Color normalization is a topic in computer vision concerned with artificial color vision and object recognition. In general, the distribution of color values in an image depends on the illumination, which may vary depending on lighting conditions, cameras, and other factors. Color normalization allows for object recognition techniques based on color to compensate for these variations. == Main concepts == === Color constancy === Color constancy is a feature of the human internal model of perception, which provides humans with the ability to assign a relatively constant color to objects even under different illumination conditions. This is helpful for object recognition as well as identification of light sources in an environment. For example, humans see an object approximately as the same color when the sun is bright or when the sun is dim. === Applications === Color normalization has been used for object recognition on color images in the field of robotics, bioinformatics and general artificial intelligence, when it is important to remove all intensity values from the image while preserving color values. One example is in case of a scene shot by a surveillance camera over the day, where it is important to remove shadows or lighting changes on same color pixels and recognize the people that passed. Another example is automated screening tools used for the detection of diabetic retinopathy as well as molecular diagnosis of cancer states, where it is important to include color information during classification. == Known issues == The main issue about certain applications of color normalization is that the result looks unnatural or too distant from the original colors. In cases where there is a subtle variation between important aspects, this can be problematic. More specifically, the side effect can be that pixels become divergent and not reflect the actual color value of the image. A way of combating this issue is to use color normalization in combination with thresholding to correctly and consistently segment a colored image. == Transformations and algorithms == There is a vast array of different transformations and algorithms for achieving color normalization and a limited list is presented here. The performance of an algorithm is dependent on the task and one algorithm which performs better than another in one task might perform worse in another (no free lunch theorem). Additionally, the choice of the algorithm depends on the preferences of the user for the end-result, e.g. they may want a more natural-looking color image. === Grey world === The grey world normalization makes the assumption that changes in the lighting spectrum can be modelled by three constant factors applied to the red, green and blue channels of color. More specifically, a change in illuminated color can be modelled as a scaling α, β and γ in the R, G and B color channels and as such the grey world algorithm is invariant to illumination color variations. Therefore, a constancy solution can be achieved by dividing each color channel by its average value as shown in the following formula: ( α R , β G , γ B ) → ( α R α n ∑ i R , β G β n ∑ i G , γ B γ n ∑ i B ) {\displaystyle \left(\alpha R,\beta G,\gamma B\right)\rightarrow \left({\frac {\alpha R}{{\frac {\alpha }{n}}\sum _{i}R}},{\frac {\beta G}{{\frac {\beta }{n}}\sum _{i}G}},{\frac {\gamma B}{{\frac {\gamma }{n}}\sum _{i}B}}\right)} As mentioned above, grey world color normalization is invariant to illuminated color variations α, β and γ, however it has one important problem: it does not account for all variations of illumination intensity and it is not dynamic; when new objects appear in the scene it fails. To solve this problem there are several variants of the grey world algorithm. Additionally there is an iterative variation of the grey world normalization, however it was not found to perform significantly better. === Histogram equalization === Histogram equalization is a non-linear transform which maintains pixel rank and is capable of normalizing for any monotonically increasing color transform function. It is considered to be a more powerful normalization transformation than the grey world method. The results of histogram equalization tend to have an exaggerated blue channel and look unnatural, due to the fact that in most images the distribution of the pixel values is usually more similar to a Gaussian distribution, rather than uniform. === Histogram specification === Histogram specification transforms the red, green and blue histograms to match the shapes of three specific histograms, rather than simply equalizing them. It refers to a class of