}}&=f(x,u)+\omega _{x}\end{aligned}}} The corresponding generalized model (under local linearity assumptions) obtains the from the chain rule s ~ = g ~ ( x ~ , u ~ ) + ω ~ s s = g ( x , u ) + ω s s ′ = ∂ x g ⋅ x ′ + ∂ u g ⋅ u ′ + ω s ′ s ″ = ∂ x g ⋅ x ″ + ∂ u g ⋅ u ″ + ω s ″ ⋮ x ~ ˙ = f ~ ( x ~ , u ~ ) + ω ~ x x ˙ = f ( x , u ) + ω x x ˙ ′ = ∂ x f ⋅ x ′ + ∂ u f ⋅ u ′ + ω x ′ x ˙ ″ = ∂ x f ⋅ x ″ + ∂ u f ⋅ u ″ + ω x ″ ⋮ {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\tilde {s}}&={\tilde {g}}({\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}})+{\tilde {\omega }}_{s}\\\\s&=g(x,u)+\omega _{s}\\s'&=\partial _{x}g\cdot x'+\partial _{u}g\cdot u'+\omega '_{s}\\s''&=\partial _{x}g\cdot x''+\partial _{u}g\cdot u''+\omega ''_{s}\\&\vdots \\\end{aligned}}\qquad {\begin{aligned}{\dot {\tilde {x}}}&={\tilde {f}}({\tilde {x}},{\tilde {u}})+{\tilde {\omega }}_{x}\\\\{\dot {x}}&=f(x,u)+\omega _{x}\\{\dot {x}}'&=\partial _{x}f\cdot x'+\partial _{u}f\cdot u'+\omega '_{x}\\{\dot {x}}''&=\partial _{x}f\cdot x''+\partial _{u}f\cdot u''+\omega ''_{x}\\&\vdots \end{aligned}}} Gaussian assumptions about the random fluctuations ω {\displaystyle \omega } then prescribe the likelihood and empirical priors on the motion of hidden states p ( s ~ , x ~ , u ~ | m ) = p ( s ~ | x ~ , u ~ , m ) p ( D x ~ | x , u ~ , m ) p ( x | m ) p ( u ~ | m ) p ( s ~ | x ~ , u ~ , m ) = N ( g ~ ( x ~ , u ~ ) , Σ ~ ( x ~ , u ~ ) s ) p ( D x ~ | x , u ~ , m ) = N ( f ~ ( x ~ , u ~ ) , Σ ~ ( x ~ , u ~ ) x ) {\displayst
Server.com
Server.com is a domain name that was owned by software as a service (SaaS) company Server Corporation. They offered a suite of services from 1996 until 2007. It was the first SaaS site to offer a variety of services and the first to use the term WebApp to describe its services. It was selected as an Incredibly Useful Site by Yahoo! Internet Life magazine. net magazine listed Server.com among the 100 most influential websites of all time. Server.com launched in 1996 offering the first online personal information manager. In 1997, they rolled out the first threaded message board service; the first web based mailing list manager; one of the first online calendar services; and one of the first online form builders. In 2000, Server.com partnered with NBCi and became server.snap.com until 2001. In 2001, Server.com was serving 100 million monthly pageviews. Media Life declared it one of the 20 biggest ad domains on the Web. In 2002, Server.com developed one of the first web-based RSS aggregators. In 2007, all services were moved to YourWebApps.com. The domain name Server.com was sold in 2009 for $770,000.
Discovery system (artificial intelligence)
A discovery system is an artificial intelligence system that attempts to discover new scientific concepts or laws. The aim of discovery systems is to automate scientific data analysis and the scientific discovery process. Ideally, an artificial intelligence system should be able to search systematically through the space of all possible hypotheses and yield the hypothesis - or set of equally likely hypotheses - that best describes the complex patterns in data. During the era known as the second AI summer (approximately 1978–1987), various systems akin to the era's dominant expert systems were developed to tackle the problem of extracting scientific hypotheses from data, with or without interacting with a human scientist. These systems included Autoclass, Automated Mathematician, Eurisko, which aimed at general-purpose hypothesis discovery, and more specific systems such as Dalton, which uncovers molecular properties from data. The dream of building systems that discover scientific hypotheses was pushed to the background with the second AI winter and the subsequent resurgence of subsymbolic methods such as neural networks. Subsymbolic methods emphasize prediction over explanation, and yield models which works well but are difficult or impossible to explain which has earned them the name black box AI. A black-box model cannot be considered a scientific hypothesis, and this development has even led some researchers to suggest that the traditional aim of science - to uncover hypotheses and theories about the structure of reality - is obsolete. Other researchers disagree and argue that subsymbolic methods are useful in many cases, just not for generating scientific theories. == Discovery systems from the 1970s and 1980s == Autoclass was a Bayesian Classification System written in 1986 Automated Mathematician was one of the earliest successful discovery systems. It was written in 1977 and worked by generating a modifying small Lisp programs Eurisko was a Sequel to Automated Mathematician written in 1984 Dalton is a still maintained program capable of calculating various molecular properties initially launched in 1983 and available in open source since 2017 Glauber is a scientific discovery method written in the context of computational philosophy of science launched in 1983 == Modern discovery systems (2009–present) == After a couple of decades with little interest in discovery systems, the interest in using AI to uncover natural laws and scientific explanations was renewed by the work of Michael Schmidt, then a PhD student in Computational Biology at Cornell University. Schmidt and his advisor, Hod Lipson, invented Eureqa, which they described as a symbolic regression approach to "distilling free-form natural laws from experimental data". This work effectively demonstrated that symbolic regression was a promising way forward for AI-driven scientific discovery. Since 2009, symbolic regression has matured further, and today, various commercial and open source systems are actively used in scientific research. Notable examples include Eureqa, now a part of DataRobot AI Cloud Platform, AI Feynman, and QLattice.
