Neural operators are a class of deep learning architectures designed to learn maps between infinite-dimensional function spaces. Neural operators represent an extension of traditional artificial neural networks, marking a departure from the typical focus on learning mappings between finite-dimensional Euclidean spaces or finite sets. Neural operators directly learn operators between function spaces; they can receive input functions, and the output function can be evaluated at any discretization. The primary application of neural operators is in learning surrogate maps for the solution operators of partial differential equations (PDEs), which are critical tools in modeling the natural environment. Standard PDE solvers can be time-consuming and computationally intensive, especially for complex systems. Neural operators have demonstrated improved performance in solving PDEs compared to existing machine learning methodologies while being significantly faster than numerical solvers. Neural operators have also been applied to various scientific and engineering disciplines such as turbulent flow modeling, computational mechanics, graph-structured data, and the geosciences. In particular, they have been applied to learning stress-strain fields in materials, classifying complex data like spatial transcriptomics, predicting multiphase flow in porous media, and carbon dioxide migration simulations. Finally, the operator learning paradigm allows learning maps between function spaces, and is different from parallel ideas of learning maps from finite-dimensional spaces to function spaces, and subsumes these settings as special cases when limited to a fixed input resolution. == Operator learning == Understanding and mapping relationships between function spaces has many applications in engineering and the sciences. In particular, one can cast the problem of solving partial differential equations as identifying a map between function spaces, such as from an initial condition to a time-evolved state. In other PDEs this map takes an input coefficient function and outputs a solution function. Operator learning is a machine learning paradigm to learn solution operators mapping the input function to the output function . Using traditional machine learning methods, addressing this problem would involve discretizing the infinite-dimensional input and output function spaces into finite-dimensional grids and applying standard learning models, such as neural networks. This approach reduces the operator learning to finite-dimensional function learning and has some limitations, such as generalizing to discretizations beyond the grid used in training. The primary properties of neural operators that differentiate them from traditional neural networks is discretization invariance and discretization convergence. Unlike conventional neural networks, which are fixed on the discretization of training data, neural operators can adapt to various discretizations without re-training. This property improves the robustness and applicability of neural operators in different scenarios, providing consistent performance across different resolutions and grids. == Definition and formulation == Architecturally, neural operators are similar to feed-forward neural networks in the sense that they are composed of alternating linear maps and non-linearities. Since neural operators act on and output functions, neural operators have been instead formulated as a sequence of alternating linear integral operators on function spaces and point-wise non-linearities. Using an analogous architecture to finite-dimensional neural networks, similar universal approximation theorems have been proven for neural operators. In particular, it has been shown that neural operators can approximate any continuous operator on a compact set. Neural operators seek to approximate some operator G : A → U {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}:{\mathcal {A}}\to {\mathcal {U}}} between function spaces A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} and U {\displaystyle {\mathcal {U}}} by building a parametric map G ϕ : A → U {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}_{\phi }:{\mathcal {A}}\to {\mathcal {U}}} . Such parametric maps G ϕ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}_{\phi }} can generally be defined in the form G ϕ := Q ∘ σ ( W T + K T + b T ) ∘ ⋯ ∘ σ ( W 1 + K 1 + b 1 ) ∘ P , {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}_{\phi }:={\mathcal {Q}}\circ \sigma (W_{T}+{\mathcal {K}}_{T}+b_{T})\circ \cdots \circ \sigma (W_{1}+{\mathcal {K}}_{1}+b_{1})\circ {\mathcal {P}},} where P , Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}},{\mathcal {Q}}} are the lifting (lifting the codomain of the input function to a higher dimensional space) and projection (projecting the codomain of the intermediate function to the output dimension) operators, respectively. These operators act pointwise on functions and are typically parametrized as multilayer perceptrons. σ {\displaystyle \sigma } is a pointwise nonlinearity, such as a rectified linear unit (ReLU), or a Gaussian error linear unit (GeLU). Each layer t = 1 , … , T {\displaystyle t=1,\dots ,T} has a respective local operator W t {\displaystyle W_{t}} (usually parameterized by a pointwise neural network), a kernel integral operator K t {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{t}} , and a bias function b t {\displaystyle b_{t}} . Given some intermediate functional representation v t {\displaystyle v_{t}} with domain D {\displaystyle D} in the t {\displaystyle t} -th hidden layer, a kernel integral operator K ϕ {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{\phi }} is defined as ( K ϕ v t ) ( x ) := ∫ D κ ϕ ( x , y , v t ( x ) , v t ( y ) ) v t ( y ) d y , {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {K}}_{\phi }v_{t})(x):=\int _{D}\kappa _{\phi }(x,y,v_{t}(x),v_{t}(y))v_{t}(y)dy,} where the kernel κ ϕ {\displaystyle \kappa _{\phi }} is a learnable implicit neural network, parametrized by ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . In practice, one is often given the input function to the neural operator at a specific resolution. For instance, consider the setting where one is given the evaluation of v t {\displaystyle v_{t}} at n {\displaystyle n} points { y j } j n {\displaystyle \{y_{j}\}_{j}^{n}} . Borrowing from Nyström integral approximation methods such as Riemann sum integration and Gaussian quadrature, the above integral operation can be computed as follows: ∫ D κ ϕ ( x , y , v t ( x ) , v t ( y ) ) v t ( y ) d y ≈ ∑ j n κ ϕ ( x , y j , v t ( x ) , v t ( y j ) ) v t ( y j ) Δ y j , {\displaystyle \int _{D}\kappa _{\phi }(x,y,v_{t}(x),v_{t}(y))v_{t}(y)dy\approx \sum _{j}^{n}\kappa _{\phi }(x,y_{j},v_{t}(x),v_{t}(y_{j}))v_{t}(y_{j})\Delta _{y_{j}},} where Δ y j {\displaystyle \Delta _{y_{j}}} is the sub-area volume or quadrature weight associated to the point y j {\displaystyle y_{j}} . Thus, a simplified layer can be computed as v t + 1 ( x ) ≈ σ ( ∑ j n κ ϕ ( x , y j , v t ( x ) , v t ( y j ) ) v t ( y j ) Δ y j + W t ( v t ( y j ) ) + b t ( x ) ) . {\displaystyle v_{t+1}(x)\approx \sigma \left(\sum _{j}^{n}\kappa _{\phi }(x,y_{j},v_{t}(x),v_{t}(y_{j}))v_{t}(y_{j})\Delta _{y_{j}}+W_{t}(v_{t}(y_{j}))+b_{t}(x)\right).} The above approximation, along with parametrizing κ ϕ {\displaystyle \kappa _{\phi }} as an implicit neural network, results in the graph neural operator (GNO). There have been various parameterizations of neural operators for different applications. These typically differ in their parameterization of κ {\displaystyle \kappa } . The most popular instantiation is the Fourier neural operator (FNO). FNO takes κ ϕ ( x , y , v t ( x ) , v t ( y ) ) := κ ϕ ( x − y ) {\displaystyle \kappa _{\phi }(x,y,v_{t}(x),v_{t}(y)):=\kappa _{\phi }(x-y)} and by applying the convolution theorem, arrives at the following parameterization of the kernel integral operator: ( K ϕ v t ) ( x ) = F − 1 ( R ϕ ⋅ ( F v t ) ) ( x ) , {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {K}}_{\phi }v_{t})(x)={\mathcal {F}}^{-1}(R_{\phi }\cdot ({\mathcal {F}}v_{t}))(x),} where F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} represents the Fourier transform and R ϕ {\displaystyle R_{\phi }} represents the Fourier transform of some periodic function κ ϕ {\displaystyle \kappa _{\phi }} . That is, FNO parameterizes the kernel integration directly in Fourier space, using a prescribed number of Fourier modes. When the grid at which the input function is presented is uniform, the Fourier transform can be approximated using the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) with frequencies below some specified threshold. The discrete Fourier transform can be computed using a fast Fourier transform (FFT) implementation. == Training == Training neural operators is similar to the training process for a traditional neural network. Neural operators are typically trained in some Lp norm or Sobolev norm. In particular, for a dataset { ( a i , u i ) } i = 1 N {\displaystyle \{(a_{i},u_{i})\}_{i=1}^{N}} of size N {\displaystyle N} , neural operators minimize (a discretization of) L U ( { ( a i , u i ) } i = 1 N ) := ∑ i = 1 N ‖ u i − G θ ( a i ) ‖ U 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}_{\mathca
Aarogya Setu
Aarogya Setu (lit. 'The bridge to health') is an Indian COVID-19 "contact tracing, syndromic mapping and self-assessment" digital service, primarily a mobile app, developed by the National Informatics Centre under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). The app reached more than 100 million installs in 40 days. On 26 May, amid growing privacy and security concerns, the source code of the app was made public. == Full view == The stated purpose of this app is to spread awareness of COVID-19 and to connect essential COVID-19-related health services to the people of India. This app augments the initiatives of the Department of Health to contain COVID-19 and shares best practices and advisories. It is a tracking app which uses the smartphone's GPS and Bluetooth features to track COVID-19 cases. The app is available for Android and iOS mobile operating systems. With Bluetooth, it tries to determine the risk if one has been near (within six feet of) a COVID-19-infected person, by scanning through a database of known cases across India. Using location information, it determines whether the location one is in belongs to one of the infected areas based on the data available. This app is an updated version of an earlier app called Corona Kavach (now discontinued) which was released earlier by the Government of India. == Features and tools == Aarogya Setu has four sections: User Status (tells the risk of getting COVID-19 for the user) Self Assess (helps the users identify COVID-19 symptoms and their risk profile) COVID-19 Updates (gives updates on local and national COVID-19 cases) E-pass integration (if applied for E-pass, it will be available) See Recent Contacts option (allows the users to assess the risk level of their Bluetooth