MobileNet is a family of convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures designed for image classification, object detection, and other computer vision tasks. They are designed for small size, low latency, and low power consumption, making them suitable for on-device inference and edge computing on resource-constrained devices like mobile phones and embedded systems. They were originally designed to be run efficiently on mobile devices with TensorFlow Lite. The need for efficient deep learning models on mobile devices led researchers at Google to develop MobileNet. As of June 2025, the family has five versions, each improving upon the previous one in terms of performance and efficiency. == Features == === V1 === MobileNetV1 was published in April 2017. Its main architectural innovation was incorporation of depthwise separable convolutions. It was first developed by Laurent Sifre during an internship at Google Brain in 2013 as an architectural variation on AlexNet to improve convergence speed and model size. The depthwise separable convolution decomposes a single standard convolution into two convolutions: a depthwise convolution that filters each input channel independently and a pointwise convolution ( 1 × 1 {\displaystyle 1\times 1} convolution) that combines the outputs of the depthwise convolution. This factorization significantly reduces computational cost. The MobileNetV1 has two hyperparameters: a width multiplier α {\displaystyle \alpha } that controls the number of channels in each layer. Smaller values of α {\displaystyle \alpha } lead to smaller and faster models, but at the cost of reduced accuracy, and a resolution multiplier ρ {\displaystyle \rho } , which controls the input resolution of the images. Lower resolutions result in faster processing but potentially lower accuracy. === V2 === MobileNetV2 was published in March 2019. It uses inverted residual layers and linear bottlenecks. Inverted residuals modify the traditional residual block structure. Instead of compressing the input channels before the depthwise convolution, they expand them. This expansion is followed by a 1 × 1 {\displaystyle 1\times 1} depthwise convolution and then a 1 × 1 {\displaystyle 1\times 1} projection layer that reduces the number of channels back down. This inverted structure helps to maintain representational capacity by allowing the depthwise convolution to operate on a higher-dimensional feature space, thus preserving more information flow during the convolutional process. Linear bottlenecks removes the typical ReLU activation function in the projection layers. This was rationalized by arguing that that nonlinear activation loses information in lower-dimensional spaces, which is problematic when the number of channels is already small. === V3 === MobileNetV3 was published in 2019. The publication included MobileNetV3-Small, MobileNetV3-Large, and MobileNetEdgeTPU (optimized for Pixel 4). They were found by a form of neural architecture search (NAS) that takes mobile latency into account, to achieve good trade-off between accuracy and latency. It used piecewise-linear approximations of swish and sigmoid activation functions (which they called "h-swish" and "h-sigmoid"), squeeze-and-excitation modules, and the inverted bottlenecks of MobileNetV2. === V4 === MobileNetV4 was published in September 2024. The publication included a large number of architectures found by NAS. Inspired by Vision Transformers, the V4 series included multi-query attention. It also unified both inverted residual and inverted bottleneck from the V3 series with the "universal inverted bottleneck", which includes these two as special cases. === V5 === MobileNetV5's architecture was published shortly after the release of Gemma 3n in June 2025. While the announcement stated a technical report on MobileNetV5 would be available soon, this has not yet materialised. The network is 10 times larger than the largest V4 variant.
