Rprop

Rprop, short for resilient backpropagation, is a learning heuristic for supervised learning in feedforward artificial neural networks. This is a first-order optimization algorithm. This algorithm was created by Martin Riedmiller and Heinrich Braun in 1992. Similarly to the Manhattan update rule, Rprop takes into account only the sign of the partial derivative over all patterns (not the magnitude), and acts independently on each "weight". For each weight, if there was a sign change of the partial derivative of the total error function compared to the last iteration, the update value for that weight is multiplied by a factor η−, where η− < 1. If the last iteration produced the same sign, the update value is multiplied by a factor of η+, where η+ > 1. The update values are calculated for each weight in the above manner, and finally each weight is changed by its own update value, in the opposite direction of that weight's partial derivative, so as to minimise the total error function. η+ is empirically set to 1.2 and η− to 0.5. Rprop can result in very large weight increments or decrements if the gradients are large, which is a problem when using mini-batches as opposed to full batches. RMSprop addresses this problem by keeping the moving average of the squared gradients for each weight and dividing the gradient by the square root of the mean square. RPROP is a batch update algorithm. Next to the cascade correlation algorithm and the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm, Rprop is one of the fastest weight update mechanisms. == Variations == Martin Riedmiller developed three algorithms, all named RPROP. Igel and Hüsken assigned names to them and added a new variant: RPROP+ is defined at A Direct Adaptive Method for Faster Backpropagation Learning: The RPROP Algorithm. RPROP− is defined at Advanced Supervised Learning in Multi-layer Perceptrons – From Backpropagation to Adaptive Learning Algorithms. Backtracking is removed from RPROP+. iRPROP− is defined in Rprop – Description and Implementation Details and was reinvented by Igel and Hüsken. This variant is very popular and most simple. iRPROP+ is defined at Improving the Rprop Learning Algorithm and is very robust and typically faster than the other three variants.

AstroPay

AstroPay is a global digital wallet that provides users with a way to pay, send, and receive money. The app provides online payments, virtual and physical debit cards, peer-to-peer money transfers, and more. == History == AstroPay was founded in Uruguay in 2009 as a payment processing company. Over time, it expanded its services across Latin America, EMEA, and APAC. A significant milestone occurred in 2016, when AstroPay spun off dLocal, focusing on cross-border payments for emerging markets. dLocal became Uruguay's first unicorn and eventually went public through a successful IPO. In 2020, AstroPay spun off its payment processing services into a new entity, D24, to focus on mobile wallet for cross border. Between 2023 and 2024 the Company brought new leadership to guide its transition towards becoming a fully focused global digital multicurrency wallet where users save, send, and spend globally. This shift introduced enhanced features, including loyalty prepaid cards and multicurrency accounts. == Services == AstroPay offers three main products: AstroPay Wallet, AstroPay check-out, and AstroPay Platform. AstroPay Wallet is a digital wallet for consumers, where they have multicurrency accounts, prepaid card and marketplace. With AstroPay check-out, businesses can tap into AstroPay's wallet user base by accepting AstroPay as a payment method in their check-out options. Lastly, AstroPay Platform enables other businesses to use the AstroPay network to launch their own global wallet. == Brand endorsements, partnerships == AstroPay's marketing strategy has included the development of co-branded products with sports teams and other brand. The company sponsored Burnley Football Club during the 2018–19 Premier League season, renewing the partnership for the 2021–22 Premier League season when it became the club's official payment service partner. In August 2021, AstroPay entered into a partnership with the Wolverhampton Wanderers for the 2021-22 Premier League season, and the following year, became the team's shirt sponsor. Later, in September 2021, AstroPay expanded its partnership with Wolverhampton Wanderers, which included becoming the team's official payment partner and later, in 2023, co-launching a co-branded card. Other partnerships include Newcastle United in 2021 in the English Premier League. AstroPay made arrangements to ensure that branding and logo would be visible on the pitch-side LED advertising during Premier League matches. Furthermore, in June 2022, the company renewed it's partnership with Wolverhampton Wanderers for the 2022-23 Premier League season and launched its Wolves debit card in February 2023. Some other notable partnerships include: Universidad de Chile in 2024, Tottenham Hotspurs in 2023-25, and even a collaboration with Lionel Messi across all of Latin America. == Recent developments == AstroPay has refocused its strategy since 2023, pivoting from payment processing to concentrate on its global digital wallet. This move reflects a broader effort to redefine the company's market positioning by emphasizing global user-friendly financial services, while separating its identity from previous operations managed by dLocal and D24.