contacts) It tells how many COVID-19 positive cases are likely in a radius of 500 m, 1 km, 2 km, 5 km and 10 km from the user. The app is built on a platform that can provide an application programming interface (API) so that other computer programs, mobile applications, and web services can make use of the features and data available in Aarogya Setu. == Response == Aarogya Setu crossed five million downloads within three days of its launch, making it one of the most popular government apps in India. It became the world's fastest-growing mobile app, beating Pokémon Go, with more than 50 million installs 13 days after launching in India on 2 April 2020. It reached 100 million installs by 13 May 2020, that is in 40 days since its launch. In an order on 29 April 2020 the central government made it mandatory for all employees to download the app and use it – "Before starting for office, they must review their status on Aarogya Setu and commute only when the app shows safe or low risk". The Union Home Ministry also said that the application is mandatory for all living in the COVID-19 containment zone. The government gave the announcement along with the nationwide lockdown extension by two weeks from the 4 May with certain relaxations. On 21 May 2020, the Airport Authority of India issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) stating that all departing passengers must compulsorily be registered with the Aarogya Setu app. It added that the app would not be mandatory for children below 14 years. However, the next day, Civil Aviation Minister Hardeep Singh Puri clarified that the app would not be mandatory for any passengers. On 26 May 2020, the Aarogya Setu app code was made open to developers across the globe to help other countries manage contact tracing in their fight against COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2021, Co-WIN portal was integrated with the app. This allowed users to schedule an appointment through the app for COVID-19 vaccine by registering their phone number and providing relevant documents. == Effectiveness == NITI Aayog CEO revealed that "the app has been able to identify more than 3,000 hotspots in 3–17 days ahead of time." However, users and experts in India and around the world say the app raises huge data security concerns. The app collects name, number, gender, travel history, and uses a phone's Bluetooth and location data to let users know if they have been near a person with COVID-19 by scanning a database of known cases of infection, and also share it with the government simultaneously. This is the major area of concern as the app's constant access to a phone's Bluetooth imposes a form of security threat. But it stood to clarify itself that the informations received are not going to be made public. Amidst all these, the app hits a record of about one-hundred million downloads. == Reception == Rahul Gandhi, leader of the Congress party, termed the Aarogya Setu application a "sophisticated surveillance system" after the government announced that downloading the app would be mandatory for both government and private employees. Following this, others raised the same concerns about the Aarogya Setu app. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) responded to these concerns by asserting that Gandhi's claims were false, and that the app was being appreciated internationally. On 5 May, French ethical hacker Robert Baptiste, who goes by the name Elliot Alderson on Twitter, claimed that there were security issues with the app. The Indian government, as well as the app developers, responded to this claim by thanking the hacker for his attention, but dismissed his concerns. The developers of the app stated that the fetching of location data is a documented feature of the app, rather than a flaw, since the app is designed to track the distribution of the virus-infected population. They also asserted that no personal information of any user has been proven to be at risk. On 6 May, Robert Baptiste tweeted that security vulnerabilities in Aarogya Setu allowed hackers to "know who is infected, unwell, [or] made a self assessment in the area of his choice". He also gave details of how many people were unwell and infected at the Prime Minister's Office, the Indian Parliament and the Home Office. The Economic Times pointed out that a clause in the app's Terms and Conditions stated that the user "agrees and acknowledges that the Government of India will not be liable for ... any unauthorised access to your information or modification thereof". In response, several software developers called for the source code to be made public. On 12 May, former Supreme Court Judge Justice B.N. Srikrishna termed the government's push mandating the use of Aarogya Setu app "utterly illegal". He said so far it is not backed by any law and questioned "under what law, government is mandating it on anyone". MIT Technology Review gave 2 out of 5 stars to Aarogya Setu app after analyzing the COVID contact tracing apps launched in 25 countries. The app got stars only for the policy which suggests that data collected is deleted after a period of time and that the data collection, as far as user inputs go, is minimal. It also highlighted that India is the only democracy making its app mandatory for millions of people. The rating was further downgraded from 2 to 1 for collecting more information than the app needs to function. Following this, the MeitY made the source code of the Android app public on GitHub on 26 May, which will be followed by iOS and API documentation. Further, the Government has also launched a "bug bounty program". This was done to "promote transparency and ensure security and integrity of the app". However, experts stated that the server-side code had not yet been publicly released, which meant that public opinion on security and privacy was yet to be completely assuaged. Following this, ZDNet noted that the source code seemed to confirm the government's claim that user location data, if collected, would be anonymised and would be deleted after 45 days, or 60 days for high-risk individuals.
