In computer vision and image processing a neighborhood operation is a commonly used class of computations on image data which implies that it is processed according to the following pseudo code: Visit each point p in the image data and do { N = a neighborhood or region of the image data around the point p result(p) = f(N) } This general procedure can be applied to image data of arbitrary dimensionality. Also, the image data on which the operation is applied does not have to be defined in terms of intensity or color, it can be any type of information which is organized as a function of spatial (and possibly temporal) variables in p. The result of applying a neighborhood operation on an image is again something which can be interpreted as an image, it has the same dimension as the original data. The value at each image point, however, does not have to be directly related to intensity or color. Instead it is an element in the range of the function f, which can be of arbitrary type. Normally the neighborhood N is of fixed size and is a square (or a cube, depending on the dimensionality of the image data) centered on the point p. Also the function f is fixed, but may in some cases have parameters which can vary with p, see below. In the simplest case, the neighborhood N may be only a single point. This type of operation is often referred to as a point-wise operation. == Examples == The most common examples of a neighborhood operation use a fixed function f which in addition is linear, that is, the computation consists of a linear shift invariant operation. In this case, the neighborhood operation corresponds to the convolution operation. A typical example is convolution with a low-pass filter, where the result can be interpreted in terms of local averages of the image data around each image point. Other examples are computation of local derivatives of the image data. It is also rather common to use a fixed but non-linear function f. This includes median filtering, and computation of local variances. The Nagao-Matsuyama filter is an example of a complex local neighbourhood operation that uses variance as an indicator of the uniformity within a pixel group. The result is similar to a convolution with a low-pass filter with the added effect of preserving sharp edges. There is also a class of neighborhood operations in which the function f has additional parameters which can vary with p: Visit each point p in the image data and do { N = a neighborhood or region of the image data around the point p result(p) = f(N, parameters(p)) } This implies that the result is not shift invariant. Examples are adaptive Wiener filters. == Implementation aspects == The pseudo code given above suggests that a neighborhood operation is implemented in terms of an outer loop over all image points. However, since the results are independent, the image points can be visited in arbitrary order, or can even be processed in parallel. Furthermore, in the case of linear shift-invariant operations, the computation of f at each point implies a summation of products between the image data and the filter coefficients. The implementation of this neighborhood operation can then be made by having the summation loop outside the loop over all image points. An important issue related to neighborhood operation is how to deal with the fact that the neighborhood N becomes more or less undefined for points p close to the edge or border of the image data. Several strategies have been proposed: Compute result only for points p for which the corresponding neighborhood is well-defined. This implies that the output image will be somewhat smaller than the input image. Zero padding: Extend the input image sufficiently by adding extra points outside the original image which are set to zero. The loops over the image points described above visit only the original image points. Border extension: Extend the input image sufficiently by adding extra points outside the original image which are set to the image value at the closest image point. The loops over the image points described above visit only the original image points. Mirror extension: Extend the image sufficiently much by mirroring the image at the image boundaries. This method is less sensitive to local variations at the image boundary than border extension. Wrapping: The image is tiled, so that going off one edge wraps around to the opposite side of the image. This method assumes that the image is largely homogeneous, for example a stochastic image texture without large textons.
ACLU Mobile Justice
ACLU Mobile Justice was a video live streaming application developed for smartphones by various state chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union. It was intended to allow instant, secure video recording and transmission of interactions with, and perceived abuses by, law enforcement officers. Since its release by the ACLU of California for California residents, other versions of the app have been released for 16 other states and the District of Columbia by their ACLU chapters. It was discontinued in February 2025.
