Scale space

Scale-space theory is a framework for multi-scale signal representation developed by the computer vision, image processing and signal processing communities with complementary motivations from physics and biological vision. It is a formal theory for handling image structures at different scales, by representing an image as a one-parameter family of smoothed images, the scale-space representation, parametrized by the size of the smoothing kernel used for suppressing fine-scale structures. The parameter t {\displaystyle t} in this family is referred to as the scale parameter, with the interpretation that image structures of spatial size smaller than about t {\displaystyle {\sqrt {t}}} have largely been smoothed away in the scale-space level at scale t {\displaystyle t} . The main type of scale space is the linear (Gaussian) scale space, which has wide applicability as well as the attractive property of being possible to derive from a small set of scale-space axioms. The corresponding scale-space framework encompasses a theory for Gaussian derivative operators, which can be used as a basis for expressing a large class of visual operations for computerized systems that process visual information. This framework also allows visual operations to be made scale invariant, which is necessary for dealing with the size variations that may occur in image data, because real-world objects may be of different sizes and in addition the distance between the object and the camera may be unknown and may vary depending on the circumstances. == Definition == The notion of scale space applies to signals of arbitrary numbers of variables. The most common case in the literature applies to two-dimensional images, which is what is presented here. Consider a given image f {\displaystyle f} where f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} is the greyscale value of the pixel at position ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} . The linear (Gaussian) scale-space representation of f {\displaystyle f} is a family of derived signals L ( x , y ; t ) {\displaystyle L(x,y;t)} defined by the convolution of f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} with the two-dimensional Gaussian kernel g ( x , y ; t ) = 1 2 π t e − ( x 2 + y 2 ) / 2 t {\displaystyle g(x,y;t)={\frac {1}{2\pi t}}e^{-(x^{2}+y^{2})/2t}\,} such that L ( ⋅ , ⋅ ; t ) = g ( ⋅ , ⋅ ; t ) ∗ f ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) , {\displaystyle L(\cdot ,\cdot ;t)\ =g(\cdot ,\cdot ;t)f(\cdot ,\cdot ),} where the semicolon in the argument of L {\displaystyle L} implies that the convolution is performed only over the variables x , y {\displaystyle x,y} , while the scale parameter t {\displaystyle t} after the semicolon just indicates which scale level is being defined. This definition of L {\displaystyle L} works for a continuum of scales t ≥ 0 {\displaystyle t\geq 0} , but typically only a finite discrete set of levels in the scale-space representation would be actually considered. The scale parameter t = σ 2 {\displaystyle t=\sigma ^{2}} is the variance of the Gaussian filter and as a limit for t = 0 {\displaystyle t=0} the filter g {\displaystyle g} becomes an impulse function such that L ( x , y ; 0 ) = f ( x , y ) , {\displaystyle L(x,y;0)=f(x,y),} that is, the scale-space representation at scale level t = 0 {\displaystyle t=0} is the image f {\displaystyle f} itself. As t {\displaystyle t} increases, L {\displaystyle L} is the result of smoothing f {\displaystyle f} with a larger and larger filter, thereby removing more and more of the details that the image contains. Since the standard deviation of the filter is σ = t {\displaystyle \sigma ={\sqrt {t}}} , details that are significantly smaller than this value are to a large extent removed from the image at scale parameter t {\displaystyle t} , see the following figures and for graphical illustrations. === Why a Gaussian filter? === When faced with the task of generating a multi-scale representation one may ask: could any filter g of low-pass type and with a parameter t which determines its width be used to generate a scale space? The answer is no, as it is of crucial importance that the smoothing filter does not introduce new spurious structures at coarse scales that do not correspond to simplifications of corresponding structures at finer scales. In the scale-space literature, a number of different ways have been expressed to formulate this criterion in precise mathematical terms. The conclusion from several different axiomatic derivations that have been presented is that the Gaussian scale space constitutes the canonical way to generate a linear scale space, based on the essential requirement that new structures must not be created when going from a fine scale to any coarser scale. Conditions, referred to as scale-space axioms, that have been used for deriving the uniqueness of the Gaussian kernel include linearity, shift invariance, semi-group structure, non-enhancement of local extrema, scale invariance and rotational invariance. In the works, the uniqueness claimed in the arguments based on scale invariance has been criticized, and alternative self-similar scale-space kernels have been proposed. The Gaussian kernel is, however, a unique choice according to the scale-space