Energy-based model
An energy-based model (EBM), also called Canonical Ensemble Learning (CEL) or Learning via Canonical Ensemble (LCE), is an application of canonical ensemble formulation from statistical physics for learning from data. The approach prominently appears in generative artificial intelligence. EBMs provide a unified framework for many probabilistic and non-probabilistic approaches to such learning, particularly for training graphical and other structured models. An EBM learns the characteristics of a target dataset and generates a similar but larger dataset. EBMs detect the latent variables of a dataset and generate new datasets with a similar distribution. Energy-based generative neural networks is a class of generative models, which aim to learn explicit probability distributions of data in the form of energy-based models, the energy functions of which are parameterized by modern deep neural networks. Boltzmann machines are a special form of energy-based models with a specific parametrization of the energy. == Description == For a given input x {\displaystyle x} , the model describes an energy E θ ( x ) {\displaystyle E_{\theta }(x)} such that the Boltzmann distribution P θ ( x ) = e − β E θ ( x ) Z ( θ ) {\displaystyle P_{\theta }(x)={e^{-\beta E_{\theta }(x)} \over Z(\theta )}} is a probability (density), and typically β = 1 {\displaystyle \beta =1} . Since the normalization constant: Z ( θ ) := ∫ x ∈ X e − β E θ ( x ) d x {\displaystyle Z(\theta ):=\int _{x\in X}e^{-\beta E_{\theta }(x)}dx} (also known as the partition function) depends on all the Boltzmann factors of all possible inputs x {\displaystyle x} , it cannot be easily computed or reliably estimated during training simply using standard maximum likelihood estimation. However, for maximizing the likelihood during training, the gradient of the log-likelihood of a single training example x {\displaystyle x} is given by using the chain rule: ∂ θ log ( P θ ( x ) ) = E x ′ ∼ P θ [ ∂ θ E θ ( x ′ ) ] − ∂ θ E θ ( x ) ( ∗ ) {\displaystyle \partial _{\theta }\log \left(P_{\theta }(x)\right)=\mathbb {E} _{x'\sim P_{\theta }}[\partial _{\theta }E_{\theta }(x')]-\partial _{\theta }E_{\theta }(x)\,()} The expectation in the above formula for the gradient can be approximately estimated by drawing samples x ′ {\displaystyle x'} from the distribution P θ {\displaystyle P_{\theta }} using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). Early energy-based models, such as the 2003 Boltzmann machine by Hinton, estimated this expectation via blocked Gibbs sampling. Newer approaches make use of more efficient Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics (LD), drawing samples using: x 0 ′ ∼ P 0 , x i + 1 ′ = x i ′ − α 2 ∂ E θ ( x i ′ ) ∂ x i ′ + ϵ {\displaystyle x_{0}'\sim P_{0},x_{i+1}'=x_{i}'-{\frac {\alpha }{2}}{\frac {\partial E_{\theta }(x_{i}')}{\partial x_{i}'}}+\epsilon } , where ϵ ∼ N ( 0 , α ) {\displaystyle \epsilon \sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,\alpha )} . A replay buffer of past values x i ′ {\displaystyle x_{i}'} is used with LD to initialize the optimization module. The parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } of the neural network are therefore trained in a generative manner via MCMC-based maximum likelihood estimation: the learning process follows an "analysis by synthesis" scheme, where within each learning iteration, the algorithm samples the synthesized examples from the current model by a gradient-based MCMC method (e.g., Langevin dynamics or Hybrid Monte Carlo), and then updates the parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } based on the difference between the training examples and the synthesized ones – see equation ( ∗ ) {\displaystyle ()} . This process can be interpreted as an alternating mode seeking and mode shifting process, and also has an adversarial interpretation. Essentially, the model learns a function E θ {\displaystyle E_{\theta }} that associates low energies to correct values, and higher energies to incorrect values. After training, given a converged energy model E θ {\displaystyle E_{\theta }} , the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm can be used to draw new samples. The acceptance probability is given by: P a c c ( x i → x ∗ ) = min ( 1 , P θ ( x ∗ ) P θ ( x i ) ) . {\displaystyle P_{acc}(x_{i}\to x^{})=\min \left(1,{\frac {P_{\theta }(x^{})}{P_{\theta }(x_{i})}}\right).} == History == The term "energy-based models" was first coined in a 2003 JMLR paper where the authors defined a generalisation of independent components analysis to the overcomplete setting using EBMs. Other early work on EBMs proposed models that represented energy as a composition of latent and observable variables. == Characteristics == EBMs demonstrate useful properties: Simplicity and stability. The EBM is the only object that needs to be designed and trained. Separate networks need not be trained to ensure balance. Adaptive computation time. An EBM can generate sharp, diverse samples or (more quickly) coarse, less diverse samples. Given infinite time, this procedure produces true samples. Flexibility. In Variational Autoencoders (VAE) and flow-based models, the generator learns a map from a continuous space to a (possibly) discontinuous space containing different data modes. EBMs can learn to assign low energies to disjoint regions (multiple modes). Adaptive generation. EBM generators are implicitly defined by the probability distribution, and automatically adapt as the distribution changes (without training), allowing EBMs to address domains