Kleene's algorithm
In theoretical computer science, in particular in formal language theory, Kleene's algorithm transforms a given nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA) into a regular expression. Together with other conversion algorithms, it establishes the equivalence of several description formats for regular languages. Alternative presentations of the same method include the "elimination method" attributed to Brzozowski and McCluskey, the algorithm of McNaughton and Yamada, and the use of Arden's lemma. == Algorithm description == According to Gross and Yellen (2004), the algorithm can be traced back to Kleene (1956). A presentation of the algorithm in the case of deterministic finite automata (DFAs) is given in Hopcroft and Ullman (1979). The presentation of the algorithm for NFAs below follows Gross and Yellen (2004). Given a nondeterministic finite automaton M = (Q, Σ, δ, q0, F), with Q = { q0,...,qn } its set of states, the algorithm computes the sets Rkij of all strings that take M from state qi to qj without going through any state numbered higher than k. Here, "going through a state" means entering and leaving it, so both i and j may be higher than k, but no intermediate state may. Each set Rkij is represented by a regular expression; the algorithm computes them step by step for k = -1, 0, ..., n. Since there is no state numbered higher than n, the regular expression Rn0j represents the set of all strings that take M from its start state q0 to qj. If F = { q1,...,qf } is the set of accept states, the regular expression Rn01 | ... | Rn0f represents the language accepted by M. The initial regular expressions, for k = -1, are computed as follows for i≠j: R−1ij = a1 | ... | am where qj ∈ δ(qi,a1), ..., qj ∈ δ(qi,am) and as follows for i=j: R−1ii = a1 | ... | am | ε where qi ∈ δ(qi,a1), ..., qi ∈ δ(qi,am) In other words, R−1ij mentions all letters that label a transition from i to j, and we also include ε in the case where i=j. After that, in each step the expressions Rkij are computed from the previous ones by Rkij = Rk-1ik (Rk-1kk) Rk-1kj | Rk-1ij Another way to understand the operation of the algorithm is as an "elimination method", where the states from 0 to n are successively removed: when state k is removed, the regular expression Rk-1ij, which describes the words that label a path from state i>k to state j>k, is rewritten into Rkij so as to take into account the possibility of going via the "eliminated" state k. By induction on k, it can be shown that the length of each expression Rkij is at most 1/3(4k+1(6s+7) - 4) symbols, where s denotes the number of characters in Σ. Therefore, the length of the regular expression representing the language accepted by M is at most 1/3(4n+1(6s+7)f - f - 3) symbols, where f denotes the number of final states. This exponential blowup is inevitable, because there exist families of DFAs for which any equivalent regular expression must be of exponential size. In practice, the size of the regular expression obtained by running the algorithm can be very different depending on the order in which the states are considered by the procedure, i.e., the order in which they are numbered from 0 to n. == Example == The automaton shown in the picture can be described as M = (Q, Σ, δ, q0, F) with the set of states Q = { q0, q1, q2 }, the input alphabet Σ = { a, b }, the transition function δ with δ(q0,a)=q0, δ(q0,b)=q1, δ(q1,a)=q2, δ(q1,b)=q1, δ(q2,a)=q1, and δ(q2,b)=q1, the start state q0, and set of accept states F = { q1 }. Kleene's algorithm computes the initial regular expressions as After that, the Rkij are computed from the Rk-1ij step by step for k = 0, 1, 2. Kleene algebra equalities are used to simplify the regular expressions as much as possible. Step 0 Step 1 Step 2 Since q0 is the start state and q1 is the only accept state, the regular expression R201 denotes the set of all strings accepted by the automaton.