image transforms which aims to obtain images of which the histograms have a desired shape. As specified, firstly it is necessary to convert the image so that it has a particular histogram. Assume an image x. The following formula is the equalization transform of this image: y = f ( x ) = ∫ 0 x p x ( u ) d u {\displaystyle y=f(x)=\int \limits _{0}^{x}p_{x}(u)du} Then assume wanted image z. The equalization transform of this image is: y ′ = g ( z ) = ∫ 0 z p z ( u ) d u {\displaystyle y'=g(z)=\int \limits _{0}^{z}p_{z}(u)du} Of course p z ( u ) {\displaystyle p_{z}(u)} is the histogram of the output image. The formula to find the inverse of the above transform is: z = g − 1 ( y ′ ) {\displaystyle z=g^{-1}(y')} Therefore, since images y and y' have the same equalized histogram they are actually the same image, meaning y = y' and the transform from the given image x to the wanted image z is: z = g − 1 ( y ′ ) = g − 1 ( y ) = g − 1 ( f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle z=g^{-1}(y')=g^{-1}(y)=g^{-1}(f(x))} Histogram specification has the advantage of producing more realistic looking images, as it does not exaggerate the blue channel like histogram equalization. === Comprehensive Color Normalization === The comprehensive color normalization is shown to increase localization and object classification results in combination with color indexing. It is an iterative algorithm which works in two stages. The first stage is to use the red, green and blue color space with the intensity normalized, to normalize each pixel. The second stage is to normalize each color channel separately, so that the sum of the color components is equal to one third of the number of pixels. The iterations continue until convergence, meaning no additional changes. Formally: Normalize the color image f ( t ) = [ f i j ( t ) ] i = 1... N , j = 1... M {\displaystyle f^{(t)}=[f_{ij}^{(t)}]_{i=1...N,j=1...M}} which consists of color vectors f i j ( t ) = ( r i j ( t ) , g i j ( t ) , b i j ( t ) ) T . {\displaystyle f_{ij}^{(t)}=(r_{ij}^{(t)},g_{ij}^{(t)},b_{ij}^{(t)})^{T}.} For the first step explained above, compute: S i j := r i j ( t ) + g i j ( t ) + b i j ( t ) {\displaystyle S_{ij}:=r_{ij}^{(t)}+g_{ij}^{(t)}+b_{ij}^{(t)}} which leads to r i j ( t + 1 ) = r i j ( t ) S i j , g i j ( t + 1 ) = g i j ( t ) S i j {\displaystyle r_{ij}^{(t+1)}={\frac {r_{ij}^{(t)}}{S_{ij}}},g_{ij}^{(t+1)}={\frac {g_{ij}^{(t)}}{S_{ij}}}} and b i j ( t + 1 ) = b i j ( t ) S i j . {\displaystyle b_{ij}^{(t+1)}={\frac {b_{ij}^{(t)}}{S_{ij}}}.} For the second step explained above, compute: r ′ = 3 N M ∑ i = 1 N ∑ j = 1 M r i j ( t + 1 ) {\displaystyle r'={\frac {3}{NM}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\sum _{j=1}^{M}r_{ij}^{(t+1)}} and normalize r i j ( t + 2 ) = r i j ( t + 1 ) r ′ . {\displaystyle r_{ij}^{(t+2)}={\frac {r_{ij}^{(t+1)}}{r'}}.} Of course the same process is done for b' and g'. Then these two steps are repeated until the changes between iteration t and t+2 are less than some set threshold. Comprehensive color normalization, just like the histogram equalization method previously mentioned, produces results that may look less natural due to the reduction in the number of color values.
Autocommit
In the context of data management, autocommit is a mode of operation of a database connection. Each individual database interaction (i.e., each SQL statement) submitted through the database connection in autocommit mode will be executed in its own transaction that is implicitly committed. A SQL statement executed in autocommit mode cannot be rolled back. Autocommit mode incurs per-statement transaction overhead and can often lead to undesirable performance or resource utilization impact on the database. Nonetheless, in systems such as Microsoft SQL Server, as well as connection technologies such as ODBC and Microsoft OLE DB, autocommit mode is the default for all statements that change data, in order to ensure that individual statements will conform to the ACID (atomicity-consistency-isolation-durability) properties of transactions. The alternative to autocommit mode (non-autocommit) means that the SQL client application itself is responsible for ending transactions explicitly via the commit or rollback SQL commands. Non-autocommit mode enables grouping of multiple data manipulation SQL commands into a single atomic transaction. Some DBMS (e.g. MariaDB) force autocommit for every DDL statement, even in non-autocommit mode. In this case, before each DDL statement, previous DML statements in transaction are autocommitted. Each DDL statement is executed in its own new autocommit transaction.