where generator training is impractical, as well as minimizing mode collapse and avoiding spurious modes from out-of-distribution samples. Compositionality. Individual models are unnormalized probability distributions, allowing models to be combined through product of experts or other hierarchical techniques. == Experimental results == On image datasets such as CIFAR-10 and ImageNet 32x32, an EBM model generated high-quality images relatively quickly. It supported combining features learned from one type of image for generating other types of images. It was able to generalize using out-of-distribution datasets, outperforming flow-based and autoregressive models. EBM was relatively resistant to adversarial perturbations, behaving better than models explicitly trained against them with training for classification. == Applications == Target applications include natural language processing, robotics and computer vision. The first energy-based generative neural network is the generative ConvNet proposed in 2016 for image patterns, where the neural network is a convolutional neural network. The model has been generalized to various domains to learn distributions of videos, and 3D voxels. They are made more effective in their variants. They have proven useful for data generation (e.g., image synthesis, video synthesis, 3D shape synthesis, etc.), data recovery (e.g., recovering videos with missing pixels or image frames, 3D super-resolution, etc), data reconstruction (e.g., image reconstruction and linear interpolation ). == Alternatives == EBMs compete with techniques such as variational autoencoders (VAEs), generative adversarial networks (GANs) or normalizing flows. == Extensions == === Joint energy-based models === Joint energy-based models (JEM), proposed in 2020 by Grathwohl et al., allow any classifier with softmax output to be interpreted as energy-based model. The key observation is that such a classifier is trained to predict the conditional probability p θ ( y | x ) = e f → θ ( x ) [ y ] ∑ j = 1 K e f → θ ( x ) [ j ] for y = 1 , … , K and f → θ = ( f 1 , … , f K ) ∈ R K , {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(y|x)={\frac {e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]}}{\sum _{j=1}^{K}e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[j]}}}\ \ {\text{ for }}y=1,\dotsc ,K{\text{ and }}{\vec {f}}_{\theta }=(f_{1},\dotsc ,f_{K})\in \mathbb {R} ^{K},} where f → θ ( x ) [ y ] {\displaystyle {\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]} is the y-th index of the logits f → {\displaystyle {\vec {f}}} corresponding to class y. Without any change to the logits it was proposed to reinterpret the logits to describe a joint probability density: p θ ( y , x ) = e f → θ ( x ) [ y ] Z ( θ ) , {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(y,x)={\frac {e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]}}{Z(\theta )}},} with unknown partition function Z ( θ ) {\displaystyle Z(\theta )} and energy E θ ( x , y ) = − f θ ( x ) [ y ] {\displaystyle E_{\theta }(x,y)=-f_{\theta }(x)[y]} . By marginalization, we obtain the unnormalized density p θ ( x ) = ∑ y p θ ( y , x ) = ∑ y e f → θ ( x ) [ y ] Z ( θ ) =: e − E θ ( x ) , {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)=\sum _{y}p_{\theta }(y,x)=\sum _{y}{\frac {e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]}}{Z(\theta )}}=:e^{-E_{\theta }(x)},} therefore, E θ ( x ) = − log ( ∑ y e f → θ ( x ) [ y ] Z ( θ ) ) , {\displaystyle E_{\theta }(x)=-\log \left(\sum _{y}{\frac {e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]}}{Z(\theta )}}\right),} so that any classifier can be used to define an energy function E θ ( x ) {\displaystyle E_{\theta }(x)} .
Sex differences in social media use
Men and women use social media in different ways and with different frequencies. In general, several researchers have found that women tend to use social network services (SNSs) more than men and primiarly to socialize. == Differences == === Predilection for usage === Many studies have found that women are more likely to use either specific SNSs such as Facebook or MySpace or SNSs in general. In 2015, 73% of online men and 80% of online women used social networking sites. The gap in gender differences has become less apparent in LinkedIn. In 2015 about 26 percent of online men and 25% of online women used the business-and employee-oriented networking site. Researchers who have examined the gender of users of multiple SNSs have found contradictory results. Hargittai's groundbreaking 2007 study examining race, gender, and other differences between undergraduate college student users of SNSs found that women were not only more likely to have used SNSes than men but that they were also more likely to have used many different services, including Facebook, MySpace, and Friendster; these differences persisted in several models and analyses. Although she only surveyed students at one institution – the University of Illinois at Chicago – Hargittai selected that institution intentionally as "an ideal location for studies of how different kinds of people use online sites and services." In contrast, data collected by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that men were more likely to have multiple SNS profiles. Although the sample sizes of the two surveys are comparable – 1,650 Internet users in the Pew survey compared with 1,060 in Hargittai's survey – the data from the Pew survey are newer and arguably more representative of the entire adult United States population. Pinterest, Facebook, and Instagram attract more