Dan Roth (Hebrew: דן רוט) is the Eduardo D. Glandt Distinguished Professor of Computer and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania and the Chief AI Scientist at Oracle. Until June 2024 Roth was a VP and distinguished scientist at AWS AI. In his role at AWS, Roth led over the last three years the scientific effort behind the first-generation Generative AI products from AWS, including Titan Models, Amazon Q efforts, and Bedrock, from inception until they became generally available. Roth got his B.A. summa cum laude in mathematics from the Technion, Israel, and his Ph.D. in computer science from Harvard University in 1995. He taught at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign from 1998 to 2017 before moving to the University of Pennsylvania. == Professional career == Roth is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), and the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL). Roth’s research focuses on the computational foundations of intelligent behavior. He develops theories and systems pertaining to intelligent behavior using a unified methodology, at the heart of which is the idea that learning has a central role in intelligence. His work centers around the study of machine learning and inference methods to facilitate natural language understanding. In doing that he has pursued several interrelated lines of work that span multiple aspects of this problem - from fundamental questions in learning and inference and how they interact, to the study of a range of natural language processing (NLP) problems and developing advanced machine learning based tools for natural language applications. Roth has made seminal contribution to the fusion of Learning and Reasoning, Machine Learning with weak, incidental supervision, and to machine learning and inference approaches to natural language understanding. He has written the first paper on zero-shot learning in natural language processing, a 2008 paper by Chang, Ratinov, Roth, and Srikumar that was published at AAAI’08, but the name given to the learning paradigm there was dataless classification. Roth has worked on probabilistic reasoning (including its complexity and probabilistic lifted inference ), Constrained Conditional Models (ILP formulations of NLP problems) and constraints-driven learning, part-based (constellation) methods in object recognition, response based Learning, He has developed NLP and Information extraction tools that are being used broadly by researchers and commercially, including NER, coreference resolution, wikification, SRL, and ESL text correction. Roth is a co-founder of NexLP, Inc., a startup that applies natural language processing and machine learning in the legal and compliance domains. In 2020, NexLP was acquired by Reveal, Inc., an e-discovery software company. He is currently on the scientific advisory board of the Allen Institute for AI.
ParkMobile
ParkMobile is a mobile and web app providing parking payments in North America. Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, users can pay for on-street and off-street parking via app on their smartphone, web browser, or through calling a phone number. ParkMobile also offers parking reservations at stadiums or venues for concerts and sporting events, and in metro area garages. == History == ParkMobile was founded in the United States in 2008 by Albert Bogaard after originally starting in the Netherlands. The initial product served only zone (on-demand) parkers and payment for the parking spot was made via a phone call through an IVR system. In 2009, the ParkMobile app was released and the product launched in its first city, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Parking payments have since been accepted through a user's account by connecting a credit card. ParkMobile deployed in Washington, D.C., in 2011. As of 2023, ParkMobile now has over 50 million users. Parking reservations were introduced in 2017, allowing users to reserve parking in advance. In 2018, the company recapitalized with BMW as the shareholder. ParkMobile was then acquired by a joint venture with BMW and Daimler. Under this joint venture, ParkMobile parking payment functionality was available and integrated with BMW's navigation system in many of its 2018 models. EasyPark Group, the Swedish-based parking solutions company, acquired ParkMobile in 2021 and is the current owner rebranded as Arrive. In 2022, ParkMobile launched in the City of Boston with a city-wide parking app, ParkBoston, powered by ParkMobile. == Operations == === Products === ParkMobile's product offerings include zone (on-demand) parking payments, parking reservations, and a self-service reporting engine. Zone parking is the company's most widely used service. Users can use the app on their smartphone to pay parking fees. In 2017, ParkMobile began offering parking reservations. The service is provided in addition to on-demand parking options at stadiums and venues, as well as metro area parking garages. After launching the reservations feature, ParkMobile became the first mobile parking app provider in North America to have a consolidated