AIOps (Artificial Intelligence for IT Operations) refers to the use of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and big data analytics to automate and enhance data center management. It helps organizations manage complex IT environments by detecting, diagnosing, and resolving issues more efficiently than traditional methods. == History == AIOps was first defined by Gartner in 2016, combining "artificial intelligence" and "IT operations" to describe the application of AI and machine learning to enhance IT operations. This concept was introduced to address the increasing complexity and data volume in IT environments, aiming to automate processes such as event correlation, anomaly detection, and causality determination. == Definition == AIOps refers to multi-layered, complex technology platforms that enhance and automate IT operations by using machine learning and analytics to analyze the large amounts of data collected from various DevOps devices and tools, automatically identifying and responding to issues in real-time. AIOps represents a shift from isolated IT data to aggregated observational data (e.g., job logs and monitoring systems) and interaction data (such as ticketing, events, or incident records) within a big data platform. AIOps applies machine learning and analytics to this data, resulting in continuous visibility that, when combined with automation, can lead to ongoing improvements. AIOps connects three IT disciplines (automation, service management, and performance management) to achieve continuous visibility and improvement. This new approach in modern, accelerated, and hyper-scaled IT environments leverages advances in machine learning and big data to overcome previous limitations. == Components == AIOps includes, but is not limited to, the following processes and techniques: Anomaly Detection Log Analysis Root Cause Analysis Cohort Analysis Event Correlation Predictive Analytics Hardware Failure Prediction Automated Remediation Performance Prediction Incident Management Causality Determination Queue Management Resource Scheduling and Optimization Predictive Capacity Management Resource Allocation Service Quality Monitoring Deployment and Integration Testing System Configuration Auto-diagnosis and Problem Localization Efficient ML Training and Inferencing Using LLMs for Cloud Ops Auto Service Healing Data Center Management Customer Support Security and Privacy in Cloud Operations == Comparison with DevOps == AIOps is increasingly compared with DevOps in terms of impact on operational efficiency. While DevOps focuses on collaboration between development and operations teams to accelerate software delivery, AIOps integrates artificial intelligence to enhance monitoring, automation, and predictive capabilities. Various industry analyses have explored the similarities and differences between the two approaches, including discussions on how organizations can combine them to improve incident management and resource optimization. == Results == AI optimizes IT operations in five ways: First, intelligent monitoring powered by AI helps identify potential issues before they cause outages, improving metrics like Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) by 15-20%. Second, performance data analysis and insights enable quick decision-making by ingesting and analyzing large data sets in real time. Third, AI-driven automated infrastructure optimization efficiently allocates resources and thereby reducing cloud costs. Fourth, enhanced IT service management reduces critical incidents by over 50% through AI-driven end-to-end service management. Lastly, intelligent task automation accelerates problem resolution and automates remedial actions with minimal human intervention. In 2025, Atera Networks was identified as a leader in AIOps by the software review platform G2. == AIOps vs. MLOps == AIOps tools use big data analytics, machine learning algorithms, and predictive analytics to detect anomalies, correlate events, and provide proactive insights. This automation reduces the burden on IT teams, allowing them to focus on strategic tasks rather than routine operational issues. AIOps is widely used by IT operations teams, DevOps, network administrators, and IT service management (ITSM) teams to enhance visibility and enable quicker incident resolution in hybrid cloud environments, data centers, and other IT infrastructures. In contrast to MLOps (Machine Learning Operations), which focuses on the lifecycle management and operational aspects of machine learning models, AIOps focuses on optimizing IT operations using a variety of analytics and AI-driven techniques. While both disciplines rely on AI and data-driven methods, AIOps primarily targets IT operations, whereas MLOps is concerned with the deployment, monitoring, and maintenance of ML models. == Conferences == There are several conferences that are specific to AIOps: AIOps Summit AI Dev Summit IBM Think conference
Automated negotiation
Automated negotiation is a form of interaction in systems that are composed of multiple autonomous agents, in which the aim is to reach agreements through an iterative process of making offers. Automated negotiation can be employed for many tasks human negotiators regularly engage in, such as bargaining and joint decision making. The main topics in automated negotiation revolve around the design of protocols and negotiating strategies. == History == Through digitization, the beginning of the 21st century has seen a growing interest in the automation of negotiation and e-negotiation systems, for example in the setting of e-commerce. This interest is fueled by the promise of automated agents being able to negotiate on behalf of human negotiators, and to find better outcomes than human negotiators. == Examples == Examples of automated negotiation include: Online dispute resolution, in which disagreements between parties are settled. Sponsored search auction, where bids are placed on advertisement keywords. Content negotiation, in which user agents negotiate over HTTP about how to best represent a web resource. Negotiation support systems, in which negotiation decision-making activities are supported by an information system.