females. Picture sharing sites overall are very popular among women. Pinterest alone attracts three times as many female users than male. However, use of Pinterest by men has increased from 5% in 2012. Facebook attracts about 77% of women online. Instagram is also more likely to attract women. Men are more likely to participate in online forums like Reddit, Digg or Slashdot. One in five men claim to be a part of an online forum. === Uses === In general, women seem to use SNSs more to explicitly foster social connections. A study conducted by Pew research centers found that women were more avid users of social media. In November 2010, the gap between men and women was as high as 15%. Female participants in a multi-stage study conducted in 2007 to discover the motivations of Facebook users scored higher on scales for social connection and posting of photographs. Studies have also been conducted on the differences between females and males with regards to blogging. The Pew Research Center found that younger females are more likely to blog than males their own age, even males that are older than them. Similarly, in a study of blogs maintained in MySpace, women were found to be more likely to not only write blogs but also write about family, romantic relationships, friendships, and health in those blogs. A study of Swedish SNS users found that women were more likely to have expressions of friendship, specifically in the areas of (a) publishing photos of their friends, (b) specifically naming their best friends, and (c) writing poems to and about their friends. Women were also more likely to have expressions related to family relationships and romantic relationships. One of the key findings of this research is that those men who do have expressions of romantic relationships in their profile had expressions just as strong as the women. However, the researcher speculated that this may be in part due to a desire to publicly express heterosexual behaviors and mannerisms instead of merely expressing romantic feelings. A large-scale study of gender differences in MySpace found that both men and women tended to have a majority of female Friends, and both men and women tended to have a majority of female "Top" Friends in the site. A later study found women to author disproportionately many (public) comments in MySpace, but an investigation into the role of emotion in public MySpace comments found that women both give and receive stronger positive emotion. It was hypothesised that women are simply more effective at using social networking sites because they are better able to harness positive emotion. A study focused on the influence of gender and personality on individuals' use of online social networking websites such as Facebook, reported that men use social networking sites with the intention of forming new relationships, whereas, women use them more for relationship maintenance. In addition to this, women are more likely to use Facebook or MySpace to compare themselves to others and also to search for information. Men, however, are more likely to look at other people's profiles with in the intention to find friends. Women were less successful at actually finding new friends, but more successful at "maintaining existing relationships, making new relationships, using for academic purposes and following specific agenda". Similarly, men also self-reported this motivation "while women reported using them more for relationship maintenance". === Personality === OCEAN personality traits are known to systematically vary between human males and females. In one study, the same women were more extraverted and agreeable, such as less neurotic while on social media than offline. Other studies associated neuroticism with female use of social media. === Privacy === Privacy has been the primary topic of many studies of SNS users, and many of these studies have found differences between male and female SNS users, although some studies have found results contradictory to those found in other studies. Some researchers have found that women are more protective of their personal information and more likely to have private profiles. Other researchers have found that women are less likely to post some types of information. Acquisti and Gross found that women in their sample were less likely to reveal their sexual orientation, personal address, or cell phone number. This is similar to Pew Internet & American Life research of children users of SNSs that found that boys and girls presented different views of privacy and behaviors, with girls being more concerned about and restrictive of information such as city, town, last name, and cell phone number that could be used to locate them. At least one group of researchers has found that women are less likely to share information that "identifies them directly – last name, cell phone number, and address or home phone number," linking that resistance to women's greater concerns about "cyberstalking", "cyberbullying", and security problems. Despite these concerns about privacy, researchers have found that women are more likely to maintain up-to-date photos of themselves. Further, Kolek and Saunders found in their sample of college student Facebook users that women were more likely to not only post a photograph of themselves in their profile but that they were more likely to have a publicly viewable Facebook account (a contradictory finding compared to many other studies), post photos, and post photo albums. Women were more likely to have: (a) a publicly viewable Facebook account, (b) more photo