SpreeAI

SpreeAI (stylized as SPREEAI) is an American fashion technology company headquartered in Incline Village, Nevada that develops artificial intelligence software for the apparel and retail industries, including photorealistic virtual try-on, AI-powered sizing recommendations, and digital model generation. Founded in 2022 by John Imah and Bob Davidson, the company achieved unicorn status in 2025 following a Series B round led by Davidson Group that valued the company at approximately US$1.5 billion. TechCrunch identified SpreeAI as one of the more than 100 new tech unicorns minted in 2025. Its board of directors includes supermodel Naomi Campbell and hospitality executive Larry Ruvo. == History == SpreeAI was founded in 2022 by John Imah and Bob Davidson with a focus on artificial intelligence applications in fashion retail. By 2024, the company had raised approximately US$60 million in venture funding. In May 2025, SpreeAI announced a Series B round led by Davidson Group; reporting at the time placed the company's valuation at approximately US$1.5 billion, making it one of a small number of fashion-technology companies to reach unicorn status. In January 2026, TechCrunch listed SpreeAI among the more than 100 new tech unicorns minted in 2025. == Technology == SpreeAI develops a suite of artificial intelligence tools for the apparel industry. Its consumer-facing platform allows shoppers to upload a single photograph or select a digital model and then visualize clothing items on that figure with photorealistic rendering, while a complementary sizing engine generates fit recommendations intended to reduce returns. The platform is designed for integration with online retailers so that shoppers can preview garments before purchase. The company has stated that its models were developed in part through research collaborations with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Carnegie Mellon University. == Leadership and board == John Imah, a Nigerian-American technology executive who previously held roles at Samsung, Twitch, Meta Platforms, and Snap Inc., is co-founder and chief executive officer. Co-founder Bob Davidson, through Davidson Group, led the company's Series B financing. The company's board of directors includes supermodel Naomi Campbell, who joined in 2024, and Las Vegas hospitality executive Larry Ruvo. == Partnerships == SpreeAI has formed partnerships across both academia and the fashion industry. Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA). In 2025, SpreeAI entered a partnership with the CFDA to support American designers and brands with AI-driven tools; the CFDA described SpreeAI as "a fashion technology leader delivering innovative solutions to help designers and brands thrive." Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Carnegie Mellon University. The company has cited ongoing research and talent collaborations with both institutions. Sergio Hudson and Kai Collective. In 2025, SpreeAI made what WWD described as its Met Gala debut through a custom collaboration with designer Sergio Hudson and Nigerian-British label Kai Collective; the collaboration paired Hudson's couture with SpreeAI's virtual try-on platform. == Recognition == In 2025, TechCrunch named SpreeAI among the new tech unicorns of the year. In 2025, SpreeAI was named an honoree in Inc.'s Best in Business awards, and CEO John Imah was included on Inc.'s list of 40 business leaders who "propelled their organizations to success." In 2025, Imah was named to the Observer's AI Power Index, a list of 100 leaders shaping the future of artificial intelligence. In 2025, Imah was included in AfroTech's Future 50, recognizing Black innovators in technology. SpreeAI and Imah have been the subject of profile coverage in The Washington Post, Rolling Stone UK, WWD, Vogue UA, L'Officiel Arabia, GQ South Africa, and Inc..

Spleak

Spleak was an IM platform where users could publish and rate content. It existed in the form of six bots covering as many subject areas: CelebSpleak, SportSpleak, VoteSpleak, TVSpleak, GameSpleak, and StyleSpleak. == Overview == Users can add a "multi-Spleak" (which contains all of the different Spleak bots in one) or add the separate bots to their IM buddy lists on MSN and AIM. Users are also allowed access to Spleak online by using a CelebSpleak, SportSpleak, or VoteSpleak widget, or through the CelebSpleak and SportSpleak applications with Facebook. Spleak was an alternate reality game and is moving to its own company, Spleak Media Network. "Celebrate Spleak" was introduced throughout 2007, launched in 2008, and was forced to retire in 2009. == Key people == Spleak was co-founded by Morten Lund and Nicolaj Reffstrup. The company's chief executive officer is Morrie Eisenburg; Josh Scott is Vice President in Product and Tyler Wells is Vice President in Engineering.