app with both on-demand and reservations parking in one. ParkMobile 360, the company's self-service management and reporting platform for operators, launched in 2018. It is a web-based application for parking operators to manage parking inventory, adjust rates, create special parking events, and track analytics. In 2020, ParkMobile began offering an option to pay for parking with Google through integrating the ParkMobile experience with Google Maps In 2021, ParkMobile launched its web application, allowing users to complete their parking transactions directly from the mobile website without having to download the app or have an account. ParkMobile integrates with parking gate equipment so customers can use their app to pay for parking and scan to enter and exit the garage. === Locations === ParkMobile has over 50 million users across the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. The app is available in over 550 cities in the U.S. and over 150 colleges and universities. == Controversies == === Predatory towing and excessive ticketing === Since all paid parking sessions from a single supplier are able to be viewed together, the ease of viewing and enforcing parking violations has caused controversy. Parking Enforcement Services in Birmingham, Alabama, has been the subject complaints by users of the ParkMobile app who had paid for a parking session and still had their vehicle towed. Customers often use old or expired license plates and forget to update to the correct number, or mistype when entering their information into the ParkMobile app. The complaints are that the towing companies offer no lenience for these mistakes. They return to their car as the session expires, and find their car has been towed. Additionally, other municipality across the country have received complaints about excessive parking ticket issuing when inputting their information incorrectly in the ParkMobile app. In Stone Harbor, New Jersey, parking ticket violations increased by over 1,600% from the previous year since launching with the ParkMobile app. Police officers refute complaints of being "too strict" on writing tickets by admitting the ParkMobile system allows officers to "more seamlessly enforce" the city's parking laws. === Data security breach === In March 2021, ParkMobile suffered a cybersecurity incident "linked to a vulnerability in a third-party software," potentially exposing users' email addresses, phone numbers, and license plate numbers. ParkMobile responded by launching an investigation and notifying law enforcement authorities and affected municipalities. The investigation concluded "no sensitive data or Payment Card Information was affected" but ParkMobile confirmed that basic account information, such as license plate numbers and possibly email addresses or phone numbers, was accessed.
History of machine translation
Machine translation is a sub-field of computational linguistics that investigates the use of software to translate text or speech from one natural language to another. In the 1950s, machine translation became a reality in research, although references to the subject can be found as early as the 17th century. The Georgetown experiment, which involved successful fully automatic translation of more than sixty Russian sentences into English in 1954, was one of the earliest recorded projects. Researchers of the Georgetown experiment asserted their belief that machine translation would be a solved problem within a few years. In the Soviet Union, similar experiments were performed shortly after. Consequently, the success of the experiment ushered in an era of significant funding for machine translation research in the United States. The achieved progress was much slower than expected; in 1966, the ALPAC report found that ten years of research had not fulfilled the expectations of the Georgetown experiment and resulted in dramatically reduced funding. Interest grew in statistical models for machine translation, which became more common and also less expensive in the 1980s as available computational power increased. Although there exists no autonomous system of "fully automatic high quality translation of unrestricted text," there are many programs now available that are capable of providing useful output within strict constraints. Several of these programs are available online, such as Google Translate and the SYSTRAN system that powers AltaVista's BabelFish (which was replaced by Microsoft Bing translator in May 2012). == The beginning == The origins of machine translation can be traced back to the work of Al-Kindi, a 9th-century Arabic cryptographer who developed techniques for systemic language translation, including cryptanalysis, frequency analysis, and probability and statistics, which are used in modern machine translation. The idea of machine translation later appeared in the 17th century. In 1629, René Descartes proposed a universal language, with equivalent ideas in different tongues sharing one symbol. In the mid-1930s the first patents for "translating machines" were applied for by Georges Artsrouni, for an automatic bilingual dictionary