axiomatics based on causality or non-enhancement of local extrema. === Alternative definition === Equivalently, the scale-space family can be defined as the solution of the diffusion equation (for example in terms of the heat equation), ∂ t L = 1 2 ∇ 2 L , {\displaystyle \partial _{t}L={\frac {1}{2}}\nabla ^{2}L,} with initial condition L ( x , y ; 0 ) = f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle L(x,y;0)=f(x,y)} . This formulation of the scale-space representation L means that it is possible to interpret the intensity values of the image f as a "temperature distribution" in the image plane and that the process that generates the scale-space representation as a function of t corresponds to heat diffusion in the image plane over time t (assuming the thermal conductivity of the material equal to the arbitrarily chosen constant ⁠1/2⁠). Although this connection may appear superficial for a reader not familiar with differential equations, it is indeed the case that the main scale-space formulation in terms of non-enhancement of local extrema is expressed in terms of a sign condition on partial derivatives in the 2+1-D volume generated by the scale space, thus within the framework of partial differential equations. Furthermore, a detailed analysis of the discrete case shows that the diffusion equation provides a unifying link between continuous and discrete scale spaces, which also generalizes to nonlinear scale spaces, for example, using anisotropic diffusion. Hence, one may say that the primary way to generate a scale space is by the diffusion equation, and that the Gaussian kernel arises as the Green's function of this specific partial differential equation. == Motivations == The motivation for generating a scale-space representation of a given data set originates from the basic observation that real-world objects are composed of different structures at different scales. This implies that real-world objects, in contrast to idealized mathematical entities such as points or lines, may appear in different ways depending on the scale of observation. For example, the concept of a "tree" is appropriate at the scale of meters, while concepts such as leaves and molecules are more appropriate at finer scales. For a computer vision system analysing an unknown scene, there is no way to know a priori what scales are appropriate for describing the interesting structures in the image data. Hence, the only reasonable approach is to consider descriptions at multiple scales in order to be able to capture the unknown scale variations that may occur. Taken to the limit, a scale-space representation considers representations at all scales. Another motivation to the scale-space concept originates from the process of performing a physical measurement on real-world data. In order to extract any information from a measurement process, one has to apply operators of non-infinitesimal size to the data. In many branches of computer science and applied mathematics, the size of the measurement operator is disregarded in the theoretical modelling of a problem. The scale-space theory on the other hand explicitly incorporates the need for a non-infinitesimal size of the image operators as an integral part of any measurement as well as any other operation that depends on a real-world measurement. There is a close link between scale-space theory and biological vision. Many scale-space operations show a high degree of similarity with receptive field profiles recorded from the mammalian retina and the first stages in the visual cortex. In these respects, the scale-space framework can be seen as a theoretically well-founded paradigm for early vision, which in addition has been thoroughly tested by algorithms and experiments. == Gaussian derivatives == At any scale in scale space, we c

Abillion

abillion was a mobile application helping users to find vegan and sustainable products. The platform allowed users to review plant-based, cruelty-free and sustainable products, while donating between 0.10 and $1 to nonprofit organisations for each review written. As of May 2023, the company claimed to have donated over $2.8M to various nonprofit organisations including Sea Shepherd and Mercy for Animals. The main objective of the company was to reach the number of one billion people following a vegan diet and lifestyle by 2030. == History == The American entrepreneur Vikas Garg founded the company in Singapore and the app was officially launched in May 2018. The start-up was first named 'abillionveg' and changed its name in 2020 to shorten it to 'abillion'. In 2019, the company raised $3M in its first round of funding (pre-Series A). In 2021, it raised $10M in its Series A funding. In February 2023, the company announced the launch of a community investment round, using the crowdfunding platform Wefunder, which reached a total of $500 000. In May 2023, it celebrated its 5th anniversary and reaching 1M downloads. In March 2026, the company announced that they would be closing down by the end of the month. == Awards == Using data from the reviews published by its users, abillion was awarding the most liked vegan products and brands. In May 2023, the company published a world Top 10 Best Plant Based Burgers, among the winning brands were Beyond Meat, NotCo and Sojasun.