Just This Once
Just This Once is a 1993 romance novel written in the style of Jacqueline Susann by a Macintosh IIcx computer named "Hal" in collaboration with its programmer, Scott French. French reportedly spent $40,000 and 8 years developing an artificial intelligence program to analyze Susann's works and attempt to create a novel that Susann might have written. A legal dispute between the estate of Jacqueline Susann and the publisher resulted in a settlement to split the profits, and the book was referenced in several legal journal articles about copyright laws. The book had two small print runs totaling 35,000 copies, receiving mixed reviews. == Creation == The novel's creation spanned the fields of artificial intelligence, expert systems, and natural language processing. Scott French first scanned and analyzed portions of two books by Jacqueline Susann, Valley of the Dolls and Once Is Not Enough, to determine constituents of Susann's writing style, which French stated was the most difficult task. This analysis extracted several hundred components including frequency and type of sexual acts and sentence structure. "Once you're there, the writer's style emerges, part of her actual personality comes out, and the computer can be programmed to make a story." French also created several thousand rules to govern tone, plotting, scenes, and characters. The text generated by Hal, the computer, was intended to mimic what Susann might have written, although the output required significant editing. French credits Hal's work with "almost 100% of the plot, 100% of the theme and style." French estimates that he wrote 10% of the prose, the computer Hal wrote about 25% of the prose, and the remaining two-thirds was more of a collaboration between the two. A typical scenario to write a scene would involve Hal asking questions that French would answer (for example, Hal might ask about the "cattiness factor" involved in a meeting between two key female characters, and French would reply with a range of 1 to 10), and the computer would then generate a few sentences to which French would make minor edits. The process would repeat for the next few sentences until the scene was written. == Legal issues == Jacqueline Susann's publisher was skeptical of the legality of Just This Once, although French doubted that an author's thought processes could be copyrighted. Susann's estate reportedly threatened to sue Scott French but the parties settled out of court; the settlement involved splitting profits between the parties but the terms of the settlement were not disclosed. The publication of Just This Once raised questions in the legal profession concerning how copyright law applies to computer-generated works derived from an analysis of other copyrighted works, and whether the generation of such works infringes on copyright. The publications on this topic suggested that the copyright laws of the time were ill-equipped to deal with computer-generated creative works. == Reception == The book's publisher Steven Shragis of Carol Group said of the novel, "I'm not going to say this is a great literary work, but it's every bit as good as anything out in this field, and better than an awful lot." The novel received some positive early reviews. In USA Today, novelist Thomas Gifford compared Just This Once to another novel in the same genre, American Star by Jackie Collins. Gifford concluded: "If you do like this stuff, you'd be much, much better off with the one written by the computer." The Dead Jackie Susann Quarterly declared that Susann "would be proud. Lots of money, sleaze, disease, death, oral sex, tragedy and the good girl gone bad." Other reviews were mixed. Publishers Weekly wrote, "If the books of Jacqueline Susann and Harold Robbins seem formulaic, this debut novel of sin and success in Las Vegas outdoes them all. And that, in a way, is the point.... All novelty rests in the conceit of computer authorship, not in the story itself." Library Journal stated "French invested eight years and $50,000 in a scheme to use artificial intelligence to fulfill his authentic, if dubious, desire to generate a trashy novel a la Jacqueline Susann. Shallow, beautiful-people characters are flatly conceived and randomly accessed in a formulaic plot ... a sexy, boring morality tale. Of possible interest to computer buffs for its use of Expert Systems and the virtual promise of more worthy possibilities; others should read Susann." Kirkus Reviews wrote: "The deal here is that author French is not the author, he's just the midwife, having allegedly programmed his computer to write about our times just the way Susann would... almost perfectly capturing glamorous Jackie's turgid but E-Z reading prose style and ultrareliable mix of sex, glitz, dope 'n' despair.... One wonders, though, if French's tale spinning PC will do as well on the talkshows as Jackie did. The computer weenies have been trying to tell us for years, garbage in-garbage out."