Shattered set

A class of sets is said to shatter another set if it is possible to "pick out" any element of that set using intersection. The concept of shattered sets plays an important role in Vapnik–Chervonenkis theory, also known as VC-theory. Shattering and VC-theory are used in the study of empirical processes as well as in statistical computational learning theory. == Definition == Suppose A is a set and C is a class of sets. The class C shatters the set A if for each subset a of A, there is some element c of C such that a = c ∩ A . {\displaystyle a=c\cap A.} Equivalently, C shatters A when their intersection is equal to A's power set: P(A) = { c ∩ A | c ∈ C }. We employ the letter C to refer to a "class" or "collection" of sets, as in a Vapnik–Chervonenkis class (VC-class). The set A is often assumed to be finite because, in empirical processes, we are interested in the shattering of finite sets of data points. == Example == We will show that the class of all discs in the plane (two-dimensional space) does not shatter every set of four points on the unit circle, yet the class of all convex sets in the plane does shatter every finite set of points on the unit circle. Let A be a set of four points on the unit circle and let C be the class of all discs. To test where C shatters A, we attempt to draw a disc around every subset of points in A. First, we draw a disc around the subsets of each isolated point. Next, we try to draw a disc around every subset of point pairs. This turns out to be doable for adjacent points, but impossible for points on opposite sides of the circle. Any attempt to include those points on the opposite side will necessarily include other points not in that pair. Hence, any pair of opposite points cannot be isolated out of A using intersections with class C and so C does not shatter A. As visualized below: Because there is some subset which can not be isolated by any disc in C, we conclude then that A is not shattered by C. And, with a bit of thought, we can prove that no set of four points is shattered by this C. However, if we redefine C to be the class of all elliptical discs, we find that we can still isolate all the subsets from above, as well as the points that were formerly problematic. Thus, this specific set of 4 points is shattered by the class of elliptical discs. Visualized below: With a bit of thought, we could generalize that any set of finite points on a unit circle could be shattered by the class of all convex sets (visualize connecting the dots). == Shatter coefficient == To quantify the richness of a collection C of sets, we use the concept of shattering coefficients (also known as the growth function). For a collection C of sets s ⊂ Ω {\displaystyle s\subset \Omega } , Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } being any space, often a sample space, we define the nth shattering coefficient of C as S C ( n ) = max ∀ x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ∈ Ω card ⁡ { { x 1 , x 2 , … , x n } ∩ s , s ∈ C } {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=\max _{\forall x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\in \Omega }\operatorname {card} \{\,\{\,x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\}\cap s,s\in C\}} where card {\displaystyle \operatorname {card} } denotes the cardinality of the set and x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ∈ Ω {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}\in \Omega } is any set of n points,. S C ( n ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)} is the largest number of subsets of any set A of n points that can be formed by intersecting A with the sets in collection C. For example, if set A contains 3 points, its power set, P ( A ) {\displaystyle P(A)} , contains 2 3 = 8 {\displaystyle 2^{3}=8} elements. If C shatters A, its shattering coefficient(3) would be 8 and S C ( 2 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(2)} would be 2 2 = 4 {\displaystyle 2^{2}=4} . However, if one of those sets in P ( A ) {\displaystyle P(A)} cannot be obtained through intersections in c, then S C ( 3 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(3)} would only be 7. If none of those sets can be obtained, S C ( 3 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(3)} would be 0. Additionally, if S C ( 2 ) = 3 {\displaystyle S_{C}(2)=3} , for example, then there is an element in the set of all 2-point sets from A that cannot be obtained from intersections with C. It follows from this that S C ( 3 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(3)} would also be less than 8 (i.e. C would not shatter A) because we have already located a "missing" set in the smaller power set of 2-point sets. This example illustrates some properties of S C ( n ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)} : S C ( n ) ≤ 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)\leq 2^{n}} for all n because { s ∩ A | s ∈ C } ⊆ P ( A ) {\displaystyle \{s\cap A|s\in C\}\subseteq P(A)} for any A ⊆ Ω {\displaystyle A\subseteq \Omega } . If S C ( n ) = 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=2^{n}} , that means there is a set of cardinality n, which can be shattered by C. If S C ( N ) < 2 N {\displaystyle S_{C}(N)<2^{N}} for some N > 1 {\displaystyle N>1} then S C ( n ) < 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)<2^{n}} for all n ≥ N {\displaystyle n\geq N} . The third property means that if C cannot shatter any set of cardinality N then it can not shatter sets of larger cardinalities. == Vapnik–Chervonenkis class == If A cannot be shattered by C, there will be a smallest value of n that makes the shatter coefficient(n) less than 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} because as n gets larger, there are more sets that could be missed. Alternatively, there is also a largest value of n for which the S C ( n ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)} is still 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} , because as n gets smaller, there are fewer sets that could be omitted. The extreme of this is S C ( 0 ) {\displaystyle S_{C}(0)} (the shattering coefficient of the empty set), which must always be 2 0 = 1 {\displaystyle 2^{0}=1} . These statements lends themselves to defining the VC dimension of a class C as: V C ( C ) = min n { n : S C ( n ) < 2 n } {\displaystyle VC(C)={\underset {n}{\min }}\{n:S_{C}(n)<2^{n}\}\,} or, alternatively, as V C 0 ( C ) = max n { n : S C ( n ) = 2 n } . {\displaystyle VC_{0}(C)={\underset {n}{\max }}\{n:S_{C}(n)=2^{n}\}.\,} Note that V C ( C ) = V C 0 ( C ) + 1. {\displaystyle VC(C)=VC_{0}(C)+1.} . The VC dimension is usually defined as V C 0 {\displaystyle VC_{0}} , the largest cardinality of points chosen that will still shatter A (i.e. n such that S C ( n ) = 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=2^{n}} ). Altneratively, if for any n there is a set of cardinality n which can be shattered by C, then S C ( n ) = 2 n {\displaystyle S_{C}(n)=2^{n}} for all n and the VC dimension of this class C is infinite. A class with finite VC dimension is called a Vapnik–Chervonenkis class or VC class. A class C is uniformly Glivenko–Cantelli if and only if it is a VC class.