NOMINATE (scaling method)
NOMINATE (an acronym for nominal three-step estimation) is a multidimensional scaling application developed by US political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal in the early 1980s to analyze preferential and choice data, such as legislative roll-call voting behavior. In its most well-known application, members of the US Congress are placed on a two-dimensional map, with politicians who are ideologically similar (i.e. who often vote the same) being close together. One of these two dimensions corresponds to the familiar left–right political spectrum (liberal–conservative in the United States). As computing capabilities grew, Poole and Rosenthal developed multiple iterations of their NOMINATE procedure: the original D-NOMINATE method, W-NOMINATE, and most recently DW-NOMINATE (for dynamic, weighted NOMINATE). In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE. In 2016, the society awarded Poole its Career Achievement Award, stating that "the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores." == Procedure == The main procedure is an application of multidimensional scaling techniques to political choice data. Though there are important technical differences between these types of NOMINATE scaling procedures, all operate under the same fundamental assumptions. First, that alternative choices can be projected on a basic, low-dimensional (often two-dimensional) Euclidean space. Second, within that space, individuals have utility functions which are bell-shaped (normally distributed), and maximized at their ideal point. Because individuals also have symmetric, single-peaked utility functions which center on their ideal point, ideal points represent individuals' most preferred outcomes. That is, individuals most desire outcomes closest their ideal point, and will choose/vote probabilistically for the closest outcome. Ideal points can be recovered from observing choices, with individuals exhibiting similar preferences placed more closely than those behaving dissimilarly. It is helpful to compare this procedure to producing maps based on driving distances between cities. For example, Los Angeles is about 1,800 miles from St. Louis; St. Louis is about 1,200 miles from Miami; and Miami is about 2,700 miles from Los Angeles. From this (dis)similarities data, any map of these three cities should place Miami far from Los Angeles, with St. Louis somewhere in between (though a bit closer to Miami than Los Angeles). Just as cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco would be clustered on a map, NOMINATE places ideologically similar legislators (e.g., liberal Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.)) closer to each other, and farther from dissimilar legislators (e.g., conservative Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)) based on the degree of agreement between their roll call voting records. At the heart of the NOMINATE procedures (and other multidimensional scaling methods, such as Poole's Optimal Classification method) are algorithms they utilize to arrange individuals and choices in low dimensional (usually two-dimensional) space. Thus, NOMINATE scores provide "maps" of legislatures. Using NOMINATE procedures to study congressional roll call voting behavior from the First Congress to the present-day, Poole and Rosenthal published Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting in 1997 and the revised edition Ideology and Congress in 2007. In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were named the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE, a recognition conferred to "individual(s) for developing statistical software that makes a significant research contribution". In 2016, Keith T. Poole was awarded the Society for Political Methodology's Career Achievement Award. The citation for this award reads, in part, "One can say perfectly correctly, and without any hyperbole: the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores. NOMINATE has produced data that entire bodies of our discipline—and many in the press—have relied on to understand the U.S. Congress." == Dimensions == Poole and Rosenthal demonstrate that—despite the many complexities of congressional representation and politics—roll call voting in both the House and the Senate can be organized and explained by no more than two dimensions throughout the sweep of American history. The first dimension (horizontal or x-axis) is the familiar left-right (or liberal-conservative) spectrum on economic matters. The second dimension (vertical or y-axis) picks up attitudes on cross-cutting, salient issues of the day (which include or have included slavery, bimetallism, civil rights, regional, and social/lifestyle issues). Rosenthal and Poole have initially argued that the first dimension refers to socio-economic matters and the second dimension to race-relations. However, the often confusing and residual nature of the second dimension has led to the second dimension being largely ignored by other researchers. For the most part, congressional voting is uni-dimensional, with most of the variation in voting patterns explained by placement along the liberal-conservative first dimension. While the first dimension of the DW-NOMINATE score is able to predict results at 83% accuracy, the addition of the second dimension only increases accuracy to 85%. Furthermore, the second dimension only provided a significant increase in accuracy for Congresses 1-99. As late as the 1990s, the second dimension was able to measure partisan splits in abortion and gun rights issues. However, a 2017 analysis found that since 1987, the votes of the US Congress had best fit a one-dimensional model, suggesting increasing party polarization after 1987. == Interpretation of nominate scores == For illustrative purposes, consider the following plots which use W-NOMINATE scores to scale members of Congress and uses the probabilistic voting model (in which legislators farther from the "cutting line" between "yea" and "nay" outcomes become more likely to vote in the predicted manner) to illustrate some major Congressional votes in the 1990s. Some of these votes, like the House's vote on President Clinton's welfare reform package (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996) are best modeled through the use of the first (economic liberal-conservative) dimension. On the welfare reform vote, nearly all Republicans joined the moderate-conservative bloc of House Democrats in voting for the bill, while opposition was virtually confined to the most liberal Democrats in the House. The errors (those representatives on the "wrong" side of the cutting line which separates predicted "yeas" and predicted "nays") are generally close to the cutting line, which is what we would expect. A legislator directly on the cutting line is indifferent between voting "yea" and "nay" on the measure. All members are shown on the left panel of the plot, while only errors are shown on the right panel: Economic ideology also dominates the Senate vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1995: On other votes, however, a second dimension (which has recently come to represent attitudes on cultural and lifestyle issues) is important. For example, roll call votes on gun control routinely split party coalitions, with socially conservative "blue dog" Democrats joining most Republicans in opposing additional regulation and socially liberal Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting gun control. The addition of the second dimension accounts for these inter-party differences, and the cutting line is more horizontal than vertical (meaning the cleavage is found on the second dimension rather than the first dimension on these votes) This pattern was evident in the 1991 House vote to require waiting periods on handguns: == Political ideology == DW-NOMINATE scores have been used widely to describe the political ideology of political actors, political parties and political institutions. For instance, a score in the first dimension that is close to either pole means that such score is located at one of the extremes in the liberal-conservative scale. So, a score closer to 1 is described as conservative whereas a score closer to −1 can be described as liberal. Finally, a score at zero or close to zero is described as moderate. == Political polarization == Poole and Rosenthal (beginning with their 1984 article "The Polarization of American Politics") have also used NOMINATE data to show that, since the 1970s, party delegations in Congress have become ideologically homogeneous and distant from one another (a phenomenon known as "polarization"). Using DW-NOMINATE scores (which permit direct comparisons between members of different Congress
Learning classifier system