Recommender system
A recommender system, also called a recommendation algorithm, recommendation engine, or recommendation platform, is a type of information filtering system that suggests items most relevant to a particular user. The value of these systems becomes particularly evident in scenarios where users must select from a large number of options, such as products, media, or content. Major social media platforms and streaming services rely on recommender systems that employ machine learning to analyze user behavior and preferences, thereby enabling personalized content feeds. Typically, the suggestions refer to a variety decision-making processes, including the selection of a product, musical selection, or online news source to read. The implementation of recommender systems is pervasive, with commonly recognised examples including the generation of playlist for video and music services, the provision of product recommendations for e-commerce platforms, and the recommendation of content on social media platforms and the open web. These systems can operate using a single type of input, such as music, or multiple inputs from diverse platforms, including news, books and search queries. Additionally, popular recommender systems have been developed for specific topics, such as restaurants and online dating services. Recommender systems have also been developed to explore research articles and experts, collaborators, and financial services. A content discovery platform is a software recommendation platform that employs recommender system tools. It utilizes user metadata in order to identify and suggest relevant content, whilst reducing ongoing maintenance and development costs. A content discovery platform delivers personalized content to websites, mobile devices, and set-top boxes. A large range of content discovery platforms currently exist for various forms of content ranging from news articles and academic journal articles to television. As operators compete to serve as the gateway to home entertainment, personalized television emerges as a key service differentiator. Academic content discovery has recently become another area of interest, the emergence of numerous companies dedicated to assisting academic researchers in keeping up to date with relevant academic content and facilitating serendipitous discovery of new content. == Overview == Recommender systems usually make use of either or both collaborative filtering and content-based filtering, as well as other systems such as knowledge-based systems. Collaborative filtering approaches build a model from a user's past behavior (e.g., items previously purchased or selected and/or numerical ratings given to those items) as well as similar decisions made by other users. This model is then used to predict items (or ratings for items) that the user may have an interest in. Content-based filtering approaches utilize a series of discrete, pre-tagged characteristics of an item in order to recommend additional items with similar properties. === Example === The differences between collaborative and content-based filtering can be demonstrated by comparing two early music recommender systems, Last.fm and Pandora Radio. We can also look at how these methods are applied in e-commerce, for example, on platforms like Amazon. Last.fm creates a "station" of recommended songs by observing what bands and individual tracks the user has listened to on a regular basis and comparing those against the listening behavior of other users. Last.fm will play tracks that do not appear in the user's library, but are often played by other users with similar interests. As this approach leverages the behavior of users, it is an example of a collaborative filtering technique. Pandora uses the properties of a song or artist (a subset of the 450 attributes provided by the Music Genome Project) to seed a "station" that plays music with similar properties. User feedback is used to refine the station's results, deemphasizing certain attributes when a user "dislikes" a particular song and emphasizing other attributes when a user "likes" a song. This is an example of a content-based approach. In e-commerce, Amazon's well-known "customers who bought X also bought Y" feature is a prime example of collaborative filtering. It also uses content-based filtering when it recommends a book by the same author you've previously read or a pair of shoes in a similar style to ones you've viewed. Each type of system has its strengths and weaknesses. In the above example, Last.fm requires a large amount of information about a user to make accurate recommendations. This is an example of the cold start problem, and is common in collaborative filtering systems. Whereas Pandora needs very little information to start, it is far more limited in scope (for example, it can only make recommendations that are similar to the original seed). === Alternative implementations === Recommender systems are a useful alternative to search algorithms since they help users discover items they might not have found otherwise. Of note, recommender systems are often implemented using search engines indexing non-traditional data. In some cases, like in the Gonzalez v. Google Supreme Court case, may argue that search and recommendation algorithms are different technologies. Recommender systems have been the focus of several granted patents, and there are more than 50 software libraries that support the development of recommender systems including LensKit, RecBole, ReChorus and RecPack. == History == Elaine Rich created the first recommender system in 