LamaH

LamaH (Large-Sample Data for Hydrology and Environmental Sciences) is a cross-state initiative for unified data preparation and collection in the field of catchment hydrology. Hydrological datasets, for example, are an integral component for creating flood forecasting models. == Features == LamaH datasets always consist of a combination of meteorological time series (e.g., precipitation, temperature) and hydrologically relevant catchment attributes (e.g., elevation, slope, forest area, soil, bedrock) aggregated over the respective catchment as well as associated hydrological time series at the catchment outlet (discharge). By evaluating the large and heterogeneous sample (large-sample) of catchments, it is possible to gain insights into the hydrological cycle that would probably not be achievable with local and small-scale studies. The structure of the dataset allows an evaluation based on machine learning methods (deep learning). The accompanying paper explains not only the data preparation but also any limitations, uncertainties and possible applications. == Difference to CAMELS == The LamaH datasets are quite similar to the CAMELS datasets, but additionally feature: Further basin delineations (based on intermediate catchments) and attributes (e.g. flow distance and altitude difference between two topologically adjacent discharge gauges), enabling the setup of an interconnected hydrological network Attributes for classifying catchments and runoff gauges according to the degree and type of (anthropogenic) influence == Availability == LamaH datasets are available for the following regions: Central Europe (Austria and its hydrological upstream areas in Germany, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Slovakia, Italy, Liechtenstein, Slovenia and Hungary) / 859 catchments CAMELS datasets are available for (ranked by publication date): Contiguous USA (exclusive Alaska and Hawaii) / 671 catchments Chile / 516 catchments Brazil / 897 catchments Great Britain / 671 catchments Australia / 222 catchments Both the CAMELS and LamaH datasets are licensed with Creative Commons and are therefore available barrier-free for the public.