Learning classifier systems, or LCS, are a paradigm of rule-based machine learning methods that combine a discovery component (e.g. typically a genetic algorithm in evolutionary computation) with a learning component (performing either supervised learning, reinforcement learning, or unsupervised learning). Learning classifier systems seek to identify a set of context-dependent rules that collectively store and apply knowledge in a piecewise manner in order to make predictions (e.g. behavior modeling, classification, data mining, regression, function approximation, or game strategy). This approach allows complex solution spaces to be broken up into smaller, simpler parts for the reinforcement learning that is inside artificial intelligence research. The founding concepts behind learning classifier systems came from attempts to model complex adaptive systems, using rule-based agents to form an artificial cognitive system (i.e. artificial intelligence). == Methodology == The architecture and components of a given learning classifier system can be quite variable. It is useful to think of an LCS as a machine consisting of several interacting components. Components may be added or removed, or existing components modified/exchanged to suit the demands of a given problem domain (like algorithmic building blocks) or to make the algorithm flexible enough to function in many different problem domains. As a result, the LCS paradigm can be flexibly applied to many problem domains that call for machine learning. The major divisions among LCS implementations are as follows: (1) Michigan-style architecture vs. Pittsburgh-style architecture, (2) reinforcement learning vs. supervised learning, (3) incremental learning vs. batch learning, (4) online learning vs. offline learning, (5) strength-based fitness vs. accuracy-based fitness, and (6) complete action mapping vs best action mapping. These divisions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, XCS, the best known and best studied LCS algorithm, is Michigan-style, was designed for reinforcement learning but can also perform supervised learning, applies incremental learning that can be either online or offline, applies accuracy-based fitness, and seeks to generate a complete action mapping. === Elements of a generic LCS algorithm === Keeping in mind that LCS is a paradigm for genetic-based machine learning rather than a specific method, the following outlines key elements of a generic, modern (i.e. post-XCS) LCS algorithm. For simplicity let us focus on Michigan-style architecture with supervised learning. See the illustrations on the right laying out the sequential steps involved in this type of generic LCS. ==== Environment ==== The environment is the source of data upon which an LCS learns. It can be an offline, finite training dataset (characteristic of a data mining, classification, or regression problem), or an online sequential stream of live training instances. Each training instance is assumed to include some number of features (also referred to as attributes, or independent variables), and a single endpoint of interest (also referred to as the class, action, phenotype, prediction, or dependent variable). Part of LCS learning can involve feature selection, therefore not all of the features in the training data need to be informative. The set of feature values of an instance is commonly referred to as the state. For simplicity let's assume an example problem domain with Boolean/binary features and a Boolean/binary class. For Michigan-style systems, one instance from the environment is trained on each learning cycle (i.e. incremental learning). Pittsburgh-style systems perform batch learning, where rule sets are evaluated in each iteration over much or all of the training data. ==== Rule/classifier/population ==== A rule is a context dependent relationship between state values and some prediction. Rules typically take the form of an {IF:THEN} expression, (e.g. {IF 'condition' THEN 'action'}, or as a more specific example, {IF 'red' AND 'octagon' THEN 'stop-sign'}). A critical concept in LCS and rule-based machine learning alike, is that an individual rule is not in itself a model, since the rule is only applicable when its condition is satisfied. Think of a rule as a "local-model" of the solution space. Rules can be represented in many different ways to handle different data types (e.g. binary, discrete-valued, ordinal, continuous-valued). Given binary data LCS traditionally applies a ternary rule representation (i.e. rules can include either a 0, 1, or '#' for each feature in the data). The 'don't care' symbol (i.e. '#') serves as a wild card within a rule's condition allowing rules, and the system as a whole to generalize relationships between features and the target endpoint to be predicted. Consider the following rule (#1###0 ~ 1) (i.e. condition ~ action). This rule can be interpreted as: IF the second feature = 1 AND the sixth feature = 0 THEN the class prediction = 1. We would say that the second and sixth features were specified in this rule, while the others were generalized. This