Evolutionary multimodal optimization

In applied mathematics, multimodal optimization deals with optimization tasks that involve finding all or most of the multiple (at least locally optimal) solutions of a problem, as opposed to a single best solution. Evolutionary multimodal optimization is a branch of evolutionary computation, which is closely related to machine learning. Wong provides a short survey, wherein the chapter of Shir and the book of Preuss cover the topic in more detail. == Motivation == Knowledge of multiple solutions to an optimization task is especially helpful in engineering, when due to physical (and/or cost) constraints, the best results may not always be realizable. In such a scenario, if multiple solutions (locally and/or globally optimal) are known, the implementation can be quickly switched to another solution and still obtain the best possible system performance. Multiple solutions could also be analyzed to discover hidden properties (or relationships) of the underlying optimization problem, which makes them important for obtaining domain knowledge. In addition, the algorithms for multimodal optimization usually not only locate multiple optima in a single run, but also preserve their population diversity, resulting in their global optimization ability on multimodal functions. Moreover, the techniques for multimodal optimization are usually borrowed as diversity maintenance techniques to other problems. == Background == Classical techniques of optimization would need multiple restart points and multiple runs in the hope that a different solution may be discovered every run, with no guarantee however. Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) due to their population based approach, provide a natural advantage over classical optimization techniques. They maintain a population of possible solutions, which are processed every generation, and if the multiple solutions can be preserved over all these generations, then at termination of the algorithm we will have multiple good solutions, rather than only the best solution. Note that this is against the natural tendency of classical optimization techniques, which will always converge to the best solution, or a sub-optimal solution (in a rugged, “badly behaving” function). Finding and maintenance of multiple solutions is wherein lies the challenge of using EAs for multi-modal optimization. Niching is a generic term referred to as the technique of finding and preserving multiple stable niches, or favorable parts of the solution space possibly around multiple solutions, so as to prevent convergence to a single solution. The field of Evolutionary algorithms encompasses genetic algorithms (GAs), evolution strategy (ES), differential evolution (DE), particle swarm optimization (PSO), and other methods. Attempts have been made to solve multi-modal optimization in all these realms and most, if not all the various methods implement niching in some form or the other. == Multimodal optimization using genetic algorithms/evolution strategies == De Jong's crowding method, Goldberg's sharing function approach, Petrowski's clearing method, restricted mating, maintaining multiple subpopulations are some of the popular approaches that have been proposed by the community. The first two methods are especially well studied, however, they do not perform explicit separation into solutions belonging to different basins of attraction. The application of multimodal optimization within ES was not explicit for many years, and has been explored only recently. A niching framework utilizing derandomized ES was introduced by Shir, proposing the CMA-ES as a niching optimizer for the first time. The underpinning of that framework was the selection of a peak individual per subpopulation in each generation, followed by its sampling to produce the consecutive dispersion of search-points. The biological analogy of this machinery is an alpha-male winning all the imposed competitions and dominating thereafter its ecological niche, which then obtains all the sexual resources therein to generate its offspring. Recently, an evolutionary multiobjective optimization (EMO) approach was proposed, in which a suitable second objective is added to the originally single objective multimodal optimization problem, so that the multiple solutions form a weak pareto-optimal front. Hence, the multimodal optimization problem can be solved for its multiple solutions using an EMO algorithm. Improving upon their work, the same authors have made their algorithm self-adaptive, thus eliminating the need for pre-specifying the parameters. An approach that does not use any radius for separating the population into subpopulations (or species) but employs the space topology instead is proposed in.