albums, (c) more photos, (d) a photo of themselves as their profile picture, (e) positive references to alcohol, partying, or drugs, and (f) more positive references to or about the institution or institution-related activities. In general, women were more likely to disclose information about themselves in their Facebook profile, with the primary exception of sharing their telephone number. Similarly, female respondents to Strano's study were more likely to keep their profile photo recent and choose a photo that made them appear attractive, happy, and fun-loving. Citing several examples, Strano opined that there may also be a difference in how men and women Facebook users display and interpret profile photos depicting relationships. Privacy has also been a concern for the SnapChat app, which allows you to send messages either text or photo or video which then disappear. One study has shown that security is not a major concern for the majority of users and that most do not use Snapchat to send sensitive content (although up to 25% may do so experimentally). As part of their research almost no statistically significant gender differences were found. === Cyberbullying === Past research carried out to investigate if there are any gender differences in cyber-bullying has found that boys commit more cyber verbal bullying, cyber forgery and more violence based on hidden identity or presenting themselves as other person. === Mansplaining === A 2021 article found that mansplaining could be seen more prominent online rather than offl
Tropical cryptography
In tropical analysis, tropical cryptography refers to the study of a class of cryptographic protocols built upon tropical algebras. In many cases, tropical cryptographic schemes have arisen from adapting classical (non-tropical) schemes to instead rely on tropical algebras. The case for the use of tropical algebras in cryptography rests on at least two key features of tropical mathematics: in the tropical world, there is no classical multiplication (a computationally expensive operation), and the problem of solving systems of tropical polynomial equations has been shown to be NP-hard. == Basic Definitions == The key mathematical object at the heart of tropical cryptography is the tropical semiring ( R ∪ { ∞ } , ⊕ , ⊗ ) {\displaystyle (\mathbb {R} \cup \{\infty \},\oplus ,\otimes )} (also known as the min-plus algebra), or a generalization thereof. The operations are defined as follows for x , y ∈ R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle x,y\in \mathbb {R} \cup \{\infty \}} : x ⊕ y = min { x , y } {\displaystyle x\oplus y=\min\{x,y\}} x ⊗ y = x + y {\displaystyle x\otimes y=x+y} It is easily verified that with ∞ {\displaystyle \infty } as the additive identity, these binary operations on R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} \cup \{\infty \}} form a semiring.
Social media mining
Social media mining is the process of obtaining data from user-generated content on social media in order to extract actionable patterns, form conclusions about users, and act upon the information. Mining supports targeting advertising to users or academic research. The term is an analogy to the process of mining for minerals. Mining companies sift through raw ore to find the valuable minerals; likewise, social media mining sifts through social media data in order to discern patterns and trends about matters such as social media usage, online behaviour, content sharing, connections between individuals, buying behaviour. These patterns and trends are of interest to companies, governments and not-for-profit organizations, as such organizations can use the analyses for tasks such as design strategies, introduce programs, products, processes or services. Social media mining uses concepts from computer science, data mining, machine learning, and statistics. Mining is based on social network analysis, network science, sociology, ethnography, optimization and mathematics. It attempts to formally represent, measure and model patterns from social media data. In the 2010s, major corporations, governments and not-for-profit organizations began mining to learn about customers, clients and others. Platforms such as Google, Facebook (partnered with Datalogix and BlueKai) conduct mining to target users with advertising. Scientists and machine learning researchers extract insights and design product features. Users may not understand how platforms use their data. Users tend to click through Terms of Use agreements without reading them, leading to ethical questions about whether platforms adequately protect users' privacy. During the 2016 United States presidential election, Facebook allowed Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm linked to the Trump campaign, to analyze the data of an estimated 87 million Facebook users to profile voters, creating controversy when this was revealed. == Background == As defined by Kaplan and Haenlein, social media is the "group of internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content." There are many categories of social media including, but not limited to, social networking (Facebook or LinkedIn), microblogging (Twitter), photo sharing (Flickr, Instagram, Photobucket, or Picasa), news aggregation (Google Reader, StumbleUpon, or Feedburner), video sharing (YouTube, MetaCafe), livecasting (Ustream or Twitch), virtual worlds (Kaneva), social gaming (World of Warcraft), social search (Google, Bing, or Ask.com), and instant messaging (Google Talk, Skype, or Yahoo! messenger). The first social media website was introduced