rule, and the corresponding prediction are only applicable to an instance when the condition of the rule is satisfied by the instance. This is more commonly referred to as matching. In Michigan-style LCS, each rule has its own fitness, as well as a number of other rule-parameters associated with it that can describe the number of copies of that rule that exist (i.e. the numerosity), the age of the rule, its accuracy, or the accuracy of its reward predictions, and other descriptive or experiential statistics. A rule along with its parameters is often referred to as a classifier. In Michigan-style systems, classifiers are contained within a population [P] that has a user defined maximum number of classifiers. Unlike most stochastic search algorithms (e.g. evolutionary algorithms), LCS populations start out empty (i.e. there is no need to randomly initialize a rule population). Classifiers will instead be initially introduced to the population with a covering mechanism. In any LCS, the trained model is a set of rules/classifiers, rather than any single rule/classifier. In Michigan-style LCS, the entire trained (and optionally, compacted) classifier population forms the prediction model. ==== Matching ==== One of the most critical and often time-consuming elements of an LCS is the matching process. The first step in an LCS learning cycle takes a single training instance from the environment and passes it to [P] where matching takes place. In step two, every rule in [P] is now compared to the training instance to see which rules match (i.e. are contextually relevant to the current instance). In step three, any matching rules are moved to a match set [M]. A rule matches a training instance if all feature values specified in the rule condition are equivalent to the corresponding feature value in the training instance. For example, assuming the training instance is (001001 ~ 0), these rules would match: (###0## ~ 0), (00###1 ~ 0), (#01001 ~ 1), but these rules would not (1##### ~ 0), (000##1 ~ 0), (#0#1#0 ~ 1). Notice that in matching, the endpoint/action specified by the rule is not taken into consideration. As a result, the match set may contain classifiers that propose conflicting actions. In the fourth step, since we are performing supervised learning, [M] is divided into a correct set [C] and an incorrect set [I]. A matching rule goes into the correct set if it proposes the correct action (based on the known action of the training instance), otherwise it goes into [I]. In reinforcement learning LCS, an action set [A] would be formed here instead, since the correct action is not known. ==== Covering ==== At this point in the learning cycle, if no classifiers made it into either [M] or [C] (as would be the case when the population starts off empty), the covering mechanism is applied (fifth step). Covering is a form of online smart population initialization. Covering randomly generates a rule that matches the current training instance (and in the case of supervised learning, that rule is also generated with the correct action. Assuming the training instance is (001001 ~ 0), covering might generate any of the following rules: (#0#0## ~ 0), (001001 ~ 0), (#010## ~ 0). Covering not only ensures that each learning cycle there is at least one correct, matching rule in [C], but that any rule initialized into the population will match at least one training instance. This prevents LCS from exploring the search space of rules that do not match any training instances. ==== Parameter updates/credit assignment/learning ==== In the sixth step, the rule parameters of any rule in [M] are updated to reflect the new experience gained from the current training instance. Depending on the LCS algorithm, a number of updates can take place at this step. For supervised learning, we can simply update the accuracy/error of a
Physical neural network
A physical neural network is a type of artificial neural network in which an electrically adjustable material is used to emulate the function of a neural synapse or a higher-order (dendritic) neuron model. "Physical" neural network is used to emphasize the reliance on physical hardware used to emulate neurons as opposed to software-based approaches. More generally the term is applicable to other artificial neural networks in which a memristor or other electrically adjustable resistance material is used to emulate a neural synapse. == Types of physical neural networks == === ADALINE === In the 1960s Bernard Widrow and Ted Hoff developed ADALINE (Adaptive Linear Neuron) which used electrochemical cells called memistors (memory resistors) to emulate synapses of an