using punched tape. Russian Peter Troyanskii submitted a more detailed proposal that included both the bilingual dictionary and a method for dealing with grammatical roles between languages, based on the grammatical system of Esperanto. This system was separated into three stages: stage one consisted of a native-speaking editor in the source language to organize the words into their logical forms and to exercise the syntactic functions; stage two required the machine to "translate" these forms into the target language; and stage three required a native-speaking editor in the target language to normalize this output. Troyanskii's proposal remained unknown until the late 1950s, by which time computers were well-known and utilized. == The early years == The first set of proposals for computer based machine translation was presented in 1949 by Warren Weaver, a researcher at the Rockefeller Foundation, "Translation memorandum". These proposals were based on information theory, successes in code breaking during the Second World War, and theories about the universal principles underlying natural language. A few years after Weaver submitted his proposals, research began in earnest at many universities in the United States. On 7 January 1954 the Georgetown–IBM experiment was held in New York at the head office of IBM. This was the first public demonstration of a machine translation system. The demonstration was widely reported in the newspapers and garnered public interest. The system itself, however, was no more than a "toy" system. It had only 250 words and translated 49 carefully selected Russian sentences into English – mainly in the field of chemistry. Nevertheless, it encouraged the idea that machine translation was imminent and stimulated the financing of the research, not only in the US but worldwide. Early systems used large bilingual dictionaries and hand-coded rules for fixing the word order in the final output which was eventually considered too restrictive in linguistic developments at the time. For example, generative linguistics and transformational grammar were exploited to improve the quality of translations. During this period operational systems were installed. The United States Air Force used a system produced by IBM and Washington University in St. Louis, while the Atomic Energy Commission and Euratom, in Italy, used a system developed at Georgetown University. While the quality of the output was poor it met many of the customers' needs, particularly in terms of speed. At the end of the 1950s, Yehoshua Bar-Hillel was asked by the US government to look into machine translation, to assess the possibility of fully automatic high-quality translation by machines. Bar-Hillel described the problem of semantic ambiguity or double-meaning, as illustrated in the following sentence: Little John was looking for his toy box. Finally he found it. The box was in the pen. The word pen may have two meanings: the first meaning, something used to write in ink with; the second meaning, a container of some kind. To a human, the meaning is obvious, but Bar-Hillel claimed that without a "universal encyclopedia" a machine would never be able to deal with this problem. At the time, this type of semantic ambiguity could only be solved by writing source texts for machine translation in a controlled language that uses a vocabulary in which each word has exactly one meaning. == The 1960s, the ALPAC report and the seventies == Research in the 1960s in both the Soviet Union and the United States concentrated mainly on the Russian–English language pair. The objects of translation were chiefly scientific and technical documents, such as articles from scientific journals. The rough translations produced were sufficient to get a basic understanding of the articles. If an article discussed a subject deemed to be confidential, it was sent to a human translator for a complete translation; if not, it was discarded. A great blow came to machine-translation research in 1966 with the publication of the ALPAC report. The report was commissioned by the US government and delivered by ALPAC, the Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee, a group of seven scientists convened by the US government in 1964. The US government was concerned that there was a lack of progress being made despite significant expenditure. The report concluded that machine translation was more expensive, less accurate and slower than human translation, and that despite the expenditures, machine translation was not likely to reach the quality of a human translator in the near future. The report recommended, however, that tools be developed to aid translators – automatic dictionaries, for example – and that some research in computational linguistics should continue to be supported. The publication of the report had a profound impact on research into machine translation in the United States, and to a lesser extent the Soviet Union and United Kingdom. Research, at least in the US, was almost completely abandoned for over a decade. In Canada, France and Germany, however, research continued. In the US the