1979, called Grundy. She looked for a way to recommend users books they might like. Her idea was to create a system that asks users specific questions and classifies them into classes of preferences, or "stereotypes", depending on their answers. Depending on users' stereotype membership, they would then get recommendations for books they might like. Another early recommender system, called a "digital bookshelf", was described in a 1990 technical report by Jussi Karlgren at Columbia University, and implemented at scale and worked through in technical reports and publications from 1994 onwards by Jussi Karlgren, then at SICS, and research groups led by Pattie Maes at MIT, Will Hill at Bellcore, and Paul Resnick, also at MIT, whose work with GroupLens was awarded the 2010 ACM Software Systems Award. Montaner provided the first overview of recommender systems from an intelligent agent perspective. Adomavicius provided a new, alternate overview of recommender systems. Herlocker provides an additional overview of evaluation techniques for recommender systems, and Beel et al. discussed the problems of offline evaluations. Beel et al. have also provided literature surveys on available research paper recommender systems and existing challenges. == Approaches == === Collaborative filtering === One approach to the design of recommender systems that has wide use is collaborative filtering. Collaborative filtering is based on the assumption that people who agreed in the past will agree in the future, and that they will like similar kinds of items as they liked in the past. The system generates recommendations using only information about rating profiles for different users or items. By locating peer users/items with a rating history similar to the current user or item, they generate recommendations using this neighborhood. This approach is a cornerstone for e-commerce sites that analyze the purchasing patterns of thousands of users to suggest what you might like. Collaborative filtering methods are classified as memory-based and model-based. A well-known example of memory-based approaches is the user-based algorithm, while that of model-based approaches is matrix factorization (recommender systems). A key advantage of the collaborative filtering approach is that it does not rely on machine analyzable content and therefore it is capable of accurately recommending complex items such as movies without requiring an "understanding" of the item itself. Many algorithms have been used in measuring user similarity or item similarity in recommender systems. For example, the k-nearest neighbor (k-NN) approach and the Pearson Correlation as first implemented by Allen. When building a model from a user's behavior, a distinction is often made between explicit and implicit forms of data collection. Examples of explicit data collection include the following: Asking a user to rate an item on a sliding scale. Asking a user to search. Asking a user to rank a collection of items from favorite to least favorite. Presenting two items to a user and asking him/her to choose the better one of them. Asking a user to create a list of items that he/she likes (see Rocchio classification or other similar techniques). Examples of implicit data collection include the following: Observing the items that a user views in an online store, media library, or other repository of med
EdgeRank
EdgeRank is the name commonly given to the algorithm that Facebook uses to determine what articles should be displayed in a user's News Feed. As of 2011, Facebook has stopped using the EdgeRank system and uses a machine learning algorithm that, as of 2013, takes more than 100,000 factors into account. EdgeRank was developed and implemented by Serkan Piantino. == Formula and factors == In 2010, a simplified version of the EdgeRank algorithm was presented as: ∑ e d g e s e u e w e d e {\displaystyle \sum _{\mathrm {edges\,} e}u_{e}w_{e}d_{e}} where: u e {\displaystyle u_{e}} is user affinity. w e {\displaystyle w_{e}} is how the content is weighted. d e {\displaystyle d_{e}} is a time-based decay parameter. User Affinity: The User Affinity part of the algorithm in Facebook's EdgeRank looks at the relationship and proximity of the user and the content (post/status update). Content Weight: What action was taken by the user on the content. Time-Based Decay Parameter: New or old. Newer posts tend to hold a higher place than older posts. Some of the methods that Facebook uses to adjust the parameters are proprietary and not available to the public. A study has shown that it is possible to hypothesize a disadvantage of the "like" reaction and advantages of other interactions (e.g., the "haha" reaction or "comments") in content algorithmic ranking on Facebook. The "like" button can decrease the organic reach as a "brake effect of viral reach". The "haha" reaction, "comments" and the "love" reaction could achieve the highest increase in total organic reach. == Impact == EdgeRank and its successors have a broad impact on what users actually see out of what they ostensibly follow: for instance, the selection can produce a filter bubble (if users are exposed to updates which confirm their opinions etc.) or alter people's mood (if users are shown a disproportionate amount of positive or negative updates). As a result, for Facebook pages, the typical engagement rate is less than 1% (or less than 0.1% for the bigger ones), and organic reach 10% or less for most non-profits. As a consequence, for pages, it may be nearly impossible to reach any significant audience without paying to promote their content.