Information space analysis
Within the field of information science, information space analysis is a deterministic method, enhanced by machine intelligence, for locating and assessing resources for team-centric efforts. Organizations need to be able to quickly assemble teams backed by the support services, information, and material to do the job. To do so, these teams need to find and assess sources of services that are potential participants in the team effort. To support this initial team and resource development, information needs to be developed via analysis tools that help make sense of sets of data sources in an Intranet or Internet. Part of the process is to characterize them, partition them, and sort and filter them. These tools focus on three key issues in forming a collaborative team: Help individuals responsible for forming the team understand what is available. Assist team members in identifying the structure and categorize the information available to them in a manner specifically suited to the task at hand. Aid team members to understand the mappings of their information between their organization and that used by others who might participate. Information space analysis tools combine multiple methods to assist in this task. This causes the tools to be particularly well-suited to integrating additional technologies in order to create specialized systems.
Data preprocessing
Data preprocessing can refer to manipulation, filtration or augmentation of data before it is analyzed, and is often an important step in the data mining process. Data collection methods are often loosely controlled, resulting in out-of-range values, impossible data combinations, and missing values, amongst other issues. Preprocessing is the process by which unstructured data is transformed into intelligible representations suitable for machine-learning models. This phase of model deals with noise in order to arrive at better and improved results from the original data set which was noisy. This dataset also has some level of missing value present in it. The preprocessing pipeline used can often have large effects on the conclusions drawn from the downstream analysis. Thus, representation and quality of data is necessary before running any analysis. If there is a high proportion of irrelevant and redundant information present or noisy and unreliable data, then knowledge discovery during the training phase may be more difficult. Data preparation and filtering steps can take a considerable amount of processing time. Examples of methods used in data preprocessing include cleaning, instance selection, normalization, one-hot encoding, data transformation, feature extraction and feature selection. == Applications == === Data mining === Data preprocessing allows for the removal of unwanted data with the use of data cleaning, this allows the user to have a dataset to contain more valuable information after the preprocessing stage for data manipulation later in the data mining process. Editing such dataset to either correct data corruption or human error is a crucial step to get accurate quantifiers like true positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives found in a confusion matrix that are commonly used for a medical diagnosis. Users are able to join data files together and use preprocessing to filter any unnecessary noise from the data which can allow for higher accuracy. Users use Python programming scripts accompanied by the pandas library which gives them the ability to import data from a comma-separated values as a data-frame. The data-frame is then used to manipulate data that can be challenging otherwise to do in Excel. Pandas (software) which is a powerful tool that allows for data analysis and manipulation; which makes data visualizations, statistical operations and much more, a lot easier. Many also use the R programming language to do such tasks as well. The reason why a user transforms existing files into a new one is because of many reasons. Aspects of data preprocessing may include imputing missing values, aggregating numerical quantities and transforming continuous data into categories (data binning). More advanced techniques like principal component analysis and feature selection are working with statistical formulas and are applied to complex datasets which are recorded by GPS trackers and motion capture devices. === Semantic data preprocessing === Semantic data mining is a subset of data mining that specifically seeks to incorporate domain knowledge, such as formal semantics, into the data mining process. Domain knowledge is the knowledge of the environment the data was processed in. Domain knowledge can have a positive influence on many aspects of data mining, such as filtering out redundant or inconsistent data during the preprocessing phase. Domain knowledge also works as constraint. It does this by using working as set of prior knowledge to reduce the space required for searching and acting as a guide to the data. Simply put, semantic preprocessing seeks to filter data using the original environment of said data more correctly and efficiently. There are increasingly complex problems which are asking to be solved by more elaborate techniques to better analyze existing information. Instead of creating a simple script for aggregating different numerical values into a single value, it make sense to focus on semantic based data preprocessing. The idea is to build a dedicated ontology, which explains on a higher