Wang-Chiew Tan
Wang-Chiew Tan is a Singaporean computer scientist specializing in data management and natural language processing. Her work in data management includes data provenance (or data lineage) and data integration. She is currently a Research Scientist at Facebook AI, and was previously the Director of Research at Megagon Labs in Mountain View, California. At Megagon Labs, Tan was the lead researcher on a study with the University of Tokyo that concluded that the company of other people is more effective than pets at making people happy. == Education and career == Tan earned her bachelor's degree in computer science (first-class) at the National University of Singapore, and completed her Ph.D. at the University of Pennsylvania. Her 2002 dissertation, Data Annotations, Provenance, and Archiving, was jointly supervised by Peter Buneman and Sanjeev Khanna. Before working at Megagon, she has been a professor of computer science at the University of California, Santa Cruz beginning in 2002, and, from 2010 to 2012, was on leave from Santa Cruz as a researcher at IBM Research - Almaden. == Recognition == Tan was named a Fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery in 2015 "for contributions to data provenance and to the foundations of information integration".
How to Choose an AI Resume Builder
Trying to pick the best AI resume builder? An AI resume builder is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI resume builder slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.
Evaluation of machine translation
Various methods for the evaluation for machine translation have been employed. This article focuses on the evaluation of the output of machine translation, rather than on performance or usability evaluation. == Round-trip translation == A typical way for lay people to assess machine translation quality is to translate from a source language to a target language and back to the source language with the same engine. Though intuitively this may seem like a good method of evaluation, it has been shown that round-trip translation is a "poor predictor of quality". The reason why it is such a poor predictor of quality is reasonably intuitive. A round-trip translation is not testing one system, but two systems: the language pair of the engine for translating into the target language, and the language pair translating back from the target language. Consider the following examples of round-trip translation performed from English to Italian and Portuguese from Somers (2005): In the first example, where the text is translated into Italian then back into English—the English text is significantly garbled, but the Italian is a serviceable translation. In the second example, the text translated back into English is perfect, but the Portuguese translation is meaningless; the program thought "tit" was a reference to a tit (bird), which was intended for a "tat", a word it did not understand. While round-trip translation may be useful to generate a "surplus of fun," the methodology is deficient for serious study of machine translation quality. == Human evaluation == This section covers two of the large scale evaluation studies that have had significant impact on the field—the ALPAC 1966 study and the ARPA study. === Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee (ALPAC) === One of the constituent parts of the ALPAC report was a study comparing different levels of human translation with machine translation output, using human subjects as judges. The human judges were specially trained for the purpose. The evaluation study compared an MT system translating from Russian into English with human translators, on two variables. The variables studied were "intelligibility" and "fidelity". Intelligibility was a measure of how "understandable" the sentence was, and was measured on a scale of 1–9. Fidelity was a measure of how much information the translated sentence retained compared to the original, and was measured on a scale of 0–9. Each point on the scale was associated with a textual description. For example, 3 on the intelligibility scale was described as "Generally unintelligible; it tends to read like nonsense but, with a considerable amount of reflection and study, one can at least hypothesize the idea intended by the sentence". Intelligibility was measured without reference to the original, while fidelity was measured indirectly. The translated sentence was presented, and after reading it and absorbing the content, the original sentence was presented. The judges were asked to rate the original sentence on informativeness. So, the more informative the original sentence, the lower the quality of the translation. The study showed that the variables were highly correlated when the human judgment was averaged per sentence. The variation among raters was small, but the researchers recommended that at the very least, three or four raters should