artificial neuron. The memistors were implemented as 3-terminal devices operating based on the reversible electroplating of copper such that the resistance between two of the terminals is controlled by the integral of the current applied via the third terminal. The ADALINE circuitry was briefly commercialized by the Memistor Corporation in the 1960s enabling some applications in pattern recognition. However, since the memistors were not fabricated using integrated circuit fabrication techniques the technology was not scalable and was eventually abandoned as solid-state electronics became mature. === Analog VLSI === In 1989 Carver Mead published his book Analog VLSI and Neural Systems, which spun off perhaps the most common variant of analog neural networks. The physical realization is implemented in analog VLSI. This is often implemented as field effect transistors in low inversion. Such devices can be modelled as translinear circuits. This is a technique described by Barrie Gilbert in several papers around mid 1970th, and in particular his Translinear Circuits from 1981. With this method circuits can be analyzed as a set of well-defined functions in steady-state, and such circuits assembled into complex networks. === Physical Neural Network === Alex Nugent describes a physical neural network as one or more nonlinear neuron-like nodes used to sum signals and nanoconnections formed from nanoparticles, nanowires, or nanotubes which determine the signal strength input to the nodes. Alignment or self-assembly of the nanoconnections is determined by the history of the applied electric field performing a function analogous to neural synapses. Numerous applications for such physical neural networks are possible. For example, a temporal summation device can be composed of one or more nanoconnections having an input and an output thereof, wherein an input signal provided to the input causes one or more of the nanoconnection to experience an increase in connection strength thereof over time. Another example of a physical neural network is taught by U.S. Patent No. 7,039,619 entitled "Utilized nanotechnology apparatus using a neural network, a solution and a connection gap," which issued to Alex Nugent by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office on May 2, 2006. A further application of physical neural network is shown in U.S. Patent No. 7,412,428 entitled "Application of hebbian and anti-hebbian learning to nanotechnology-based physical neural networks," which issued on August 12, 2008. Nugent and Molter have shown that universal computing and general-purpose machine learning are possible from operations available through simple memristive circuits operating the AHaH plasticity rule. More recently, it has been argued that also complex networks of purely memristive circuits can serve as neural networks. === Phase change neural network === In 2002, Stanford Ovshinsky described an analog neural computing medium in which phase-change material has the ability to cumulatively respond to multiple input signals. An electrical alteration of the resistance of the phase change material is used to control the weighting of the input signals. === Memristive neural network === Greg Snider of HP Labs describes a system of cortical computing with memristive nanodevices. The memristors (memory resistors) are implemented by thin film materials in which the resistance is electrically tuned via the transport of ions or oxygen vacancies within the film. DARPA's SyNAPSE project has funded IBM Research and HP Labs, in collaboration with the Boston University Department of Cognitive and Neural Systems (CNS), to develop neuromorphic architectures which may be based on memristive systems. === Protonic artificial synapses === In 2022, researchers reported the development of nanoscale brain-inspired artificial synapses, using the ion proton (H+), for 'analog deep learning'.
List of video editing software
The following is a list of video editing software. The criterion for inclusion in this list is the ability to perform non-linear video editing. Most modern transcoding software supports transcoding a portion of a video clip, which would count as cropping and trimming. However, items in this article have one of the following conditions: Can perform other non-linear video editing function such as montage or compositing Can do the trimming or cropping without transcoding == Free (libre) or open-source == The software listed in this section is either free software or open source, and may or may not be commercial. === Active and stable === === Inactive === == Proprietary (non-commercial) == The software listed in this section is proprietary, and freeware or freemium. === Active === === Discontinued === == Proprietary (commercial) == The software listed in this section is proprietary and commercial. === Active === === Discontinued ===