by GeoCities in 1994. It enabled users to create their own homepages without having a sophisticated knowledge of HTML coding. The first social networking site, SixDegrees.com, was introduced in 1997. Since then, many other social media sites have been introduced, each providing service to millions of people. These individuals form a virtual world in which individuals (social atoms), entities (content, sites, etc.) and interactions (between individuals, between entities, between individuals and entities) coexist. Social norms and human behavior govern this virtual world. By understanding these social norms and models of human behavior and combining them with the observations and measurements of this virtual world, one can systematically analyze and mine social media. Social media mining is the process of representing, analyzing, and extracting meaningful patterns from data in social media, resulting from social interactions. It is an interdisciplinary field encompassing techniques from computer science, data mining, machine learning, social network analysis, network science, sociology, ethnography, statistics, optimization, and mathematics. Social media mining faces grand challenges such as the big data paradox, obtaining sufficient samples, the noise removal fallacy, and evaluation dilemma. Social media mining represents the virtual world of social media in a computable way, measures it, and designs models that can help us understand its interactions. In addition, social media mining provides necessary tools to mine this world for interesting patterns, analyze information diffusion, study influence and homophily, provide effective recommendations, and analyze novel social behavior in social media. == Uses == Social media mining is used across several industries including business development, social science research, health services, and educational purposes. Once the data received goes through social media analytics, it can then be applied to these various fields. Often, companies use the patterns of connectivity that pervade social networks, such as assortativity—the social similarity between users that are induced by influence, homophily, and reciprocity and transitivity. These forces are then measured via statistical analysis of the nodes and connections between these nodes. Social analytics also uses sentiment analysis, because social media users often relay positive or negative sentiment in their posts. This provides important social information about users' emotions on specific topics. These three patterns have several uses beyond pure analysis. For example, influence can be used to determine the most influential user in a particular network. Companies would be interested in this information in order to decide who they may hire for influencer marketing. These influencers are determined by recognition, activity generation, and novelty—three requirements that can be measured through the data mined from these sites. Analysts also value measures of homophily: the tendency of two similar individuals to become friends. Users have begun to rely on information of other users' opinions in order to understand diverse subject matter. These analyses can also help create recommendations for individuals in a tailored capacity. By measuring influence and homophily, online and offline companies are able to suggest specific products for individuals consumers, and groups of consumers. Social media networks can use this information themselves to suggest to their users possible friends to add, pages to follow, and accounts to interact with. == Perception == Modern social media mining is a controversial practice that has led to exponential gains in user growth for tech giants such as Facebook, Inc., Twitter, and Google. Companies such as these, considered "Big Tech" are companies that build algorithms that take advantage of user input to understand their preferences, and keep them on the platform as much as possible. These inputs, that can be as simple as time spent on a given screen, provide the data being mined, and lead to companies profiting heavily from using that data to capitalize on extremely accurate predictions about user behavior. The growth of platforms accelerated rapidly once these strategies were put in place; Most of the largest platforms now average over 1 billion active users per month as of 2021. It has been claimed by a multitude of anti-algorithm personalities, like Tristan Harris or Chamath Palihapitiya, that certain companies (specifically Facebook) valued growth above all else, and ignored potential negative impacts from these growth engineering tactics. At the same time, users have now created their own data arbitrages with the help of their own data, through content monetization and becoming influencers. Users typically have access to a varied set of analytics specific to people that interact with them on social media, and can use these as building blocks for their own targeting and growth strategies through ads and posts that cater to their audiences. Influencers also commonly promote products and services for established brands, creating one of the largest digital industries: Influencer marketing. Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, and others have long given access to platform analytics, and allowed third parties to access that information as well, at times unbeknownst to even the user whose data is being viewed/bought. == Research == === Research areas === Social media event detection – Social networks enable users to freely communicate with each other and share their recent news, ongoing activities or views about different topics. As a result, they can be seen as a potentially viable source of information to understand the current emerging topics/events. Public health monitoring and surveillance - Using large-scale analysis of social media to study large cohorts of patients and the general public, e.g. to obtain early warning signals of drug-drug interactions and adverse drug reactions, or understand human reproduction and sexual interest. Community structure (Community Detection/Evolution/Evaluation) – Identifying communities on social networks, how t