Tucker decomposition

In mathematics, Tucker decomposition decomposes a tensor into a set of matrices and one small core tensor. It is named after Ledyard R. Tucker although it goes back to Hitchcock in 1927. Initially described as a three-mode extension of factor analysis and principal component analysis it may actually be generalized to higher mode analysis, which is also called higher-order singular value decomposition (HOSVD) or the M-mode SVD. The algorithm to which the literature typically refers when discussing the Tucker decomposition or the HOSVD is the M-mode SVD algorithm introduced by Vasilescu and Terzopoulos, but misattributed to Tucker or De Lathauwer etal. It may be regarded as a more flexible PARAFAC (parallel factor analysis) model. In PARAFAC the core tensor is restricted to be "diagonal". In practice, Tucker decomposition is used as a modelling tool. For instance, it is used to model three-way (or higher way) data by means of relatively small numbers of components for each of the three or more modes, and the components are linked to each other by a three- (or higher-) way core array. The model parameters are estimated in such a way that, given fixed numbers of components, the modelled data optimally resemble the actual data in the least squares sense. The model gives a summary of the information in the data, in the same way as principal components analysis does for two-way data. For a 3rd-order tensor T ∈ F n 1 × n 2 × n 3 {\displaystyle T\in F^{n_{1}\times n_{2}\times n_{3}}} , where F {\displaystyle F} is either R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } or C {\displaystyle \mathbb {C} } , Tucker Decomposition can be denoted as follows, T = T × 1 U ( 1 ) × 2 U ( 2 ) × 3 U ( 3 ) {\displaystyle T={\mathcal {T}}\times _{1}U^{(1)}\times _{2}U^{(2)}\times _{3}U^{(3)}} where T ∈ F d 1 × d 2 × d 3 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {T}}\in F^{d_{1}\times d_{2}\times d_{3}}} is the core tensor, a 3rd-order tensor that contains the 1-mode, 2-mode and 3-mode singular values of T {\displaystyle T} , which are defined as the Frobenius norm of the 1-mode, 2-mode and 3-mode slices of tensor T {\displaystyle {\mathcal {T}}} respectively. U ( 1 ) , U ( 2 ) , U ( 3 ) {\displaystyle U^{(1)},U^{(2)},U^{(3)}} are unitary matrices in F d 1 × n 1 , F d 2 × n 2 , F d 3 × n 3 {\displaystyle F^{d_{1}\times n_{1}},F^{d_{2}\times n_{2}},F^{d_{3}\times n_{3}}} respectively. The k-mode product (k = 1, 2, 3) of T {\displaystyle {\mathcal {T}}} by U ( k ) {\displaystyle U^{(k)}} is denoted as T × U ( k ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {T}}\times U^{(k)}} with entries as ( T × 1 U ( 1 ) ) ( i 1 , j 2 , j 3 ) = ∑ j 1 = 1 d 1 T ( j 1 , j 2 , j 3 ) U ( 1 ) ( j 1 , i 1 ) ( T × 2 U ( 2 ) ) ( j 1 , i 2 , j 3 ) = ∑ j 2 = 1 d 2 T ( j 1 , j 2 , j 3 ) U ( 2 ) ( j 2 , i 2 ) ( T × 3 U ( 3 ) ) ( j 1 , j 2 , i 3 ) = ∑ j 3 = 1 d 3 T ( j 1 , j 2 , j 3 ) U ( 3 ) ( j 3 , i 3 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}({\mathcal {T}}\times _{1}U^{(1)})(i_{1},j_{2},j_{3})&=\sum _{j_{1}=1}^{d_{1}}{\mathcal {T}}(j_{1},j_{2},j_{3})U^{(1)}(j_{1},i_{1})\\({\mathcal {T}}\times _{2}U^{(2)})(j_{1},i_{2},j_{3})&=\sum _{j_{2}=1}^{d_{2}}{\mathcal {T}}(j_{1},j_{2},j_{3})U^{(2)}(j_{2},i_{2})\\({\mathcal {T}}\times _{3}U^{(3)})(j_{1},j_{2},i_{3})&=\sum _{j_{3}=1}^{d_{3}}{\mathcal {T}}(j_{1},j_{2},j_{3})U^{(3)}(j_{3},i_{3})\end{aligned}}} Altogether, the decomposition may also be written more directly as T ( i 1 , i 2 , i 3 ) = ∑ j 1 = 1 d 1 ∑ j 2 = 1 d 2 ∑ j 3 = 1 d 3 T ( j 1 , j 2 , j 3 ) U ( 1 ) ( j 1 , i 1 ) U ( 2 ) ( j 2 , i 2 ) U ( 3 ) ( j 3 , i 3 ) {\displaystyle T(i_{1},i_{2},i_{3})=\sum _{j_{1}=1}^{d_{1}}\sum _{j_{2}=1}^{d_{2}}\sum _{j_{3}=1}^{d_{3}}{\mathcal {T}}(j_{1},j_{2},j_{3})U^{(1)}(j_{1},i_{1})U^{(2)}(j_{2},i_{2})U^{(3)}(j_{3},i_{3})} Taking d i = n i {\displaystyle d_{i}=n_{i}} for all i {\displaystyle i} is always sufficient to represent T {\displaystyle T} exactly, but often T {\displaystyle T} can be compressed or efficiently approximately by choosing d i < n i {\displaystyle d_{i}