One-shot learning (computer vision)
One-shot learning is an object categorization problem, found mostly in computer vision. Whereas most machine learning-based object categorization algorithms require training on hundreds or thousands of examples, one-shot learning aims to classify objects from one, or only a few, examples. The term few-shot learning is also used for these problems, especially when more than one example is needed. == Motivation == The ability to learn object categories from few examples, and at a rapid pace, has been demonstrated in humans. It is estimated that a child learns almost all of the 10 ~ 30 thousand object categories in the world by age six. This is due not only to the human mind's computational power, but also to its ability to synthesize and learn new object categories from existing information about different, previously learned categories. Given two examples from two object categories: one, an unknown object composed of familiar shapes, the second, an unknown, amorphous shape; it is much easier for humans to recognize the former than the latter, suggesting that humans make use of previously learned categories when learning new ones. The key motivation for solving one-shot learning is that systems, like humans, can use knowledge about object categories to classify new objects. == Background == As with most classification schemes, one-shot learning involves three main challenges: Representation: How should objects and categories be described? Learning: How can such descriptions be created? Recognition: How can a known object be filtered from enveloping clutter, irrespective of occlusion, viewpoint, and lighting? One-shot learning differs from single object recognition and standard category recognition algorithms in its emphasis on knowledge transfer, which makes use of previously learned categories. Model parameters: Reuses model parameters, based on the similarity between old and new categories. Categories are first learned on numerous training examples, then new categories are learned using transformations of model parameters from those initial categories or selecting relevant parameters for a classifier. Feature sharing: Shares parts or features of objects across categories. One algorithm extracts "diagnostic information" in patches from already learned categories by maximizing the patches' mutual information, and then applies these features to the learning of a new category. A dog category, for example, may be learned in one shot from previous knowledge of horse and cow categories, because dog objects may contain similar distinguishing patches. Contextual information: Appeals to global knowledge of the scene in which the object appears. Such global information can be used as frequency distributions in a conditional random field framework to recognize objects. Alternatively context can consider camera height and scene geometry. Algorithms of this type have two advantages. First, they learn object categories that are relatively dissimilar; and second, they perform well in ad hoc situations where an image has not been hand-cropped and aligned. == Theory == The Bayesian one-shot learning algorithm represents the foreground and background of images as parametrized by a mixture of constellation models. During the learning phase, the parameters of these models are learned using a conjugate density parameter posterior and variational Bayesian expectation–maximization (VBEM). In this stage the previously learned object categories inform the choice of model parameters via transfer by contextual information. For object recognition on new images, the posterior obtained during the learning phase is used in a Bayesian decision framework to estimate the ratio of p(object | test, train) to p(background clutter | test, train) where p is the probability of the outcome. === Bayesian framework === Given the task of finding a particular object in a query image, the overall objective of the Bayesian one-shot learning algorithm is to compare the probability that object is present vs the probability that only background clutter is present. If the former probability is higher, the algorithm reports the object's presence, otherwise the algorithm reports its absence. To compute these probabilities, the object class must be modeled from a set of (1 ~ 5) training images containing examples. To formalize these ideas, let I {\displaystyle