Legal information retrieval
Legal information retrieval is the science of information retrieval applied to legal text, including legislation, case law, and scholarly works. Accurate legal information retrieval is important to provide access to the law to laymen and legal professionals. Its importance has increased because of the vast and quickly increasing amount of legal documents available through electronic means. Legal information retrieval is a part of the growing field of legal informatics. In a legal setting, it is frequently important to retrieve all information related to a specific query. However, commonly used boolean search methods (exact matches of specified terms) on full text legal documents have been shown to have an average recall rate as low as 20 percent, meaning that only 1 in 5 relevant documents are actually retrieved. In that case, researchers believed that they had retrieved over 75% of relevant documents. This may result in failing to retrieve important or precedential cases. In some jurisdictions this may be especially problematic, as legal professionals are ethically obligated to be reasonably informed as to relevant legal documents. Legal Information Retrieval attempts to increase the effectiveness of legal searches by increasing the number of relevant documents (providing a high recall rate) and reducing the number of irrelevant documents (a high precision rate). This is a difficult task, as the legal field is prone to jargon, polysemes (words that have different meanings when used in a legal context), and constant change. Techniques used to achieve these goals generally fall into three categories: boolean retrieval, manual classification of legal text, and natural language processing of legal text. == Problems == Application of standard information retrieval techniques to legal text can be more difficult than application in other subjects. One key problem is that the law rarely has an inherent taxonomy. Instead, the law is generally filled with open-ended terms, which may change over time. This can be especially true in common law countries, where each decided case can subtly change the meaning of a certain word or phrase. Legal information systems must also be programmed to deal with law-specific words and phrases. Though this is less problematic in the context of words which exist solely in law, legal texts also frequently use polysemes, words may have different meanings when used in a legal or common-speech manner, potentially both within the same document. The legal meanings may be dependent on the area of law in which it is applied. For example, in the context of European Union legislation, the term "worker" has four different meanings: Any worker as defined in Article 3(a) of Directive 89/391/EEC who habitually uses display screen equipment as a significant part of his normal work. Any person employed by an employer, including trainees and apprentices but excluding domestic servants; Any person carrying out an occupation on board a vessel, including trainees and apprentices, but excluding port pilots and shore personnel carrying out work on board a vessel at the quayside; Any person who, in the Member State concerned, is protected as an employee under national employment law and in accordance with national practice; It also has the common meaning: A person who works at a specific occupation. Though the terms may be similar, correct information retrieval must differentiate between the intended use and irrelevant uses in order to return the correct results. Even if a system overcomes the language problems inherent in law, it must still determine the relevancy of each result. In the context of judicial decisions, this requires determining the precedential value of the case. Case decisions from senior or superior courts may be more relevant than those from lower courts, even where the lower court's decision contains more discussion of the relevant facts. The opposite may be true, however, if the senior court has only a minor discussion of the topic (for example, if it is a secondary consideration in the case). An information retrieval system must also be aware of the authority of the jurisdiction. A case from a binding authority is most likely of more value than one from a non-binding authority. Additionally, the intentions of the user may determine which cases they find valuable. For instance, where a legal professional is attempting to argue a specific interpretation of law, he might find a minor court's decision which supports his position more valuable than a senior courts position which does not. He may also value similar positions from different areas of law, different jurisdictions, or dissenting