Egocentric vision

Egocentric vision or first-person vision is a sub-field of computer vision that entails analyzing images and videos captured by a wearable camera, which is typically worn on the head or on the chest and naturally approximates the visual field of the camera wearer. Consequently, visual data capture the part of the scene on which the user focuses to carry out the task at hand and offer a valuable perspective to understand the user's activities and their context in a naturalistic setting. The wearable camera looking forwards is often supplemented with a camera looking inward at the user's eye and able to measure a user's eye gaze, which is useful to reveal attention and to better understand the user's activity and intentions. == History == The idea of using a wearable camera to gather visual data from a first-person perspective dates back to the 70s, when Steve Mann invented "Digital Eye Glass", a device that, when worn, causes the human eye itself to effectively become both an electronic camera and a television display. Subsequently, wearable cameras were used for health-related applications in the context of Humanistic Intelligence and Wearable AI. Egocentric vision is best done from the point-of-eye, but may also be done by way of a neck-worn camera when eyeglasses would be in-the-way. This neck-worn variant was popularized by way of the Microsoft SenseCam in 2006 for experimental health research works. The interest of the computer vision community into the egocentric paradigm has been arising slowly entering the 2010s and it is rapidly growing in recent years, boosted by both the impressive advances in the field of wearable technology and by the increasing number of potential applications. The prototypical first-person vision system described by Kanade and Hebert, in 2012 is composed by three basic components: a localization component able to estimate the surrounding, a recognition component able to identify object and people, and an activity recognition component, able to provide information about the current activity of the user. Together, these three components provide a complete situational awareness of the user, which in turn can be used to provide assistance to the user or to the caregiver. Following this idea, the first computational techniques for egocentric analysis focused on hand-related activity recognition and social interaction analysis. Also, given the unconstrained nature of the video and the huge amount of data generated, temporal segmentation and summarization were among the first problems addressed. After almost ten years of egocentric vision (2007–2017), the field is still undergoing diversification. Emerging research topics include: Social saliency estimation Multi-agent egocentric vision systems Privacy preserving techniques and applications Attention-based activity analysis Social interaction analysis Hand pose analysis Ego graphical User Interfaces (EUI) Understanding social dynamics and attention Revisiting robotic vision and machine vision as egocentric sensing Activity forecasting Gaze prediction == Technical challenges == Today's wearable cameras are small and lightweight digital recording devices that can acquire images and videos automatically, without the user intervention, with different resolutions and frame rates, and from a first-person point of view. Therefore, wearable cameras are naturally primed to gather visual information from our everyday interactions since they offer an intimate perspective of the visual field of the camera wearer. Depending on the frame rate, it is common to distinguish between photo-cameras (also called lifelogging cameras) and video-cameras. The former (e.g., Narrative Clip and Microsoft SenseCam), are commonly worn on the chest, and are characterized by a very low frame rate (up to 2fpm) that allows to capture images over a long period of time without the need of recharging the battery. Consequently, they offer considerable potential for inferring knowledge about e.g. behaviour patterns, habits or lifestyle of the user. However, due to the low frame-rate and the free motion of the camera, temporally adjacent images typically present abrupt appearance changes so that motion features cannot be reliably estimated. The latter (e.g., Google Glass, GoPro), are commonly mounted on the head, and capture conventional video (around 35fps) that allows to capture fine temporal details of interactions. Consequently, they offer potential for in-depth analysis of daily or special activities. However, since the camera is moving with the wearer head, it becomes more difficult to estimate the global motion of the wearer and in the case of abrupt movements, the images can result blurred. In both cases, since the camera is worn in a naturalistic setting, visual data present a huge variability in terms of illumination conditions and object appearance. Moreover, the camera wearer is not visible in the image and what he/she is doing has to be inferred from the information in the visual field of the camera, implying that important information about the wearer, such for instance as pose or facial expression estimation, is not available. == Applications == A collection of studies published in a special theme issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine has demonstrated the potential of lifelogs captured through wearable cameras from a number of viewpoints. In particular, it has been shown that used as a tool for understanding and tracking lifestyle behaviour, lifelogs would enable the prevention of noncommunicable diseases associated to unhealthy trends and risky profiles (such as obesity and depression). In addition, used as a tool of re-memory cognitive training, lifelogs would enable the prevention of cognitive and functional decline in elderly people. More recently, egocentric cameras have been used to study human and animal cognition, human-human social interaction, human-robot interaction, human expertise in complex tasks. Other applications include navigation/assistive technologies for the blind, monitoring and assistance of industrial workflows, and augmented reality interfaces.