Triplet loss

Triplet loss is a machine learning loss function widely used in one-shot learning, a setting where models are trained to generalize effectively from limited examples. It was conceived by Google researchers for their prominent FaceNet algorithm for face detection. Triplet loss is designed to support metric learning. Namely, to assist training models to learn an embedding (mapping to a feature space) where similar data points are closer together and dissimilar ones are farther apart, enabling robust discrimination across varied conditions. In the context of face detection, data points correspond to images. == Definition == The loss function is defined using triplets of training points of the form ( A , P , N ) {\displaystyle (A,P,N)} . In each triplet, A {\displaystyle A} (called an "anchor point") denotes a reference point of a particular identity, P {\displaystyle P} (called a "positive point") denotes another point of the same identity in point A {\displaystyle A} , and N {\displaystyle N} (called a "negative point") denotes a point of an identity different from the identity in point A {\displaystyle A} and P {\displaystyle P} . Let x {\displaystyle x} be some point and let f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} be the embedding of x {\displaystyle x} in the finite-dimensional Euclidean space. It shall be assumed that the L2-norm of f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} is unity (the L2 norm of a vector X {\displaystyle X} in a finite dimensional Euclidean space is denoted by ‖ X ‖ {\displaystyle \Vert X\Vert } .) We assemble m {\displaystyle m} triplets of points from the training dataset. The goal of training here is to ensure that, after learning, the following condition (called the "triplet constraint") is satisfied by all triplets ( A ( i ) , P ( i ) , N ( i ) ) {\displaystyle (A^{(i)},P^{(i)},N^{(i)})} in the training data set: ‖ f ( A ( i ) ) − f ( P ( i ) ) ‖ 2 2 + α < ‖ f ( A ( i ) ) − f ( N ( i ) ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \Vert f(A^{(i)})-f(P^{(i)})\Vert _{2}^{2}+\alpha <\Vert f(A^{(i)})-f(N^{(i)})\Vert _{2}^{2}} The variable α {\displaystyle \alpha } is a hyperparameter called the margin, and its value must be set manually. In the FaceNet system, its value was set as 0.2. Thus, the full form of the function to be minimized is the following: L = ∑ i = 1 m max ( ‖ f ( A ( i ) ) − f ( P ( i ) ) ‖ 2 2 − ‖ f ( A ( i ) ) − f ( N ( i ) ) ‖ 2 2 + α , 0 ) {\displaystyle L=\sum _{i=1}^{m}\max {\Big (}\Vert f(A^{(i)})-f(P^{(i)})\Vert _{2}^{2}-\Vert f(A^{(i)})-f(N^{(i)})\Vert _{2}^{2}+\alpha ,0{\Big )}} == Intuition == A baseline for understanding the effectiveness of triplet loss is the contrastive loss, which operates on pairs of samples (rather than triplets). Training with the contrastive loss pulls embeddings of similar pairs closer together, and pushes dissimilar pairs apart. Its pairwise approach is greedy, as it considers each pair in isolation. Triplet loss innovates by considering relative distances. Its goal is that the embedding of an anchor (query) point be closer to positive points than to negative points (also accounting for the margin). It does not try to further optimize the distances once this requirement is met. This is approximated by simultaneously considering two pairs (anchor-positive and anchor-negative), rather than each pair in isolation. == Triplet "mining" == One crucial implementation detail when training with triplet loss is triplet "mining", which focuses on the smart selection of triplets for optimization. This process adds an additional layer of complexity compared to contrastive loss. A naive approach to preparing training data for the triplet loss involves randomly selecting triplets from the dataset. In general, the set of valid triplets of the form ( A ( i ) , P ( i ) , N ( i ) ) {\displaystyle (A^{(i)},P^{(i)},N^{(i)})} is very large. To speed-up training convergence, it is essential to focus on challenging triplets. In the FaceNet paper, several options were explored, eventually arriving at the following. For each anchor-positive pair, the algorithm considers only semi-hard negatives. These are negatives that violate the triplet requirement (i.e, are "hard"), but lie farther from the anchor than the positive (not too hard). Restated, for each A ( i ) {\displaystyle A^{(i)}} and P ( i ) {\displaystyle P^{(i)}} , they seek N ( i ) {\displaystyle N^{(i)}} such that: The rationale for this design choice is heuristic. It may appear puzzling that the mining process neglects "very hard" negatives (i.e., closer to the anchor than the positive). Experiments conducted by the FaceNet designers found that this often leads to a convergence to degenerate local minima. Triplet mining is performed at each training step, from within the sample points contained in the training batch (this is known as online mining), after embeddings were computed for all points in the batch. While ideally the entire dataset could be used, this is impractical in general. To support a large search space for triplets, the FaceNet authors used very large batches (1800 samples). Batches are constructed by selecting a large number of same-category sample points (40), and randomly selected negatives for them. == Extensions == Triplet loss has been extended to simultaneously maintain a series of distance orders by optimizing a continuous relevance degree with a chain (i.e., ladder) of distance inequalities. This leads to the Ladder Loss, which has been demonstrated to offer performance enhancements of visual-semantic embedding in learning to rank tasks. In Natural Language Processing, triplet loss is one of the loss functions considered for BERT fine-tuning in the SBERT architecture. Other extensions involve specifying multiple negatives (multiple negatives ranking loss).