main exceptions were the founders of SYSTRAN (Peter Toma) and Logos (Bernard Scott), who established their companies in 1968 and 1970 respectively and served the US Department of Defense. In 1970, the SYSTRAN system was installed for the United States Air Force, and subsequently by the Commission of the European Communities in 1976. The METEO System, developed at the Université de Montréal, was installed in Canada in 1977 to translate weather forecasts from English to French, and was translating close to 80,000 words per day or 30 million words per year until it was replaced by a competitor's system on 30 September 2001. While research in the 1960s concentrated on limited language pairs and input, demand in the 1970s was for low-cost systems that could translate a range of technical and commercial documents. This demand was spurred by the increase of globalisation and the demand for translation in Canada, Europe, and Japan. == The 1980s and early 1990s == By the 1980s, both the diversity and the number of installed systems for machine translation had increased. A number of systems relying on mainframe technology were in use, such as SYSTRAN, Logos, Ariane-G5, and Metal. As a result of the improved availability of microcomputers, there was a market for lower-end machine translation systems. Many companies took advantage of this in Europe, Japan, and the USA. Systems were also brought onto the market in China, Eastern Europe, Korea, and the Soviet Union. During the 1980s there was a lot of activity in MT in Japan especially. With the fifth-generation co
Lexical Markup Framework
Language resource management – Lexical markup framework (LMF; ISO 24613), produced by ISO/TC 37, is the ISO standard for natural language processing (NLP) and machine-readable dictionary (MRD) lexicons. The scope is standardization of principles and methods relating to language resources in the contexts of multilingual communication. == Objectives == The goals of LMF are to provide a common model for the creation and use of lexical resources, to manage the exchange of data between and among these resources, and to enable the merging of large number of individual electronic resources to form extensive global electronic resources. Types of individual instantiations of LMF can include monolingual, bilingual or multilingual lexical resources. The same specifications are to be used for both small and large lexicons, for both simple and complex lexicons, for both written and spoken lexical representations. The descriptions range from morphology, syntax, computational semantics to computer-assisted translation. The covered languages are not restricted to European languages but cover all natural languages. The range of targeted NLP applications is not restricted. LMF is able to represent most lexicons, including WordNet, EDR and PAROLE lexicons. == History == In the past, lexicon standardization has been studied and developed by a series of projects like GENELEX, EDR, EAGLES, MULTEXT, PAROLE, SIMPLE and ISLE. Then, the ISO/TC 37 National delegations decided to address standards dedicated to NLP and lexicon representation. The work on LMF started in Summer 2003 by a new work item proposal issued by the US delegation. In Fall 2003, the French delegation issued a technical proposition for a data model dedicated to NLP lexicons. In early 2004, the ISO/TC 37 committee decided to form a common ISO project with Nicoletta Calzolari (CNR-ILC Italy) as convenor and Gil Francopoulo (Tagmatica France) and Monte George (ANSI, United States) as editors. The first step in developing LMF was to design an overall framework based on the general features of existing lexicons and to develop a consistent terminology to describe the components of those lexicons. The next step was the actual design of a comprehensive model that best represented all of the lexicons in detail. A large panel of 60 experts contributed a wide range of requirements for LMF that covered many types of NLP lexicons. The editors of LMF worked closely with the panel of experts to identify the best solutions and reach a consensus on the design of LMF. Special attention was paid to the morphology in order to provide powerful mechanisms for handling problems in several languages that were known as difficult to handle. 13 versions have been written, dispatched (to the National nominated experts), commented and discussed during various ISO technical meetings. After five years of work, including numerous face-to-face meetings and e-mail exchanges, the editors arrived at a coherent UML model. In conclusion, LMF should be considered a synthesis of the state of the art in NLP lexicon field. == Current stage == The ISO number is 24613. The LMF specification has been published officially as an International Standard on 17 November 2008. == As one of the members of the ISO/TC 37 family of standards == The ISO/TC 37 standards are currently elaborated as high level specifications and deal with word segmentation (ISO 24614), annotations (ISO 24611 a.k.a. MAF, ISO 24612 a.k.a. LAF, ISO 24615 a.k.a. SynAF, and ISO 24617-1 a.k.a. SemAF/Time), feature structures (ISO 24610), multimedia containers (ISO 24616 a.k.a. MLIF), and lexicons (ISO 24613). These standards are based on low level specifications dedicated to constants, namely data categories (revision of ISO 12620), language codes (ISO 639), scripts codes (ISO 15924), country codes (ISO 3166) and Unicode (ISO 10646). The two level organization forms a coherent family of standards with the following common and simple rules: the high level specification provides structural elements that are adorned by the standardized constants; the low level specifications provide standardized constants as metadata. == Key standards == The linguistics constants like /feminine/ or /transitive/ are not defined within LMF but are recorded in the Data Category Registry (DCR) that is maintained as a global resource by ISO/TC 37 in compliance with ISO/IEC 11179-3:2003. And these constants are used to adorn the high level structural elements. The LMF specification complies with the modeling principles of Unified Modeling Language (UML) as defined by Object Management Group (OMG). The structure is specified by means of UML class diagrams. The examples are presented by means of UML instance (or object) diagrams. An XML DTD is given in an annex of the LMF document. == Model structure == LMF is composed of the following components: The core package that is the structural skeleton which describes the basic hierarchy of information in a lexical entry. Extensions of the core package which are expressed in a framework that describes the reuse of the core components in conjunction with the additional components required for a specific lexical resource. The extensions are specifically dedicated to morphology, MRD, NLP syntax, NLP semantics, NLP multilingual notations, NLP morphological patterns, multiword expression patterns, and constraint expression patterns. == Example == In the following example, the lexical entry is associated with a lemma clergyman and two inflected forms clergyman and clergymen. The language coding is set for the whole lexical resource. The language value is set for the whole lexicon as shown in the following UML instance diagram. The elements Lexical Resource, Global Information, Lexicon, Lexical Entry, Lemma, and Word Form define the structure of the lexicon. They are specified within the LMF document. On the contrary, languageCoding, language, partOfSpeech, commonNoun, writtenForm, grammaticalNumber, singular, plural are data categories that are taken from the Data Category Registry. These marks adorn the structure. The values ISO 639-3, clergyman, clergymen are plain character strings. The value eng is taken from the list of languages as defined by ISO 639-3. With some additional information like dtdVersion and feat, the same data can be expressed by the following XML fragment: This example is rather simple, while LMF can represent much more complex linguistic descriptions the XML tagging is correspondingly complex. == Selected publications about LMF == The first publication about the LMF specification as it has been ratified by ISO (this paper became (in 2015) the 9th most cited paper within the Language Resources and Evaluation conferences from LREC papers): Language Resources and Evaluation LREC-2006/Genoa: Gil Francopoulo, Monte George, Nicoletta Calzolari, Monica Monachini, Nuria Bel, Mandy Pet, Claudia Soria: Lexical Markup Framework (LMF) About semantic representation: Gesellschaft für linguistische Datenverarbeitung GLDV-2007/Tübingen: Gil Francopoulo, Nuria Bel, Monte George Nicoletta Calzolari, Monica Monachini, Mandy Pet, Claudia Soria: Lexical Markup Framework ISO standard for semantic information in NLP lexicons About African languages: Traitement Automatique des langues naturelles, Marseille, 2014: Mouhamadou Khoule, Mouhamad Ndiankho Thiam, El Hadj Mamadou Nguer: Toward the establishment of a LMF-based Wolof language lexicon (Vers la mise en place d'un lexique basé sur LMF pour la langue wolof) [in French] About Asian languages: Lexicography, Journal of ASIALEX, Springer 2014: Lexical Markup Framework: Gil Francopoulo, Chu-Ren Huang: An ISO Standard for Electronic Lexicons and its Implications for Asian Languages DOI 10.1007/s40607-014-0006-z About European languages: COLING 2010: Verena Henrich, Erhard Hinrichs: Standardizing Wordnets in the ISO Standard LMF: Wordnet-LMF for GermaNet EACL 2012: Judith Eckle-Kohler, Iryna Gurevych: Subcat-LMF: Fleshing out a standardized format for subcategorization frame interoperability EACL 2012: Iryna Gurevych, Judith Eckle-Kohler, Silvana Hartmann, Michael Matuschek, Christian M Meyer, Christian Wirth: UBY - A Large-Scale Unified Lexical-Semantic Resource Based on LMF. About Semitic languages: Journal of Natural Language Engineering, Cambridge University Press (to appear in Spring 2015): Aida Khemakhem, Bilel Gargouri, Abdelmajid Ben Hamadou, Gil Francopoulo: ISO Standard Modeling of a large Arabic Dictionary. Proceedings of the seventh Global Wordnet Conference 2014: Nadia B M Karmani, Hsan Soussou, Adel M Alimi: Building a standardized Wordnet in the ISO LMF for aeb language. Proceedings of the workshop: HLT & NLP within Arabic world, LREC 2008: Noureddine Loukil, Kais Haddar, Abdelmajid Ben Hamadou: Towards a syntactic lexicon of Arabic Verbs. Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles, Toulouse (in French) 2007: Khemakhem A, Gargouri B, Abdelwahed A, Francopoulo G: Modélisation des paradigmes de fl