Ordination (statistics)

Ordination or gradient analysis, in multivariate analysis, is a method complementary to data clustering, and used mainly in exploratory data analysis (rather than in hypothesis testing). In contrast to cluster analysis, ordination orders quantities in a (usually lower-dimensional) latent space. In the ordination space, quantities that are near each other share attributes (i.e., are similar to some degree), and dissimilar objects are farther from each other. Such relationships between the objects, on each of several axes or latent variables, are then characterized numerically and/or graphically in a biplot. The first ordination method, principal components analysis, was suggested by Karl Pearson in 1901. == Methods == Ordination methods can broadly be categorized in eigenvector-, algorithm-, or model-based methods. Many classical ordination techniques, including principal components analysis, correspondence analysis (CA) and its derivatives (detrended correspondence analysis, canonical correspondence analysis, and redundancy analysis, belong to the first group). The second group includes some distance-based methods such as non-metric multidimensional scaling, and machine learning methods such as T-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding and nonlinear dimensionality reduction. The third group includes model-based ordination methods, which can be considered as multivariate extensions of Generalized Linear Models. Model-based ordination methods are more flexible in their application than classical ordination methods, so that it is for example possible to include random-effects. Unlike in the aforementioned two groups, there is no (implicit or explicit) distance measure in the ordination. Instead, a distribution needs to be specified for the responses as is typical for statistical models. These and other assumptions, such as the assumed mean-variance relationship, can be validated with the use of residual diagnostics, unlike in other ordination methods. == Applications == Ordination can be used on the analysis of any set of multivariate objects. It is frequently used in several environmental or ecological sciences, particularly plant community ecology. It is also used in genetics and systems biology for microarray data analysis and in psychometrics.