Oscillatory neural network

An oscillatory neural network (ONN) is an artificial neural network that uses coupled oscillators as neurons. Oscillatory neural networks are closely linked to the Kuramoto model, and are inspired by the phenomenon of neural oscillations in the brain. Oscillatory neural networks have been trained to recognize images. Complex-Valued Oscillatory network has also been shown to store and retrieve multidimensional aperiodic signals. An oscillatory autoencoder has also been demonstrated, which uses a combination of oscillators and rate-coded neurons. A neuron made of two coupled oscillators, one having a fixed and the other having a tunable natural frequency, has been shown able to run logic gates such as XOR that conventional sigmoid neurons cannot.

Proximal gradient methods for learning

Proximal gradient (forward backward splitting) methods for learning is an area of research in optimization and statistical learning theory which studies algorithms for a general class of convex regularization problems where the regularization penalty may not be differentiable. One such example is ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell _{1}} regularization (also known as Lasso) of the form min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 + λ ‖ w ‖ 1 , where x i ∈ R d and y i ∈ R . {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}+\lambda \|w\|_{1},\quad {\text{ where }}x_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}{\text{ and }}y_{i}\in \mathbb {R} .} Proximal gradient methods offer a general framework for solving regularization problems from statistical learning theory with penalties that are tailored to a specific problem application. Such customized penalties can help to induce certain structure in problem solutions, such as sparsity (in the case of lasso) or group structure (in the case of group lasso). == Relevant background == Proximal gradient methods are applicable in a wide variety of scenarios for solving convex optimization problems of the form min x ∈ H F ( x ) + R ( x ) , {\displaystyle \min _{x\in {\mathcal {H}}}F(x)+R(x),} where F {\displaystyle F} is convex and differentiable with Lipschitz continuous gradient, R {\displaystyle R} is a convex, lower semicontinuous function which is possibly nondifferentiable, and H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} is some set, typically a Hilbert space. The usual criterion of x {\displaystyle x} minimizes F ( x ) + R ( x ) {\displaystyle F(x)+R(x)} if and only if ∇ ( F + R ) ( x ) = 0 {\displaystyle \nabla (F+R)(x)=0} in the convex, differentiable setting is now replaced by 0 ∈ ∂ ( F + R ) ( x ) , {\displaystyle 0\in \partial (F+R)(x),} where ∂ φ {\displaystyle \partial \varphi } denotes the subdifferential of a real-valued, convex function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } . Given a convex function φ : H → R {\displaystyle \varphi :{\mathcal {H}}\to \mathbb {R} } an important operator to consider is its proximal operator prox φ : H → H {\displaystyle \operatorname {prox} _{\varphi }:{\mathcal {H}}\to {\mathcal {H}}} defined by prox φ ⁡ ( u ) = arg ⁡ min x ∈ H φ ( x ) + 1 2 ‖ u − x ‖ 2 2 , {\displaystyle \operatorname {prox} _{\varphi }(u)=\operatorname {arg} \min _{x\in {\mathcal {H}}}\varphi (x)+{\frac {1}{2}}\|u-x\|_{2}^{2},} which is well-defined because of the strict convexity of the ℓ 2 {\displaystyle \ell _{2}} norm. The proximal operator can be seen as a generalization of a projection. We see that the proximity operator is important because x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a minimizer to the problem min x ∈ H F ( x ) + R ( x ) {\displaystyle \min _{x\in {\mathcal {H}}}F(x)+R(x)} if and only if x ∗ = prox γ R ⁡ ( x ∗ − γ ∇ F ( x ∗ ) ) , {\displaystyle x^{}=\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma R}\left(x^{}-\gamma \nabla F(x^{})\right),} where γ > 0 {\displaystyle \gamma >0} is any positive real number. === Moreau decomposition === One important technique related to proximal gradient methods is the Moreau decomposition, which decomposes the identity operator as the sum of two proximity operators. Namely, let φ : X → R {\displaystyle \varphi :{\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } be a lower semicontinuous, convex function on a vector space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} . We define its Fenchel conjugate φ ∗ : X → R {\displaystyle \varphi ^{}:{\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } to be the function φ ∗ ( u ) := sup x ∈ X ⟨ x , u ⟩ − φ ( x ) . {\displaystyle \varphi ^{}(u):=\sup _{x\in {\mathcal {X}}}\langle x,u\rangle -\varphi (x).