I} be the query image, which contains either an example of the foreground category O f g {\displaystyle O_{fg}} or only background clutter of a generic background category O b g {\displaystyle O_{bg}} . Also let I t {\displaystyle I_{t}} be the set of training images used as the foreground category. The decision of whether I {\displaystyle I} contains an object from the foreground category, or only clutter from the background category is: R = p ( O f g | I , I t ) p ( O b g | I , I t ) = p ( I | I t , O f g ) p ( O f g ) p ( I | I t , O b g ) p ( O b g ) , {\displaystyle R={\frac {p(O_{fg}|I,I_{t})}{p(O_{bg}|I,I_{t})}}={\frac {p(I|I_{t},O_{fg})p(O_{fg})}{p(I|I_{t},O_{bg})p(O_{bg})}},} where the class posteriors p ( O f g | I , I t ) {\displaystyle p(O_{fg}|I,I_{t})} and p ( O b g | I , I t ) {\displaystyle p(O_{bg}|I,I_{t})} have been expanded by Bayes' theorem, yielding a ratio of likelihoods and a ratio of object category priors. We decide that the image I {\displaystyle I} contains an object from the foreground class if R {\displaystyle R} exceeds a certain threshold T {\displaystyle T} . We next introduce parametric models for the foreground and background categories with parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } and θ b g {\displaystyle \theta _{bg}} respectively. This foreground parametric model is learned during the learning stage from I t {\displaystyle I_{t}} , as well as prior information of learned categories. The background model we assume to be uniform across images. Omitting the constant ratio of category priors, p ( O f g ) p ( O b g ) {\displaystyle {\frac {p(O_{fg})}{p(O_{bg})}}} , and parametrizing over θ {\displaystyle \theta } and θ b g {\displaystyle \theta _{bg}} yields R ∝ ∫ p ( I | θ , O f g ) p ( θ | I t , O f g ) d θ ∫ p ( I | θ b g , O b g ) p ( θ b g | I t , O b g ) d θ b g = ∫ p ( I | θ ) p ( θ | I t , O f g ) d θ ∫ p ( I | θ b g ) p ( θ b g | I t , O b g ) d θ b g {\displaystyle R\propto {\frac {\int {p(I|\theta ,O_{fg})p(\theta |I_{t},O_{fg})}d\theta }{\int {p(I|\theta _{bg},O_{bg})p(\theta _{bg}|I_{t},O_{bg})}d\theta _{bg}}}={\frac {\int {p(I|\theta )p(\theta |I_{t},O_{fg})}d\theta }{\int {p(I|\theta _{bg})p(\theta _{bg}|I_{t},O_{bg})}d\theta _{bg}}}} , having simplified p ( I | θ , O f g ) {\displaystyle p(I|\theta ,O_{fg})} and p ( I | θ , O b g ) {\displaystyle p(I|\theta ,O_{bg})} to p ( I | θ f g ) {\displaystyle p(I|\theta _{fg})} and p ( I | θ b g ) . {\displaystyle p(I|\theta _{bg}).} The posterior distribution of model parameters given the training images, p ( θ | I t , O f g ) {\displaystyle p(\theta |I_{t},O_{fg})} is estimated in the learning phase. In this estimation, one-shot learning differs sharply from more traditional Bayesian estimation models that approximate the integral as δ ( θ M L ) {\displaystyle \delta (\theta ^{ML})} . Instead, it uses a variational approach using prior information from previously learned categories. However, the traditional maximum likelihood estimation of the model parameters is used for the background model and the categories learned in advance through training. === Object category model === For each query image I {\displaystyle I} and training images I t {\displaystyle I_{t}} , a constellation model is used for representation. To obtain this model for a given image I {\displaystyle I} , first a set of N interesting regions is detected in the image using the Kadir–Brady saliency detector. Each region selected is represented by a location in the image, X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} and a description of its appearance, A i {\displaystyle A_{i}} . Letting X = ∑ i = 1 N X i , A = ∑ i = 1 N A i {\displaystyle X=\sum _{i=1}^{N}X_{i},A=\sum _{i=1}^{N}A_{i}} and X t {\displaystyle X_{t}} and A t {\displaystyle A_{t}} the analogous representations for training images, the expression for R becomes: R ∝ ∫ p ( X , A | θ , O f g ) p ( θ | X t , A t , O f g ) d θ ∫ p ( X , A | θ b g , O b g ) p ( θ b g | X t , A t , O b g ) d θ b g = ∫ p ( X , A | θ ) p ( θ | X t , A t , O f g ) d θ ∫ p ( X , A | θ b g ) p ( θ b g | X t , A t , O b g ) d θ b g {\displaystyle R\propto {\frac {\int {p(X,A|\theta ,O_{fg})p(\theta |X_{t},A_{t},O_{fg})}d\theta }{\int {p(X,A|\theta _{bg},O_{bg})p(\theta _{bg}|X_{t},A_{t},O_{bg})}d\theta _{bg}}}={\frac {\int {p(X,A|\theta )p(\theta |X_{t},A_{t},O_{fg})}d\theta }{\int {p(X,A|\theta _{bg})p(\theta _{bg}|X_{t},A_{t},O_{bg})}\,d\theta _{bg}}}} The likelihoods p ( X , A | θ ) {\displaystyle p(X,A|\theta )} and p ( X , A | θ b g ) {\displaystyle p(X,A|\theta _{bg})} are represented as mixtures of constellation models. A typical constellation model has