Neural style transfer
Neural style transfer (NST) software algorithms are able to manipulate digital images, or videos, in order to adopt the appearance or visual style of another image. NST algorithms are characterized by their use of deep neural networks for the sake of image transformation. Common uses for NST are the creation of artificial artwork from photographs, for example by transferring the appearance of famous paintings to user-supplied photographs. Several notable mobile apps use NST techniques for this purpose, including DeepArt and Prisma. This method has been used by artists and designers around the globe to develop new artwork based on existent style(s). == History == NST is an example of image stylization, a problem studied for over two decades within the field of non-photorealistic rendering. The first two example-based style transfer algorithms were image analogies and image quilting. Both of these methods were based on patch-based texture synthesis algorithms. Given a training pair of images–a photo and an artwork depicting that photo–a transformation could be learned and then applied to create new artwork from a new photo, by analogy. If no training photo was available, it would need to be produced by processing the input artwork; image quilting did not require this processing step, though it was demonstrated on only one style. NST was first published in the paper "A Neural Algorithm of Artistic Style" by Leon Gatys et al., originally released to ArXiv 2015, and subsequently accepted by the peer-reviewed CVPR conference in 2016. The original paper used a VGG-19 architecture that has been pre-trained to perform object recognition using the ImageNet dataset. In 2017, Google AI introduced a method that allows a single deep convolutional style transfer network to learn multiple styles at the same time. This algorithm permits style interpolation in real-time, even when done on video media. == Mathematics == This section closely follows the original paper. === Overview === The idea of Neural Style Transfer (NST) is to take two images—a content image p → {\displaystyle {\vec {p}}} and a style image a → {\displaystyle {\vec {a}}} —and generate a third image x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} that minimizes a weighted combination of two loss functions: a content loss L content ( p → , x → ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\text{content }}({\vec {p}},{\vec {x}})} and a style loss L style ( a → , x → ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\text{style }}({\vec {a}},{\vec {x}})} . The total loss is a linear sum of the two: L NST ( p → , a → , x → ) = α L content ( p → , x → ) + β L style ( a → , x → ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\text{NST}}({\vec {p}},{\vec {a}},{\vec {x}})=\alpha {\mathcal {L}}_{\text{content}}({\vec {p}},{\vec {x}})+\beta {\mathcal {L}}_{\text{style}}({\vec {a}},{\vec {x}})} By jointly minimizing the content and style losses, NST generates an image that blends the content of the content image with the style of the style image. Both the content loss and the style loss measures the similarity of two images. The content similarity is the weighted sum of squared-differences between the neural activations of a single convolutional neural network (CNN) on two images. The style similarity is the weighted sum of Gram matrices within each layer (see below for details). The original paper used a VGG-19 CNN, but the method works for any CNN. === Symbols === Let x → {\textstyle {\vec {x}}} be an image input to a CNN. Let F l ∈ R N l × M l {\textstyle F^{l}\in \mathbb {R} ^{N_{l}\times M_{l}}} be the matrix of filter responses in layer l {\textstyle l} to the image x → {\textstyle {\vec {x}}} , where: N l {\textstyle N_{l}} is the number of filters in layer l {\textstyle l} ; M l {\textstyle M_{l}} is the height times the width (i.e. number of pixels) of each filter in layer l {\textstyle l} ; F i j l ( x → ) {\textstyle F_{ij}^{l}({\vec {x}})} is the activation of the i th {\textstyle i^{\text{th}}} filter at position j {\textstyle j} in layer l {\textstyle l} . A given input image x → {\textstyle {\vec {x}}} is encoded in each layer of the CNN by the filter responses to that image, with higher layers encoding more global features, but losing details on local features. === Content loss === Let p → {\textstyle {\vec {p}}} be an original image. Let x → {\textstyle {\vec {x}}} be an image that is generated to match the content of p → {\textstyle {\vec {p}}} . Let P l {\textstyle P^{l}} be the matrix of filter responses in layer l {\textstyle l} to the image p → {\textstyle {\vec {p}}} . The content loss is defined as the squared-error loss between the feature representations of the generated image and the content image at a chosen layer l {\displaystyle l} of a CNN: L content ( p → , x → , l ) = 1 2 ∑ i , j ( A i j l ( x → ) − A i j l ( p → ) ) 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\text{content }}({\vec {p}},{\vec {x}},l)={\frac {1}{2}}\sum _{i,j}\left(A_{ij}^{l}({\vec {x}})-A_{ij}^{l}({\vec {p}})\right)^{2}} where A i j l ( x → ) {\displaystyle A_{ij}^{l}({\vec {x}})} and A i j l ( p → ) {\displaystyle A_{ij}^{l}({\vec {p}})} are the activations of the i th {\displaystyle i^{\text{th}}} filter at position j {\displaystyle j} in layer l {\displaystyle l} for the generated and content images, respectively. Minimizing this loss encourages the generated image to have similar content to the content image, as captured by the feature activations in the chosen layer. The total content loss is a linear sum of the content losses of each layer: L content ( p → , x → ) = ∑ l v l L content ( p → , x → , l ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\text{content }}({\vec {p}},{\vec {x}})=\sum _{l}v_{l}{\mathcal {L}}_{\text{content }}({\vec {p}},{\vec {x}},l)} , where the v l {\displaystyle v_{l}} are positive real numbers chosen as hyperparameters. === Style loss === The style loss is based on the Gram matrices of the generated and style images, which capture the correlations between different filter responses at different layers of the CNN: L style ( a → , x → ) = ∑ l = 0 L w l E l , {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\text{style }}({\vec {a}},{\vec {x}})=\sum _{l=0}^{L}w_{l}E_{l},} where E l = 1 4 N l 2 M l 2 ∑ i , j ( G i j l ( x → ) − G i j l ( a → ) ) 2 . {\displaystyle E_{l}={\frac {1}{4N_{l}^{2}M_{l}^{2}}}\sum _{i,j}\left(G_{ij}^{l}({\vec {x}})-G_{ij}^{l}({\vec {a}})\right)^{2}.} Here, G i j l ( x → ) {\displaystyle G_{ij}^{l}({\vec {x}})} and G i j l ( a → ) {\displaystyle G_{ij}^{l}({\vec {a}})} are the entries of the Gram matrices for the generated and style images at layer l {\displaystyle l} . Explicitly, G i j l ( x → ) = ∑ k F i k l ( x → ) F j k l ( x → ) {\displaystyle G_{ij}^{l}({\vec {x}})=\sum _{k}F_{ik}^{l}({\vec {x}})F_{jk}^{l}({\vec {x}})} Minimizing this loss encourages the generated image to have similar style characteristics to the style image, as captured by the correlations between feature responses in each layer. The idea is that activation pattern correlations between filters in a single layer captures the "style" on the order of the receptive fields at that layer. Similarly to the previous case, the w l {\displaystyle w_{l}} are positive real numbers chosen as hyperparameters. === Hyperparameters === In the original paper, they used a particular choice of hyperparameters. The style loss is computed by w l = 0.2 {\displaystyle w_{l}=0.2} for the outputs of layers conv1_1, conv2_1, conv3_1, conv4_1, conv5_1 in the VGG-19 network, and zero otherwise. The content loss is computed by w l = 1 {\displaystyle w_{l}=1} for conv4_2, and zero otherwise. The ratio α / β ∈ [ 5 , 50 ] × 10 − 4 {\displaystyle \alpha /\beta \in [5,50]\times 10^{-4}} . === Training === Image x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} is initially approximated by adding a small amount of white noise to input image p → {\displaystyle {\vec {p}}} and feeding it through the CNN. Then we successively backpropagate this loss through the network with the CNN weights fixed in order to update the pixels of x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} . After several thousand epochs of training, an x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} (hopefully) emerges that matches the style of a → {\displaystyle {\vec {a}}} and the content of p → {\displaystyle {\vec {p}}} . As of 2017, when implemented on a GPU, it takes a few minutes to converge. == Extensions == In some practical implementations, it is noted that the resulting image has too much high-frequency artifact, which can be suppressed by adding the total variation to the total loss. Compared to VGGNet, AlexNet does not work well for neural style transfer. NST has also been extended to videos. Subsequent work improved the speed of NST for images by using special-purpose normalizations. In a paper by Fei-Fei Li et al. adopted a different regularized loss metric and accelerated method for training to produce results in real-time (three orders of magnitude faster than Gatys). Their idea was to use not the pixel-based loss defined above but rather a 'perceptual loss' measuring t
Transmission security
Transmission security (TRANSEC) is the component of communications security (COMSEC) that results from the application of measures designed to protect transmissions from interception and exploitation by means other than cryptanalysis. Goals of transmission security include: Low probability of interception (LPI) Low probability of detection (LPD) Antijam — resistance to jamming (EPM or ECCM) This involves securing communication links from being compromised by techniques like jamming, eavesdropping, and signal interception. TRANSEC includes the use of frequency hopping, spread spectrum and the physical protection of communication links to obscure the patterns of transmission. It is particularly vital in military and government communication systems, where the security of transmitted data is critical to prevent adversaries from gathering intelligence or disrupting operations. TRANSEC is often implemented alongside COMSEC (Communications Security) to form a comprehensive approach to communication security. Methods used to achieve transmission security include frequency hopping and spread spectrum where the required pseudorandom sequence generation is controlled by a cryptographic algorithm and key. Such keys are known as transmission security keys (TSK). Modern U.S. and NATO TRANSEC-equipped radios include SINCGARS and HAVE QUICK.