be used. The evaluation methodology managed to separate translations by humans from translations by machines with ease. The study concluded that, "highly reliable assessments can be made of the quality of human and machine translations". === Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) === As part of the Human Language Technologies Program, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) created a methodology to evaluate machine translation systems, and continues to perform evaluations based on this methodology. The evaluation programme was instigated in 1991, and continues to this day. Details of the programme can be found in White et al. (1994) and White (1995). The evaluation programme involved testing several systems based on different theoretical approaches; statistical, rule-based and human-assisted. A number of methods for the evaluation of the output from these systems were tested in 1992 and the most recent suitable methods were selected for inclusion in the programmes for subsequent years. The methods were; comprehension evaluation, quality panel evaluation, and evaluation based on adequacy and fluency. Comprehension evaluation aimed to directly compare systems based on the results from multiple choice comprehension tests, as in Church et al. (1993). The texts chosen were a set of articles in English on the subject of financial news. These articles were translated by professional translators into a series of language pairs, and then translated back into English using the machine translation systems. It was decided that this was not adequate for a standalone method of comparing systems and as such abandoned due to issues with the modification of meaning in the process of translating from English. The idea of quality panel evaluation was to submit translations to a panel of expert native English speakers who were professional translators and get them to evaluate them. The evaluations were done on the basis of a metric, modelled on a standard US government metric used to rate human translations. This was good from the point of view that the metric was "externally motivated", since it was not specifically developed for machine translation. However, the quality panel evaluation was very difficult to set up logistically, as it necessitated having a number of experts together in one place for a week or more, and furthermore for them to reach consensus. This method was also abandoned. Along with a modified form of the comprehension evaluation (re-styled as informativeness evaluation), the most popular method was to obtain ratings from monolingual judges for segments of a document. The judges were presented with a segment, and asked to rate it for two variables, adequacy and fluency. Adequacy is a rating of how much information is transferred between the original and the translation, and fluency is a rating of how good the English is. This technique was found to cover the relevant parts of the quality panel evaluation, while at the same time being easier to deploy, as it didn't require expert judgment. Measuring systems based on adequacy and fluency, along with informativeness is now the standard methodology for the ARPA evaluation program. == Automatic evaluation == In the context of this article, a metric is a measurement. A metric that evaluates machine translation output represents the quality of the output. The quality of a translation is inherently subjective, there is no objective or quantifiable "good." Therefore, any metric must assign quality scores so they correlate with the human judgment of quality. That is, a metric should score highly translations that humans score highly, and give low scores to those humans give low scores. Human judgment is the benchmark for assessing automatic metrics, as humans are the end-users of any translation output. The measure of evaluation for metrics is correlation with human judgment. This is generally done at two levels, at the sentence level, where scores are calculated by the metric for a set of translated sentences, and then correlated against human judgment for the same sentences. And at the corpus level, where scores over the sentences are aggregated for both human judgments and metric judgments, and these aggregate scores are then correlated. Figures for correlation at the sentence level are rarely reported, although Banerjee et al. (2005) do give correlation figures that show that, at least for their metric, sentence-level correlation is substantially worse than corpus level correlation. While not widely reported, it has been noted that the genre, or domain, of a text has an effect on the correlation obtained when using metrics. Coughlin (2003) reports that comparing the candidate text against a single reference translation does not adversely affect the correlation of metrics when working in a restricted domain text. Even if a metric correlates well with human judgment in one study on one corpus, this successful correlation may not carry over to another corpus. Good metric performance, across text types or domains, is important for the reusability of the metric. A metric that only works for text in a specific domain is useful, but less useful than one that works across many domains—because creating a new metric for every new evaluation or domain is undesirable. Another important factor in the usefulness of an evaluation metric is to have a good correlation, even when working with small amounts of data, that is candidate sentences and reference translations. Turian et al. (2003) point out that, "Any MT evaluation measure is less reliable on shorter translations", and