opinions. Overcoming these problems can be made more difficult because of the large number of cases available. The number of legal cases available via electronic means is constantly increasing (in 2003, US appellate courts handed down approximately 500 new cases per day), meaning that an accurate legal information retrieval system must incorporate methods of both sorting past data and managing new data. == Techniques == === Boolean searches === Boolean searches, where a user may specify terms such as use of specific words or judgments by a specific court, are the most common type of search available via legal information retrieval systems. They are widely implemented but overcome few of the problems discussed above. The recall and precision rates of these searches vary depending on the implementation and searches analyzed. One study found a basic boolean search's recall rate to be roughly 20%, and its precision rate to be roughly 79%. Another study implemented a generic search (that is, not designed for legal uses) and found a recall rate of 56% and a precision rate of 72% among legal professionals. Both numbers increased when searches were run by non-legal professionals, to a 68% recall rate and 77% precision rate. This is likely explained because of the use of complex legal terms by the legal professionals. === Manual classification === In order to overcome the limits of basic boolean searches, information systems have attempted to classify case laws and statutes into more computer friendly structures. Usually, this results in the creation of an ontology to classify the texts, based on the way a legal professional might think about them. These attempt to link texts on the basis of their type, their value, and/or their topic areas. Most major legal search providers now implement some sort of classification search, such as Westlaw's “Natural Language” or LexisNexis' Headnote searches. Additionally, both of these services allow browsing of their classifications, via Westlaw's West Key Numbers or Lexis' Headnotes. Though these two search algorithms are proprietary and secret, it is known that they employ manual classification of text (though this may be computer-assisted). These systems can help overcome the majority of problems inherent in legal information retrieval systems, in that manual classification has the greatest chances of identifying landmark cases and understanding the issues that arise in the text. In one study, ontological searching resulted in a precision rate of 82% and a recall rate of 97% among legal professionals. The legal texts included, however, were carefully controlled to just a few areas of law in a specific jurisdiction. The major drawback to this approach is the requirement of using highly skilled legal professionals and large amounts of time to classify texts. As the amount of text available continues to increase, some have stated their belief that manual classification is unsustainable. === Natural language processing === In order to reduce the reliance on legal professionals and the amount of time needed, efforts have been made to create a system to automatically classify legal text and queries. Adequate translation of both would allow accurate information retrieval without the high cost of human classification. These automatic systems generally employ Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques that are adapted to the legal domain, and also require the creation of a legal ontology. Though multiple systems have been postulated, few have reported results. One system, “SMILE,” which attempted to automatically extract classifications from case texts, resulted in an f-measure (which is a calculation of both recall rate and precision) of under 0.3 (compared to perfect f-measure of 1.0). This is probably much lower than an acceptable rate for general usage. Despite the limited results, many theorists predict that the evolution of such systems will eventually replace manual classification systems. === Citation-Based ranking === In the mid-90s the Room 5 case law retrieval project used citation mining for summaries and ranked its search results based on citation type and count. This slightly pre-dated the PageRank algorithm at Stanford which was also a citation-based ranking. Ranking of results was based
Apache OpenNLP
The Apache OpenNLP library is a machine learning based toolkit for the processing of natural language text. It supports the most common NLP tasks, such as language detection, tokenization, sentence segmentation, part-of-speech tagging, named entity extraction, chunking, parsing and coreference resolution. These tasks are usually required to build more advanced text processing services.