level what the problem is about. In regards to semantic data mining and semantic pre-processing, ontologies are a way to conceptualize and formally define semantic knowledge and data. The Protégé (software) is the standard tool for constructing an ontology. In general, the use of ontologies bridges the gaps between data, applications, algorithms, and results that occur from semantic mismatches. As a result, semantic data mining combined with ontology has many applications where semantic ambiguity can impact the usefulness and efficiency of data systems. Applications include the medical field, language processing, banking, and even tutoring, among many more. There are various strengths to using a semantic data mining and ontological based approach. As previously mentioned, these tools can help during the per-processing phase by filtering out non-desirable data from the data set. Additionally, well-structured formal semantics integrated into well designed ontologies can return powerful data that can be easily read and processed by machines. A specifically useful example of this exists in the medical use of semantic data processing. As an example, a patient is having a medical emergency and is being rushed to hospital. The emergency responders are trying to figure out the best medicine to administer to help the patient. Under normal data processing, scouring all the patient’s medical data to ensure they are getting the best treatment could take too long and risk the patients’ health or even life. However, using semantically processed ontologies, the first responders could save the patient’s life. Tools like a semantic reasoner can use ontology to infer the what best medicine to administer to the patient is based on their medical history, such as if they have a certain cancer or other conditions, simply by examining the natural language used in the patient's medical records. This would allow the first responders to quickly and efficiently search for medicine without having worry about the patient’s medical history themselves, as the semantic reasoner would already have analyzed this data and found solutions. In general, this illustrates the incredible strength of using semantic data mining and ontologies. They allow for quicker and more efficient data extraction on the user side, as the user has fewer variables to account for, since the semantically pre-processed data and ontology built for the data have already accounted for many of these variables. However, there are some drawbacks to this approach. Namely, it requires a high amount of computational power and complexity, even with relatively small data sets. This could result in higher costs and increased difficulties in building and maintaining semantic data processing systems. This can be mitigated somewhat if the data set is already well organized and formatted, but even then, the complexity is still higher when compared to standard data processing. Below is a simple a diagram combining some of the processes, in particular semantic data mining and their use in ontology. The diagram depicts a data set being broken up into two parts: the characteristics of its domain, or domain knowledge, and then the actual acquired data. The domain characteristics are then processed to become user understood domain knowledge that can be applied to the data. Meanwhile, the data set is processed and stored so that the domain knowledge can applied to it, so that the process may continue. This application forms the ontology. From there, the ontology can be used to analyze data and process results. Fuzzy preprocessing is another, more advanced technique for solving complex problems. Fuzzy preprocessing and fuzzy data mining make use of fuzzy sets. These data sets are composed of two elements: a set and a membership function for the set which comprises 0 and 1. Fuzzy preprocessing uses this fuzzy data set to ground numerical values with linguistic information. Raw data is then transformed into natural language. Ultimately, fuzzy data mining's goal is to help deal with inexact information, such as an incomplete database. Currently fuzzy preprocessing, as well as other fuzzy based data mining techniques see frequent use with neural networks and artificial intelligence.
Cobocards
CoboCards is a web application for creation, study and sharing of flashcards. They also provide mobile application for Android and iOS mobile devices, to help study of flashcards on the move. Based on the freemium model, CoboCards provides users a free account with two card sets compared to paid subscription with premium features such as unlimited card sets, Leitner system based trainer and collaborative learning. == History == CoboCards is a project of Jamil Soufan and Tamim Swaid. Tamim Swaid has developed the concept and interface of a collaboratively usable e-learning platform in his diploma thesis at the University of Applied Sciences in February 2007. In January 2010 they founded the CoboCards GmbH (limited company) together with Ali Yildirim. CoboCards is supported by its strategic partners Prof. Schroeder (RWTH Aachen University), Prof. Oliver Wrede (University for Applied Sciences Aachen) and Prof. Klaus Gasteier (University of Arts Berlin). With the idea of creating and studying flashcards online and offering an active control of learning progress they won the start2grow business idea competition in September 2009 (€25.000 ). Additionally CoboCards was funded by German Authorities with approximately €100.000 .