WS-SecurityPolicy
WS-Security Policy is a web services specification, created by IBM and 12 co-authors, that has become an OASIS standard as of version 1.2. It extends the fundamental security protocols specified by the WS-Security, WS-Trust and WS-Secure Conversation by offering mechanisms to represent the capabilities and requirements of web services as policies. Security policy assertions are based on the WS-Policy framework. Policy assertions can be used to require more generic security attributes like transport layer security
Information pollution
Information pollution (also referred to as info pollution) is the contamination of an information supply with irrelevant, redundant, unsolicited, hampering, and low-value information. Examples include misinformation, disinformation, junk e-mail, and media violence. The spread of useless and undesirable information can have a detrimental effect on human activities. It is considered to be an adverse effect of the information revolution. == Overview == Information pollution generally applies to digital communication, such as e-mail, instant messaging (IM), and social media. The term acquired particular relevance in 2003 when web usability expert Jakob Nielsen published articles discussing the topic. As early as 1971 researchers were expressing doubts about the negative effects of having to recover "valuable nodules from a slurry of garbage in which it is a randomly dispersed minor component." People use information in order to make decisions and adapt to circumstances. Cognitive studies demonstrated human beings can process only limited information before the quality of their decisions begins to deteriorate. Information overload is a related concept that can also harm decision-making. It refers to an abundance of available information, without respect to its quality. Although technology is thought to have exacerbated the problem, it is not the only cause of information pollution. Anything that distracts attention from the essential facts required to perform a task or make a decision could be considered an information pollutant. Information pollution is seen as the digital equivalent of the environmental pollution generated by industrial processes. Some authors claim that information overload is a crisis of global proportions, on the same scale as threats faced by environmental destruction. Others have expressed the need for the development of an information management paradigm that parallels environmental management practices. == Manifestations == The manifestations of information pollution can be classified into two groups: those that provoke disruption, and those that damage information quality. Typical examples of disrupting information pollutants include unsolicited electronic messages (spam) and instant messages, particularly in the workplace. Mobile phones (ring tones and content) are disruptive in many contexts. Disrupting information pollution is not always technology based. A common example are newspapers, where subscribers read less than half or even none of the articles provided. Superfluous messages, such as unnecessary labels on a map, also distract. Alternatively, information may be polluted when its quality is reduced. This may be due to inaccurate or outdated information, but it also happens when information is badly presented. For example, when content is unfocused or unclear or when they appear in cluttered, wordy, or poorly organised documents it is difficult for the reader to understand. Laws and regulations undergo changes and revisions. Handbooks and other sources used for interpreting these laws can fall years behind the changes, which can cause the public to be misinformed. == Causes == === Cultural factors === Traditionally, information has been seen positively. People are accustomed to statements like "you cannot have too much information", "the more information the better", and "knowledge is power". The publishing and marketing industries have become used to printing many copies of books, magazines, and brochures regardless of customer demand, just in case they are needed. Democratised information sharing is an example of a new technology that has made it easier for information to reach everyone. Such technologies are perceived as a sign of progress and individual empowerment, as well as a positive step to bridge the digital divide. However, they also increase the volume of distracting information, making it more difficult to distinguish valuable information from noise. The continuous use of advertising in websites, technologies, newspapers, and everyday life is known as "cultural pollution". === Information technology === Technological advances of the 20th century and, in particular, the internet play a key role in the increase of information pollution. Blogs, social networks, personal websites, and mobile technology all contribute to increased "noise". The level of pollution may depend on the context. For example, e-mail is likely to cause more information pollution in a corporate setting, whereas mobile phones are likely to be particularly disruptive in a confined space shared by multiple people, such as a train carriage. == Effects == The effects of information pollution can be seen at multiple levels. === Individual === At a personal level, information pollution affects individuals' capacity to evaluate options and find adequate solutions. This can lead to information overload, anxiety, decision paralysis, and stress. It can disrupt the learning process. === Society === Some authors argue that information pollution and information overload can cause loss of perspective and moral values. This argument may explain the indifferent attitude that society shows toward topics such as scientific discoveries, health warnings, or politics. Pollution makes people less sensitive to headlines and more cynical toward new messages. === Business === Information pollution contributes to information overload and stress, which can disrupt the kinds information processing and decision-making needed to complete tasks at work. This leads to delayed or flawed decisions, which can translate into loss of productivity and revenue as well as an increased risk of critical errors. == Solutions == Proposed solutions include management techniques and refined technology. Technology-based alternatives include decision support systems and dashboards that enable prioritisation of information. Technologies that create frequent interruptions can be replaced with less-"polluting" options. Further, technology can improve the presentation quality, aiding understanding. E-mail usage policies and information integrity assurance strategies can help. Time management and stress management can be applied; these solutions would involve setting priorities and minimising interruptions. Improved writing and presentation practices can minimise information pollution effects on others. == Related terms == The term infollution or informatization pollution was coined by Dr. Paek-Jae Cho, former president & CEO of KTC (Korean Telecommunication Corp.), in a 2002 speech at the International Telecommunications Society (ITS) 14th biennial conference to describe any undesirable side effect brought about by information technology and its applications.