} The general form of Moreau's decomposition states that for any x ∈ X {\displaystyle x\in {\mathcal {X}}} and any γ > 0 {\displaystyle \gamma >0} that x = prox γ φ ⁡ ( x ) + γ prox φ ∗ / γ ⁡ ( x / γ ) , {\displaystyle x=\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma \varphi }(x)+\gamma \operatorname {prox} _{\varphi ^{}/\gamma }(x/\gamma ),} which for γ = 1 {\displaystyle \gamma =1} implies that x = prox φ ⁡ ( x ) + prox φ ∗ ⁡ ( x ) {\displaystyle x=\operatorname {prox} _{\varphi }(x)+\operatorname {prox} _{\varphi ^{}}(x)} . The Moreau decomposition can be seen to be a generalization of the usual orthogonal decomposition of a vector space, analogous with the fact that proximity operators are generalizations of projections. In certain situations it may be easier to compute the proximity operator for the conjugate φ ∗ {\displaystyle \varphi ^{}} instead of the function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } , and therefore the Moreau decomposition can be applied. This is the case for group lasso. == Lasso regularization == Consider the regularized empirical risk minimization problem with square loss and with the ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell _{1}} norm as the regularization penalty: min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 + λ ‖ w ‖ 1 , {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}+\lambda \|w\|_{1},} where x i ∈ R d and y i ∈ R . {\displaystyle x_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}{\text{ and }}y_{i}\in \mathbb {R} .} The ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell _{1}} regularization problem is sometimes referred to as lasso (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator). Such ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell _{1}} regularization problems are interesting because they induce sparse solutions, that is, solutions w {\displaystyle w} to the minimization problem have relatively few nonzero components. Lasso can be seen to be a convex relaxation of the non-convex problem min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 + λ ‖ w ‖ 0 , {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}+\lambda \|w\|_{0},} where ‖ w ‖ 0 {\displaystyle \|w\|_{0}} denotes the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell _{0}} "norm", which is the number of nonzero entries of the vector w {\displaystyle w} . Sparse solutions are of particular interest in learning theory for interpretability of results: a sparse solution can identify a small number of important factors. === Solving for L1 proximity operator === For simplicity we restrict our attention to the problem where λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} . To solve the problem min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 + ‖ w ‖ 1 , {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}+\|w\|_{1},} we consider our objective function in two parts: a convex, differentiable term F ( w ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) 2 {\displaystyle F(w)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )^{2}} and a convex function R ( w ) = ‖ w ‖ 1 {\displaystyle R(w)=\|w\|_{1}} . Note that R {\displaystyle R} is not strictly convex. Let us compute the proximity operator for R ( w ) {\displaystyle R(w)} . First we find an alternative characterization of the proximity operator prox R ⁡ ( x ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {prox} _{R}(x)} as follows: u = prox R ⁡ ( x ) ⟺ 0 ∈ ∂ ( R ( u ) + 1 2 ‖ u − x ‖ 2 2 ) ⟺ 0 ∈ ∂ R ( u ) + u − x ⟺ x − u ∈ ∂ R ( u ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}u=\operatorname {prox} _{R}(x)\iff &0\in \partial \left(R(u)+{\frac {1}{2}}\|u-x\|_{2}^{2}\right)\\\iff &0\in \partial R(u)+u-x\\\iff &x-u\in \partial R(u).\end{aligned}}} For R ( w ) = ‖ w ‖ 1 {\displaystyle R(w)=\|w\|_{1}} it is easy to compute ∂ R ( w ) {\displaystyle \partial R(w)} : the i {\displaystyle i} th entry of ∂ R ( w ) {\displaystyle \partial R(w)} is precisely ∂ | w i | = { 1 , w i > 0 − 1 , w i < 0 [ − 1 , 1 ] , w i = 0. {\displaystyle \partial |w_{i}|={\begin{cases}1,&w_{i}>0\\-1,&w_{i}<0\\\left[-1,1\right],&w_{i}=0.\end{cases}}} Using the recharacterization of the proximity operator given above, for the choice of R ( w ) = ‖ w ‖ 1 {\displaystyle R(w)=\|w\|_{1}} and γ > 0 {\displaystyle \gamma >0} we have that prox γ R ⁡ ( x ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {prox} _{\gamma R}(x)} is defined entrywise by ( prox γ R ⁡ ( x ) ) i = { x i − γ , x i > γ 0 , | x i | ≤ γ x i + γ , x i < − γ , {\displaystyle \left(\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma R}(x)\right)_{i}={\begin{cases}x_{i}-\gamma ,&x_{i}>\gamma \\0,&|x_{i}|\leq \gamma \\x_{i}+\gamma ,&x_{i}<-\gamma ,\end{cases}}} which is known as the soft thresholding operator S γ ( x ) = prox γ ‖ ⋅ ‖ 1 ⁡ ( x ) {\displaystyle S_{\gamma }(x)=\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma \|\cdot \|_{1}}(x)} . === Fixed point iterative schemes === To finally solve the lasso problem we consider the fixed point equation shown earlier: x ∗ = prox γ R ⁡ ( x ∗ − γ ∇ F ( x ∗ ) ) . {\displaystyle x^{}=\operatorname {prox} _{\gamma R}\left(x^{}-\gamma \nabla F(x^{})\right).} Given that we have computed the form of the proximity operator explicitly, then we can define a standard fixed point iteration procedure. Namely, fix some initial w 0 ∈ R d {\displaystyle w^{0}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} , and for k = 1 , 2 , … {\displaystyle k=1,2,\ldots } define w k + 1 = S γ ( w k − γ ∇ F ( w k ) ) . {\displaystyle w^{k+1}=S_{\gamma }\left(w^{k}-\gamma \nabla F\l