Quadratic classifier

In statistics, a quadratic classifier is a statistical classifier that uses a quadratic decision surface to separate measurements of two or more classes of objects or events. It is a more general version of the linear classifier. == The classification problem == Statistical classification considers a set of vectors of observations x of an object or event, each of which has a known type y. This set is referred to as the training set. The problem is then to determine, for a given new observation vector, what the best class should be. For a quadratic classifier, the correct solution is assumed to be quadratic in the measurements, so y will be decided based on x T A x + b T x + c {\displaystyle \mathbf {x^{T}Ax} +\mathbf {b^{T}x} +c} In the special case where each observation consists of two measurements, this means that the surfaces separating the classes will be conic sections (i.e., either a line, a circle or ellipse, a parabola or a hyperbola). In this sense, we can state that a quadratic model is a generalization of the linear model, and its use is justified by the desire to extend the classifier's ability to represent more complex separating surfaces. == Quadratic discriminant analysis == Quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA) is closely related to linear discriminant analysis (LDA), where it is assumed that the measurements from each class are normally distributed. Unlike LDA however, in QDA there is no assumption that the covariance of each of the classes is identical. When the normality assumption is true, the best possible test for the hypothesis that a given measurement is from a given class is the likelihood ratio test. Suppose there are only two groups, with means μ 0 , μ 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{0},\mu _{1}} and covariance matrices Σ 0 , Σ 1 {\displaystyle \Sigma _{0},\Sigma _{1}} corresponding to y = 0 {\displaystyle y=0} and y = 1 {\displaystyle y=1} respectively. Then the likelihood ratio is given by Likelihood ratio = | 2 π Σ 1 | − 1 exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ( x − μ 1 ) T Σ 1 − 1 ( x − μ 1 ) ) | 2 π Σ 0 | − 1 exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ( x − μ 0 ) T Σ 0 − 1 ( x − μ 0 ) ) < t {\displaystyle {\text{Likelihood ratio}}={\frac {{\sqrt {|2\pi \Sigma _{1}|}}^{-1}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{1})^{T}\Sigma _{1}^{-1}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{1})\right)}{{\sqrt {|2\pi \Sigma _{0}|}}^{-1}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{0})^{T}\Sigma _{0}^{-1}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{0})\right)}}