Region Based Convolutional Neural Networks
Region-based Convolutional Neural Networks (R-CNN) are a family of machine learning models for computer vision, and specifically object detection and localization. The original goal of R-CNN was to take an input image and produce a set of bounding boxes as output, where each bounding box contains an object and also the category (e.g. car or pedestrian) of the object. In general, R-CNN architectures perform selective search over feature maps outputted by a CNN. R-CNN has been extended to perform other computer vision tasks, such as: tracking objects from a drone-mounted camera, locating text in an image, and enabling object detection in Google Lens. Mask R-CNN is also one of seven tasks in the MLPerf Training Benchmark, which is a competition to speed up the training of neural networks. == History == The following covers some of the versions of R-CNN that have been developed. November 2013: R-CNN. April 2015: Fast R-CNN. June 2015: Faster R-CNN. March 2017: Mask R-CNN. December 2017: Cascade R-CNN is trained with increasing Intersection over Union (IoU, also known as the Jaccard index) thresholds, making each stage more selective against nearby false positives. June 2019: Mesh R-CNN adds the ability to generate a 3D mesh from a 2D image. == Architecture == For review articles see. === Selective search === Given an image (or an image-like feature map), selective search (also called Hierarchical Grouping) first segments the image by the algorithm in (Felzenszwalb and Huttenlocher, 2004), then performs the following: Input: (colour) image Output: Set of object location hypotheses L Segment image into initial regions R = {r1, ..., rn} using Felzenszwalb and Huttenlocher (2004) Initialise similarity set S = ∅ foreach Neighbouring region pair (ri, rj) do Calculate similarity s(ri, rj) S = S ∪ s(ri, rj) while S ≠ ∅ do Get highest similarity s(ri, rj) = max(S) Merge corresponding regions rt = ri ∪ rj Remove similarities regarding ri: S = S \ s(ri, r∗) Remove similarities regarding rj: S = S \ s(r∗, rj) Calculate similarity set St between rt and its neighbours S = S ∪ St R = R ∪ rt Extract object location boxes L from all regions in R === R-CNN === With R-CNN, prediction follows a two-step process. A preprocessing selective search step generates a large set of candidate objects (typically as many as 2000), known as regions of interest (ROI). These are forwarded to a CNN, which predicts an object class score and bounding box estimate, independently for each ROI. Importantly, the ROIs are heavily filtered to remove excess candidates. This is achieved using two mechanism. Filtering begins by removing ROIs assigned to the background category. This is a specialized category, which is scored by the CNN alongside other categories. An unfortunate reality is that remaining ROIs typically suffer from heavy duplication. Namely, multiple ROIs that cover same objects in the image are all assigned non-background categories. This is resolved by a heuristic non-maximum suppression (NMS) step. === Fast R-CNN === While the original R-CNN independently computed the neural network features on each of as many as two thousand regions of interest, Fast R-CNN runs the neural network once on the whole image. At the end of the network is a ROIPooling module, which slices out each ROI from the network's output tensor, reshapes it, and classifies it. As in the original R-CNN, the Fast R-CNN uses selective search to generate its region proposals. === Faster R-CNN === While Fast R-CNN used selective search to generate ROIs, Faster R-CNN integrates the ROI generation into the neural network itself. === Mask R-CNN === While previous versions of R-CNN focused on object detections, Mask R-CNN adds instance segmentation. Mask R-CNN also replaced ROIPooling with a new method called ROIAlign, which can represent fractions of a pixel.
Facial age estimation
Facial age estimation is the use of artificial intelligence to estimate the age of a person based on their facial features. Computer vision techniques are used to analyse the facial features in the images of millions of people whose age is known and then deep learning is used to create an algorithm that tries to predict the age of an unknown person. The key use of the technology is to prevent access to age-restricted goods and services. Examples include restricting children from accessing internet pornography, checking that they meet a mandatory minimum age when registering for an account on social media, or preventing adults from accessing websites, online chat or games designed only for use by children. The technology is distinct from facial recognition systems as the software does not attempt to uniquely identify the individual. Researchers have applied neural networks for age estimation since at least 2010. == Evaluation == An ongoing study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) entitled 'Face Analysis Technology Evaluation' seeks to establish the technical performance of prototype age estimation algorithms submitted by academic teams and software vendors including Brno University of Technology, Czech Technical University in Prague, Dermalog, IDEMIA, Incode Technologies Inc, Jumio, Nominder, Rank One Computing, Unissey and Yoti. == Public sector use == The UK government has explored using facial age estimation at the UK border as an alternative to bone X-rays and MRI scans when determining child status of asylum seekers. == Commercial use == Commercial users of facial age estimation include Instagram and OnlyFans. In January 2025, John Lewis & Partners announced that had started using the technology to check the age of people shopping for knives on its website, to comply with UK legislation to limit knife crime. In the UK, several supermarket chains have taken part in Home Office trials of the technology to automate the checking of a customer's age when buying age-restricted goods such as alcohol. UK legislation introduced in January 2025 mandates robust forms of age verification hosting adult content viewable in the UK by July 2025. Allowable methods include facial age estimation. == Criticism == Adam Schwartz, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, criticized the use of facial age estimation software, noting its inaccuracy especially in cases of minorities and women, as was found in NIST's 2024 report. Twenty organisations jointly under European Digital Rights called the practice a "systematic and invasive processing of young people's data" that risks discriminatory profiling.