Bring your own encryption
Bring your own encryption (BYOE), also known as bring your own key (BYOK), is a cloud computing security model that allows cloud service customers to use their own encryption software and manage their own encryption keys. == Overview == BYOE enables cloud service customers to utilize a virtual instance of their encryption software alongside their cloud-hosted business applications to encrypt their data. In this model, hosted business applications are configured to process all data through the encryption software. This software then writes the ciphertext version of the data to the cloud service provider's physical data store and decrypts ciphertext data upon retrieval requests. This approach provides enterprises with control over their keys and the ability to generate their own master key using internal hardware security modules (HSM), which are then transmitted to the cloud provider's HSM. When the data is no longer needed, such as when users discontinue the cloud service, the keys can be deleted, rendering the encrypted data permanently inaccessible. This practice is known as crypto-shredding. == Potential Advantages == Organizations can store data with unique encryption that only they can access. Multiple organizations can share the same hardware infrastructure via cloud services like Amazon Web Services (AWS) or Google Cloud while maintaining encryption to comply with regulations such as HIPAA. == Potential Challenges == Resource utilization may be higher compared to traditional encryption practices when multiple users share the same hardware and use their own encryption. Efforts to minimize resource utilization issues may potentially impact security benefits.
OCR-A
OCR-A is a font issued in 1966 and first implemented in 1968. A special font was needed in the early days of computer optical character recognition, when there was a need for a font that could be recognized not only by the computers of that day, but also by humans. OCR-A uses simple, thick strokes to form recognizable characters. The font is monospaced (fixed-width), with the printer required to place glyphs 0.254 cm (0.10 inch) apart, and the reader required to accept any spacing between 0.2286 cm (0.09 inch) and 0.4572 cm (0.18 inch). == Standardization == The OCR-A font was standardized by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) as ANSI X3.17-1981. X3.4 has since become the INCITS and the OCR-A standard is now called ISO 1073-1:1976. == Implementations == In 1968, American Type Founders produced OCR-A, one of the first optical character recognition typefaces to meet the criteria set by the U.S. Bureau of Standards. The design is simple so that it can be easily read by a machine, but it is more difficult for the human eye to read. As metal type gave way to computer-based typesetting, Tor Lillqvist used Metafont to describe the OCR-A font. That definition was subsequently improved by Richard B. Wales. Their work is available from CTAN. To make the free version of the font more accessible to users of Microsoft Windows, John Sauter converted the Metafont definitions to TrueType using potrace and FontForge in 2004. In 2007, Gürkan Sengün created a Debian package from this implementation. In 2008. Luc Devroye corrected the vertical positioning in John Sauter's implementation, and fixed the name of lower case z. Independently, Matthew Skala used mftrace to convert the Metafont definitions to TrueType format in 2006. In 2011 he released a new version created by rewriting the Metafont definitions to work with METATYPE1, generating outlines directly without an intermediate tracing step. On September 27, 2012, he updated his implementation to version 0.2. In addition to these free implementations of OCR-A, there are also implementations sold by several vendors. As a joke, Tobias Frere-Jones in 1995 created Estupido-Espezial, a redesign with swashes and a long s. It was used in a "technology"-themed section of Rolling Stone. Maxitype designed the OCR-X typeface—based on the OCR-A typeface with OpenType features, alien/technology-themed dingbats and available in six weights (Thin, Light, Regular, Medium, Bold, Black). Japanese typeface foundry Visual Design Laboratory (VDL) designed two typefaces based on the OCR-A typeface: one for Simplified Chinese characters named Jieyouti and one for Japanese characters named Yota G (ヨタG) , both available in five weights (Light, Regular, Medium, Semi Bold, Bold). == Use == Although optical character recognition technology has advanced to the point where such simple fonts are no longer necessary, the OCR-A font has remained in use. Its usage remains widespread in the encoding of checks around the world. Some lock box companies still insist that the account number and amount owed on a bill return form be printed in OCR-A. Also, because of its unusual look, it is sometimes used in advertising and display graphics. Notably, it is used for the subtitles in films and television series such as Blacklist and for the main titles in The Pretender. Additionally, OCR-A is used in the titles and subtitles for the films 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi and Hoppers (film). It was also used for the logo, branding, and marketing material of the children's toy line Hexbug. == Code points == A font is a set of character shapes, or glyphs. For a computer to use a font, each glyph must be assigned a code point in a character set. When OCR-A was being standardized the usual character coding was the American Standard Code for Information Interchange or ASCII. Not all of the glyphs of OCR-A fit into ASCII, and for five of the characters there were alternate glyphs, which might have suggested the need for a second font. However, for convenience and efficiency all of the glyphs were expected to be accessible in a single font using ASCII coding, with the additional characters placed at coding points that would otherwise have been unused. The modern descendant of ASCII is Unicode, also known as ISO 10646. Unicode contains ASCII and has special provisions for OCR characters, so some implementations of OCR-A have looked to Unicode for guidance on character code assignments. === Pre-Unicode standard representation === The ISO standard ISO 2033:1983, and the corresponding Japanese Industrial Standard JIS X 9010:1984 (originally JIS C 6229–1984), define character encodings for OCR-A, OCR-B and E-13B. For OCR-A, they define a modified 7-bit ASCII set (also known by its ISO-IR number ISO-IR-91) including only uppercase letters, digits, a subset of the punctuation and symbols, and some additional symbols. Codes which are redefined relative to ASCII, as opposed to simply omitted, are listed below: Additionally, the long vertical mark () is encoded at 0x7C, corresponding to the ASCII vertical bar (|). === Dedicated OCR-A characters in Unicode === The following characters have been defined for control purposes and are now in the "Optical Character Recognition" Unicode range 2440–245F: === Space, digits, and unaccented letters === All implementations of OCR-A use U+0020 for space, U+0030 through U+0039 for the decimal digits, U+0041 through U+005A for the unaccented upper case letters, and U+0061 through U+007A for the unaccented lower case letters. === Regular characters === In addition to the digits and unaccented letters, many of the characters of OCR-A have obvious code points in ASCII. Of those that do not, most, including all of OCR-A's accented letters, have obvious code points in Unicode. === Remaining characters === Linotype coded the remaining characters of OCR-A as follows: === Additional characters === The fonts that descend from the work of Tor Lillqvist and Richard B. Wales define four characters not in OCR-A to fill out the ASCII character set. These shapes use the same style as the OCR-A character shapes. They are: Linotype also defines additional characters. === Exceptions === Some implementations do not use the above code point assignments for some characters. ==== PrecisionID ==== The PrecisionID implementation of OCR-A has the following non-standard code points: OCR Hook at U+007E OCR Chair at U+00C1 OCR Fork at U+00C2 Euro Sign at U+0080 ==== Barcodesoft ==== The Barcodesoft implementation of OCR-A has the following non-standard code points: OCR Hook at U+0060 OCR Chair at U+007E OCR Fork at U+005F Long Vertical Mark at U+007C (agrees with Linotype) Character Erase at U+0008 ==== Morovia ==== The Morovia implementation of OCR-A has the following non-standard code points: OCR Hook at U+007E (agrees with PrecisionID) OCR Chair at U+00F0 OCR Fork at U+005F (agrees with Barcodesoft) Long Vertical Mark at U+007C (agrees with Linotype) ==== IDAutomation ==== The IDAutomation implementation of OCR-A has the following non-standard code points: OCR Hook at U+007E (agrees with PrecisionID) OCR Chair at U+00C1 (agrees with PrecisionID) OCR Fork at U+00C2 (agrees with PrecisionID) OCR Belt Buckle at U+00C3 == Sellers of font standards == Hardcopy of ISO 1073-1:1976, distributed through ANSI, from Amazon.com ISO 1073-1 is also available from Techstreet, who distributes standards for ANSI and ISO