Ho–Kashyap algorithm

The Ho–Kashyap algorithm is an iterative method in machine learning for finding a linear decision boundary that separates two linearly separable classes. It was developed by Yu-Chi Ho and Rangasami L. Kashyap in 1965, and usually presented as a problem in linear programming. == Setup == Given a training set consisting of samples from two classes, the Ho–Kashyap algorithm seeks to find a weight vector w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } and a margin vector b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } such that: Y w = b {\displaystyle \mathbf {Yw} =\mathbf {b} } where Y {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} } is the augmented data matrix with samples from both classes (with appropriate sign conventions, e.g., samples from class 2 are negated), w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } is the weight vector to be determined, and b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } is a positive margin vector. The algorithm minimizes the criterion function: J ( w , b ) = | | Y w − b | | 2 {\displaystyle J(\mathbf {w} ,\mathbf {b} )=||\mathbf {Yw} -\mathbf {b} ||^{2}} subject to the constraint that b > 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} >\mathbf {0} } (element-wise). Given a problem of linearly separating two classes, we consider a dataset of elements { ( x i , y i ) } i ∈ 1 : N {\displaystyle \{(\mathbf {x_{i}} ,y_{i})\}_{i\in 1:N}} where y i ∈ { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,+1\}} . Linearly separating them by a perceptron is equivalent to finding weight and bias w , b {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} ,b} for a perceptron, such that: [ y 1 x 1 1 ⋮ ⋮ y N x N 1 ] [ w b ] > 0 {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}y_{1}\mathbf {x} _{1}&1\\\vdots &\vdots \\y_{N}\mathbf {x} _{N}&1\\\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}\mathbf {w} \\b\end{bmatrix}}>0} == Algorithm == The idea of the Ho–Kashyap algorithm is as follows: Given any b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } , the corresponding w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } is known: It is simply w = Y + b {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} =\mathbf {Y} ^{+}\mathbf {b} } , where Y + {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} ^{+}} denotes the Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse of Y {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} } . Therefore, it only remains to find b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } by gradient descent. However, the gradient descent may sometimes decrease some of the coordinates of b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } , which may cause some coordinates of b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } to become negative, which is undesirable. Therefore, whenever some coordinates of b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } would have decreased, those coordinates are unchanged instead. As for the coordinates of b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } that would increase, those would increase without issue. Formally, the algorithm is as follows: Initialization: Set b ( 0 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} (0)} to an arbitrary positive vector, typically b ( 0 ) = 1 {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} (0)=\mathbf {1} } (a vector of ones). Set the iteration counter k = 0 {\displaystyle k=0} . Set w ( 0 ) = Y + b ( 0 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} (0)=\mathbf {Y} ^{+}\mathbf {b} (0)} Loop until convergence, or until iteration counter exceeds some k m a x {\displaystyle k_{max}} . Error calculation: Compute the error vector: e ( k ) = Y w ( k ) − b ( k ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)=\mathbf {Yw} (k)-\mathbf {b} (k)} . Margin update: Update the margin vector: b ( k + 1 ) = b ( k ) + 2 η k ( e ( k ) + | e ( k ) | ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} (k+1)=\mathbf {b} (k)+2\eta _{k}(\mathbf {e} (k)+|\mathbf {e} (k)|)} where η k {\displaystyle \eta _{k}} is a positive learning rate parameter, and | e ( k ) | {\displaystyle |\mathbf {e} (k)|} denotes the element-wise absolute value. Weight calculation: Compute the weight vector using the pseudoinverse: w ( k + 1 ) = Y + b ( k + 1 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} (k+1)=\mathbf {Y} ^{+}\mathbf {b} (k+1)} . Convergence check: If | | e ( k ) | | ≤ θ {\displaystyle ||\mathbf {e} (k)||\leq \theta } for some predetermined threshold θ {\displaystyle \theta } (close to zero), then return b ( k + 1 ) , w ( k + 1 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} (k+1),\mathbf {w} (k+1)} . if e ( k ) ≤ 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)\leq \mathbf {0} } (all components non-positive), return "Samples not separable.". Return "Algorithm failed to converge in time.". == Properties == If the training data is linearly separable, the algorithm converges to a solution (where e ( k ) = 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)=\mathbf {0} } ) in a finite number of iterations. If the data is not linearly separable, the algorithm may or may not ever reach the point where e ( k ) = 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)=\mathbf {0} } . However, if it does happen that e ( k ) ≤ 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} (k)\leq \mathbf {0} } at some iteration, this proves non-separability. The convergence rate depends on the choice of the learning rate parameter ρ {\displaystyle \rho } and the degree of linear separability of the data. == Relationship to other algorithms == Perceptron algorithm: Both seek linear separators. The perceptron updates weights incrementally based on individual misclassified samples, while Ho–Kashyap is a batch method that processes all samples to compute the pseudoinverse and updates based on an overall error vector. Linear discriminant analysis (LDA): LDA assumes underlying Gaussian distributions with equal covariances for the classes and derives the decision boundary from these statistical assumptions. Ho–Kashyap makes no explicit distributional assumptions and instead tries to solve a system of linear inequalities directly. Support vector machines (SVM): For linearly separable data, SVMs aim to find the maximum-margin hyperplane. The Ho–Kashyap algorithm finds a separating hyperplane but not necessarily the one with the maximum margin. If the data is not separable, soft-margin SVMs allow for some misclassifications by optimizing a trade-off between margin size and misclassification penalty, while Ho–Kashyap provides a least-squares solution. == Variants == Modified Ho–Kashyap algorithm changes weight calculation step w ( k + 1 ) = Y + b ( k + 1 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} (k+1)=\mathbf {Y} ^{+}\mathbf {b} (k+1)} to w ( k + 1 ) = w ( k ) + η k Y + | e ( k ) | {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} (k+1)=\mathbf {w} (k)+\eta _{k}\mathbf {Y} ^{+}|\mathbf {e} (k)|} . Kernel Ho–Kashyap algorithm: Applies kernel methods (the "kernel trick") to the Ho–Kashyap framework to enable non-linear classification by implicitly mapping data to a higher-dimensional feature space.