Facial recognition system

A facial recognition system is a technology potentially capable of matching a human face from a digital image or a video frame against a database of faces. Such a system is typically employed to authenticate users through ID verification services, and works by pinpointing and measuring facial features from a given image. Development on similar systems began in the 1960s as a form of computer application. Since their inception, facial recognition systems have seen wider uses in recent times on smartphones and in other forms of technology, such as robotics. Because computerized facial recognition involves the measurement of a human's physiological characteristics, facial recognition systems are categorized as biometrics. Although the accuracy of facial recognition systems as a biometric technology is lower than iris recognition, fingerprint image acquisition, palm recognition or voice recognition, it is widely adopted due to its contactless process. Facial recognition systems have been deployed in advanced human–computer interaction, video surveillance, law enforcement, passenger screening, decisions on employment and housing, and automatic indexing of images. Facial recognition systems are employed throughout the world today by governments and private companies. Their effectiveness varies, and some systems have previously been scrapped because of their ineffectiveness. The use of facial recognition systems has also raised controversy, with claims that the systems violate citizens' privacy, commonly make incorrect identifications, encourage gender norms and racial profiling, and do not protect important biometric data. The appearance of synthetic media such as deepfakes has also raised concerns about its security. These claims have led to the ban of facial recognition systems in several cities in the United States. Growing societal concerns led social networking company Meta Platforms to shut down its Facebook facial recognition system in 2021, deleting the face-scan data of more than one billion users. The change represented one of the largest shifts in facial recognition usage in the technology's history. IBM also stopped offering facial recognition technology due to similar concerns. == History of facial recognition technology == Automated facial recognition was pioneered in the 1960s by Woody Bledsoe, Helen Chan Wolf, and Charles Bisson, whose work focused on teaching computers to recognize human faces. Their early facial recognition project was dubbed "man-machine" because a human first needed to establish the coordinates of facial features in a photograph before they could be used by a computer for recognition. Using a graphics tablet, a human would pinpoint facial features coordinates, such as the pupil centers, the inside and outside corners of eyes, and the widows peak in the hairline. The coordinates were used to calculate 20 individual distances, including the width of the mouth and of the eyes. A human could process about 40 pictures an hour, building a database of these computed distances. A computer would then automatically compare the distances for each photograph, calculate the difference between the distances, and return the closed records as a possible match. In 1970, Takeo Kanade publicly demonstrated a face-matching system that located anatomical features such as the chin and calculated the distance ratio between facial features without human intervention. Later tests revealed that the system could not always reliably identify facial features. Nonetheless, interest in the subject grew and in 1977 Kanade published the first detailed book on facial recognition technology. In 1993, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) and the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) established the face recognition technology program FERET to develop "automatic face recognition capabilities" that could be employed in a productive real life environment "to assist security, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel in the performance of their duties." Face recognition systems that had been trialled in research labs were evaluated. The FERET tests found that while the performance of