Inception score
The Inception Score (IS) is an algorithm used to assess the quality of images created by a generative image model such as a generative adversarial network (GAN). The score is calculated based on the output of a separate, pretrained Inception v3 image classification model applied to a sample of (typically around 30,000) images generated by the generative model. The Inception Score is maximized when the following conditions are true: The entropy of the distribution of labels predicted by the Inceptionv3 model for the generated images is minimized. In other words, the classification model confidently predicts a single label for each image. Intuitively, this corresponds to the desideratum of generated images being "sharp" or "distinct". The predictions of the classification model are evenly distributed across all possible labels. This corresponds to the desideratum that the output of the generative model is "diverse". It has been somewhat superseded by the related Fréchet inception distance. While the Inception Score only evaluates the distribution of generated images, the FID compares the distribution of generated images with the distribution of a set of real images ("ground truth"). == Definition == Let there be two spaces, the space of images Ω X {\displaystyle \Omega _{X}} and the space of labels Ω Y {\displaystyle \Omega _{Y}} . The space of labels is finite. Let p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} be a probability distribution over Ω X {\displaystyle \Omega _{X}} that we wish to judge. Let a discriminator be a function of type p d i s : Ω X → M ( Ω Y ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}:\Omega _{X}\to M(\Omega _{Y})} where M ( Ω Y ) {\displaystyle M(\Omega _{Y})} is the set of all probability distributions on Ω Y {\displaystyle \Omega _{Y}} . For any image x {\displaystyle x} , and any label y {\displaystyle y} , let p d i s ( y | x ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(y|x)} be the probability that image x {\displaystyle x} has label y {\displaystyle y} , according to the discriminator. It is usually implemented as an Inception-v3 network trained on ImageNet. The Inception Score of p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} relative to p d i s {\displaystyle p_{dis}} is I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) := exp ( E x ∼ p g e n [ D K L ( p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ‖ ∫ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) p g e n ( x ) d x ) ] ) {\displaystyle IS(p_{gen},p_{dis}):=\exp \left(\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}\left[D_{KL}\left(p_{dis}(\cdot |x)\|\int p_{dis}(\cdot |x)p_{gen}(x)dx\right)\right]\right)} Equivalent rewrites include ln I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) := E x ∼ p g e n [ D K L ( p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ‖ E x ∼ p g e n [ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ] ) ] {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis}):=\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}\left[D_{KL}\left(p_{dis}(\cdot |x)\|\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[p_{dis}(\cdot |x)]\right)\right]} ln I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) := H [ E x ∼ p g e n [ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ] ] − E x ∼ p g e n [ H [ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ] ] {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis}):=H[\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[p_{dis}(\cdot |x)]]-\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[H[p_{dis}(\cdot |x)]]} ln I S {\displaystyle \ln IS} is nonnegative by Jensen's inequality. Pseudocode:INPUT discriminator p d i s {\displaystyle p_{dis}} . INPUT generator g {\displaystyle g} . Sample images x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from generator. Compute p d i s ( ⋅ | x i ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(\cdot |x_{i})} , the probability distribution over labels conditional on image x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . Sum up the results to obtain p ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {p}}} , an empirical estimate of ∫ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) p g e n ( x ) d x {\displaystyle \int p_{dis}(\cdot |x)p_{gen}(x)dx} . Sample more images x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from generator, and for each, compute D K L ( p d i s ( ⋅ | x i ) ‖ p ^ ) {\displaystyle D_{KL}\left(p_{dis}(\cdot |x_{i})\|{\hat {p}}\right)} . Average the results, and take its exponential. RETURN the result. === Interpretation === A higher inception score is interpreted as "better", as it means that p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} is a "sharp and distinct" collection of pictures. ln I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) ∈ [ 0 , ln N ] {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis})\in [0,\ln N]} , where N {\displaystyle N} is the total number of possible labels. ln I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) = 0 {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis})=0} iff for almost all x ∼ p g e n {\displaystyle x\sim p_{gen}} p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) = ∫ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) p g e n ( x ) d x {\displaystyle p_{dis}(\cdot |x)=\int p_{dis}(\cdot |x)p_{gen}(x)dx} That means p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} is completely "indistinct". That is, for any image x {\displaystyle x} sampled from p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} , discriminator returns exactly the same label predictions p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(\cdot |x)} . The highest inception score N {\displaystyle N} is achieved if and only if the two conditions are both true: For almost all x ∼ p g e n {\displaystyle x\sim p_{gen}} , the distribution p d i s ( y | x ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(y|x)} is concentrated on one label. That is, H y [ p d i s ( y | x ) ] = 0 {\displaystyle H_{y}[p_{dis}(y|x)]=0} . That is, every image sampled from p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} is exactly classified by the discriminator. For every label y {\displaystyle y} , the proportion of generated images labelled as y {\displaystyle y} is exactly E x ∼ p g e n [ p d i s ( y | x ) ] = 1 N {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[p_{dis}(y|x)]={\frac {1}{N}}} . That is, the generated images are equally distributed over all labels.