Dispersive flies optimisation

Dispersive flies optimisation (DFO) is a bare-bones swarm intelligence algorithm which is inspired by the swarming behaviour of flies hovering over food sources. DFO is a simple optimiser which works by iteratively trying to improve a candidate solution with regard to a numerical measure that is calculated by a fitness function. Each member of the population, a fly or an agent, holds a candidate solution whose suitability can be evaluated by their fitness value. Optimisation problems are often formulated as either minimisation or maximisation problems. DFO was introduced with the intention of analysing a simplified swarm intelligence algorithm with the fewest tunable parameters and components. In the first work on DFO, this algorithm was compared against a few other existing swarm intelligence techniques using error, efficiency and diversity measures. It is shown that despite the simplicity of the algorithm, which only uses agents’ position vectors at time t to generate the position vectors for time t + 1, it exhibits a competitive performance. Since its inception, DFO has been used in a variety of applications including medical imaging and image analysis as well as data mining and machine learning. == Algorithm == DFO bears many similarities with other existing continuous, population-based optimisers (e.g. particle swarm optimization and differential evolution). In that, the swarming behaviour of the individuals consists of two tightly connected mechanisms, one is the formation of the swarm and the other is its breaking or weakening. DFO works by facilitating the information exchange between the members of the population (the swarming flies). Each fly x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } represents a position in a d-dimensional search space: x = ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x d ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} =(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{d})} , and the fitness of each fly is calculated by the fitness function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )} , which takes into account the flies' d dimensions: f ( x ) = f ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x d ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} )=f(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{d})} . The pseudocode below represents one iteration of the algorithm: for i = 1 : N flies x i . fitness = f ( x i ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x_{i}} .{\text{fitness}}=f(\mathbf {x} _{i})} end for i x s {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{s}} = arg min [ f ( x i ) ] , i ∈ { 1 , … , N } {\textstyle [f(\mathbf {x} _{i})],\;i\in \{1,\ldots ,N\}} for i = 1 : N and i ≠ s {\displaystyle i\neq s} for d = 1 : D dimensions if U ( 0 , 1 ) < Δ {\displaystyle U(0,1)<\Delta } x i d t + 1 = U ( x min , d , x max , d ) {\displaystyle x_{id}^{t+1}=U(x_{\min ,d},x_{\max ,d})} else x i d t + 1 = x i n d t + U ( 0 , 1 ) ( x s d t − x i d t ) {\displaystyle x_{id}^{t+1}=x_{i_{nd}}^{t}+U(0,1)(x_{sd}^{t}-x_{id}^{t})} end if end for d end for i In the algorithm above, x i d t + 1 {\displaystyle x_{id}^{t+1}} represents fly i {\displaystyle i} at dimension d {\displaystyle d} and time t + 1 {\displaystyle t+1} ; x i n d t {\displaystyle x_{i_{nd}}^{t}} presents x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} 's best neighbouring fly in ring topology (left or right, using flies indexes), at dimension d {\displaystyle d} and time t {\displaystyle t} ; and x s d t {\displaystyle x_{sd}^{t}} is the swarm's best fly. Using this update equation, the swarm's population update depends on each fly's best neighbour (which is used as the focus μ {\displaystyle \mu } , and the difference between the current fly and the best in swarm represents the spread of movement, σ {\displaystyle \sigma } ). Other than the population size N {\displaystyle N} , the only tunable parameter is the disturbance threshold Δ {\displaystyle \Delta } , which controls the dimension-wise restart in each fly vector. This mechanism is proposed to control the diversity of the swarm. Other notable minimalist swarm algorithm is Bare bones particle swarms (BB-PSO), which is based on particle swarm optimisation, along with bare bones differential evolution (BBDE) which is a hybrid of the bare bones particle swarm optimiser and differential evolution, aiming to reduce the number of parameters. Alhakbani in her PhD thesis covers many aspects of the algorithms including several DFO applications in feature selection as well as parameter tuning. == Applications == Some of the recent applications of DFO are listed below: Optimising support vector machine kernel to classify imbalanced data Quantifying symmetrical complexity in computational aesthetics Analysing computational autopoiesis and computational creativity Identifying calcifications in medical images Building non-identical organic structures for game's space development Deep Neuroevolution: Training Deep Neural Networks for False Alarm Detection in Intensive Care Units Identification of animation key points from 2D-medialness maps