existing automated facial recognition systems varied, a handful of existing methods could viably be used to recognize faces in still images taken in a controlled environment. The FERET tests spawned three US companies that sold automated facial recognition systems. Vision Corporation and Miros Inc were founded in 1994, by researchers who used the results of the FERET tests as a selling point. Viisage Technology was established by an identification card defense contractor in 1996 to commercially exploit the rights to the facial recognition algorithm developed by Alex Pentland at MIT. Following the 1993 FERET face-recognition vendor test, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in West Virginia and New Mexico became the first DMV offices to use automated facial recognition systems to prevent people from obtaining multiple driving licenses using different names. Driver's licenses in the United States were at that point a commonly accepted form of photo identification. DMV offices across the United States were undergoing a technological upgrade and were in the process of establishing databases of digital ID photographs. This enabled DMV offices to deploy the facial recognition systems on the market to search photographs for new driving licenses against the existing DMV database. DMV offices became one of the first major markets for automated facial recognition technology and introduced US citizens to facial recognition as a standard method of identification. The increase of the US prison population in the 1990s prompted U.S. states to established connected and automated identification systems that incorporated digital biometric databases, in some instances this included facial recognition. In 1999, Minnesota incorporated the facial recognition system FaceIT by Visionics into a mug shot booking system that allowed police, judges and court officers to track criminals across the state. Until the 1990s, facial recognition systems were developed primarily by using photographic portraits of human faces. Research on face recognition to reliably locate a face in an image that contains other objects gained traction in the early 1990s with the principal component analysis (PCA). The PCA method of face detection is also known as Eigenface and was developed by Matthew Turk and Alex Pentland. Turk and Pentland combined the conceptual approach of the Karhunen–Loève theorem and factor analysis, to develop a linear model. Eigenfaces are determined based on global and orthogonal features in human faces. A human face is calculated as a weighted combination of a number of Eigenfaces. Because few Eigenfaces were used to encode human faces of a given population, Turk and Pentland's PCA face detection method greatly reduced the amount of data that had to be processed to detect a face. Pentland in 1994 defined Eigenface features, including eigen eyes, eigen mouths and eigen noses, to advance the use of PCA in facial recognition. In 1997, the PCA Eigenface method of face recognition was improved upon using linear discriminant analysis (LDA) to produce Fisherfaces. LDA Fisherfaces became dominantly used in PCA feature based face recognition. While Eigenfaces were also used for face reconstruction. In these approaches no global structure of the face is calculated which links the facial features or parts. Purely feature based approaches to facial recognition were overtaken in the late 1990s by the Bochum system, which used Gabor filter to record the face features and computed a grid of the face structure to link the features. Christoph von der Malsburg and his research team at the University of Bochum developed Elastic Bunch Graph Matching in the mid-1990s to extract a face out of an image using skin segmentation. By 1997, the face detection method developed by Malsburg outperformed most other facial detection systems on the market. The so-called "Bochum system" of face detection was sold commercially on the market as ZN-Face to operators of airports and other busy locations. The software was "robust enough to make identifications from less-than-perfect face views. It can also often see through such impediments to identification as mustaches, beards, changed hairstyles and glasses—even sunglasses". Real-time face detection in video footage became possible in 2001 with the Viola–Jones object detection framework for faces. Paul Viola and Michael Jones combined their face detection method with the Haar-like feature approach to object recognition in digital images to launch AdaBoost, the first real-time frontal-view face detector. By 2015, the Viola–Jones algorithm had been implemented using small low power detectors on handheld devices and embedded systems. Therefore, the Viola–Jones algorithm has not only broadened the practical application of face recognition systems but