Visual servoing

Visual servoing, also known as vision-based robot control and abbreviated VS, is a technique which uses feedback information extracted from a vision sensor (visual feedback) to control the motion of a robot. One of the earliest papers that talks about visual servoing was from the SRI International Labs in 1979. == Visual servoing taxonomy == There are two fundamental configurations of the robot end-effector (hand) and the camera: Eye-in-hand, or end-point open-loop control, where the camera is attached to the moving hand and observing the relative position of the target. Eye-to-hand, or end-point closed-loop control, where the camera is fixed in the world and observing the target and the motion of the hand. Visual Servoing control techniques are broadly classified into the following types: Image-based (IBVS) Position/pose-based (PBVS) Hybrid approach IBVS was proposed by Weiss and Sanderson. The control law is based on the error between current and desired features on the image plane, and does not involve any estimate of the pose of the target. The features may be the coordinates of visual features, lines or moments of regions. IBVS has difficulties with motions very large rotations, which has come to be called camera retreat. PBVS is a model-based technique (with a single camera). This is because the pose of the object of interest is estimated with respect to the camera and then a command is issued to the robot controller, which in turn controls the robot. In this case the image features are extracted as well, but are additionally used to estimate 3D information (pose of the object in Cartesian space), hence it is servoing in 3D. Hybrid approaches use some combination of the 2D and 3D servoing. There have been a few different approaches to hybrid servoing 2-1/2-D Servoing Motion partition-based Partitioned DOF Based == Survey == The following description of the prior work is divided into 3 parts Survey of existing visual servoing methods. Various features used and their impacts on visual servoing. Error and stability analysis of visual servoing schemes. === Survey of existing visual servoing methods === Visual servo systems, also called servoing, have been around since the early 1980s , although the term visual servo itself was only coined in 1987. Visual Servoing is, in essence, a method for robot control where the sensor used is a camera (visual sensor). Servoing consists primarily of two techniques, one involves using information from the image to directly control the degrees of freedom (DOF) of the robot, thus referred to as Image Based Visual Servoing (IBVS). While the other involves the geometric interpretation of the information extracted from the camera, such as estimating the pose of the target and parameters of the camera (assuming some basic model of the target is known). Other servoing classifications exist based on the variations in each component of a servoing system , e.g. the location of the camera, the two kinds are eye-in-hand and hand–eye configurations. Based on the control loop, the two kinds are end-point-open-loop and end-point-closed-loop. Based on whether the control is applied to the joints (or DOF) directly or as a position command to a robot controller the two types are direct servoing and dynamic look-and-move. Being one of the earliest works the authors proposed a hierarchical visual servo scheme applied to image-based servoing. The technique relies on the assumption that a good set of features can be extracted from the object of interest (e.g. edges, corners and centroids) and used as a partial model along with global models of the scene and robot. The control strategy is applied to a simulation of a two and three DOF robot arm. Feddema et al. introduced the idea of generating task trajectory with respect to the feature velocity. This is to ensure that the sensors are not rendered ineffective (stopping the feedback) for any the robot motions. The authors assume that the objects are known a priori (e.g. CAD model) and all the features can be extracted from the object. The work by Espiau et al. discusses some of the basic questions in visual servoing. The discussions concentrate on modeling of the interaction matrix, camera, visual features (points, lines, etc..). In an adaptive servoing system was proposed with a look-and-move servoing architecture. The method used optical flow along with SSD to provide a confidence metric and a stochastic controller with Kalman filtering for the control scheme. The system assumes (in the examples) that the plane of the camera and the plane of the features are parallel., discusses an approach of velocity control using the Jacobian relationship s˙ = Jv˙ . In addition the author uses Kalman filtering, assuming that the extracted position of the target have inherent errors (sensor errors). A model of the target velocity is developed and used as a feed-forward input in the control loop. Also, mentions the importance of looking into kinematic discrepancy, dynamic effects, repeatability, settling time oscillations and lag in response. Corke poses a set of very critical questions on visual servoing and tries to elaborate on their implications. The paper primarily focuses the dynamics of visual servoing. The author tries to address problems like lag and stability, while also talking about feed-forward paths in the control loop. The paper also, tries to seek justification for trajectory generation, methodology of axis control and development of performance metrics. Chaumette in provides good insight into the two major problems with IBVS. One, servoing to a local minima and second, reaching a Jacobian singularity. The author show that image points alone do not make good features due to the occurrence of singularities. The paper continues, by discussing the possible additional checks to prevent singularities namely, condition numbers of J_s and Jˆ+_s, to check the null space of ˆ J_s and J^T_s . One main point that the author highlights is the relation between local minima and unrealizable image feature motions. Over the years many hybrid techniques have been developed. These involve computing partial/complete pose from Epipolar Geometry using multiple views or multiple cameras. The values are obtained by direct estimation or through a learning or a statistical scheme. While others have used a switching approach that changes between image-based and position-based on a Lyapnov function. The early hybrid techniques that used a combination of image-based and pose-based (2D and 3D information) approaches for servoing required either a full or partial model of the object in order to extract the pose information and used a variety of techniques to extract the motion information from the image. used an affine motion model from the image motion in addition to a rough polyhedral CAD model to extract the object pose with respect to the camera to be able to servo onto the object (on the lines of PBVS). 2-1/2-D visual servoing developed by Malis et al. is a well known technique that breaks down the information required for servoing into an organized fashion which decouples rotations and translations. The papers assume that the desired pose is known a priori. The rotational information is obtained from partial pose estimation, a homography, (essentially 3D information) giving an axis of rotation and the angle (by computing the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the homography). The translational information is obtained from the image directly by tracking a set of feature points. The only conditions being that the feature points being tracked never leave the field of view and that a depth estimate be predetermined by some off-line technique. 2-1/2-D servoing has been shown to be more stable than the techniques that preceded it. Another interesting observation with this formulation is that the authors claim that the visual Jacobian will have no singularities during the motions. The hybrid technique developed by Corke and Hutchinson, popularly called portioned approach partitions the visual (or image) Jacobian into motions (both rotations and translations) relating X and Y axes and motions related to the Z axis. outlines the technique, to break out columns of the visual Jacobian that correspond to the Z axis translation and rotation (namely, the third and sixth columns). The partitioned approach is shown to handle the Chaumette Conundrum discussed in. This technique requires a good depth estimate in order to function properly. outlines a hybrid approach where the servoing task is split into two, namely main and secondary. The main task is keep the features of interest within the field of view. While the secondary task is to mark a fixation point and use it as a reference to bring the camera to the desired pose. The technique does need a depth estimate from an off-line procedure. The paper discusses two examples for which depth estimates are obtained from robot odometry and by assuming that all

Nearest centroid classifier

In machine learning, a nearest centroid classifier or nearest prototype classifier is a classification model that assigns to observations the label of the class of training samples whose mean (centroid) is closest to the observation. When applied to text classification using word vectors containing tfidf weights to represent documents, the nearest centroid classifier is known as the Rocchio classifier because of its similarity to the Rocchio algorithm for relevance feedback. An extended version of the nearest centroid classifier has found applications in the medical domain, specifically classification of tumors. == Algorithm == === Training === Given labeled training samples { ( x → 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x → n , y n ) } {\displaystyle \textstyle \{({\vec {x}}_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,({\vec {x}}_{n},y_{n})\}} with class labels y i ∈ Y {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \mathbf {Y} } , compute the per-class centroids μ → ℓ = 1 | C ℓ | ∑ i ∈ C ℓ x → i {\displaystyle \textstyle {\vec {\mu }}_{\ell }={\frac {1}{|C_{\ell }|}}{\underset {i\in C_{\ell }}{\sum }}{\vec {x}}_{i}} where C ℓ {\displaystyle C_{\ell }} is the set of indices of samples belonging to class ℓ ∈ Y {\displaystyle \ell \in \mathbf {Y} } . === Prediction === The class assigned to an observation x → {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}} is y ^ = arg ⁡ min ℓ ∈ Y ‖ μ → ℓ − x → ‖ {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}={\arg \min }_{\ell \in \mathbf {Y} }\|{\vec {\mu }}_{\ell }-{\vec {x}}\|} .