Natural Language Toolkit
The Natural Language Toolkit, or more commonly NLTK, is a suite of libraries and programs for symbolic and statistical natural language processing (NLP) for English written in the Python programming language. It supports classification, tokenization, stemming, tagging, parsing, and semantic reasoning functionalities. It was developed by Steven Bird and Edward Loper in the Department of Computer and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania. NLTK includes graphical demonstrations and sample data. It is accompanied by a book that explains the underlying concepts behind the language processing tasks supported by the toolkit, plus a cookbook. NLTK is intended to support research and teaching in NLP or closely related areas, including empirical linguistics, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, information retrieval, and machine learning. NLTK has been used successfully as a teaching tool, as an individual study tool, and as a platform for prototyping and building research systems. == Library highlights == Discourse representation Lexical analysis: Word and text tokenizer n-gram and collocations Part-of-speech tagger Tree model and Text chunker for capturing Named-entity recognition
ISSCO Graphics
Integrated Software Systems Corporation (ISSCO), doing business as ISSCO Graphics, was an American software developer and publisher based in San Diego, California, and active from 1970 to 1986. They were best known for their enterprise graphics software packages, including Tellagraf, CueChart and Disspla. == History == ISSCO Graphics had considered acquiring Breakthrough Software, whose software focus involved PC DOS, as a means of getting into the PC arena, but backed off when Computer Associates made an offer to acquire ISSCO. By early 1987 it was reported that "Issco users breathe sigh of relief" that all was well. The ISSCO User's Group was founded in 1976. ISSCO, which was founded in 1970 by Peter Preuss, was acquired by Computer Associates in 1986. == Notable products == === Tellagraf === ISSCO's Tellagraf is an early software package designed to allow end-users to "turn out full color, professional quality charts" with initial results displayed on a screen, modified as needed, and then "a final 'hard-copy' can be made .. or made into 35mm color transparencies for projection onto a screen." Users of Tellagraf often had access to CueChart and Disspla software. Often computer sites having one had all three. Terminals with varying degrees of graphics, such as the DEC's VT100 and Tektronix's Tektronix 4xxx family of text and graphics terminals. were supported, and the software ran on popular computing platforms. Four years are important to Tellagraf's early history: 1978: ease of use 1980: graphic-artist quality 1982: introduction of CueChart, and recognition by IEEE. 1983: "quality graphics enters the mainstream of data processing with ..." Tellegraf was eventually acquired by Computer Associates and renamed CA-Tellegraf. SAS users found it helpful. Universities, research institutes and financial services firms were among early users. === Disspla === Disspla is a package of data plotting subroutines that can be used from high level languages. It was also acquired by Computer Associates. === Tellaplan === In 1983 ISSCO introduced Tellaplan, "a project planning, report and schedule charting system for Tell-A- Graf users in IBM MVS or CMS or Digital Equipment Corp. VAX computers" atop which they built "two visual project management software packages" three years later.
PatchMatch
PatchMatch is an algorithm used to quickly find correspondences (or matches) between small square regions (or patches) of an image. It has various applications in image editing, such as reshuffling or removing objects from images or altering their aspect ratios without cropping or noticeably stretching them. PatchMatch was first presented in a 2011 paper by researchers at Princeton University. == Algorithm == The goal of the algorithm is to find the patch correspondence by defining a nearest-neighbor field (NNF) as a function f : R 2 → R 2 {\displaystyle f:\mathbb {R} ^{2}\to \mathbb {R} ^{2}} of offsets, which is over all possible matches of patch (location of patch centers) in image A, for some distance function of two patches D {\displaystyle D} . So, for a given patch coordinate a {\displaystyle a} in image A {\displaystyle A} and its corresponding nearest neighbor b {\displaystyle b} in image B {\displaystyle B} , f ( a ) {\displaystyle f(a)} is simply b − a {\displaystyle b-a} . However, if we search for every point in image B {\displaystyle B} , the work will be too hard to complete. So the following algorithm is done in a randomized approach in order to accelerate the calculation speed. The algorithm has three main components. Initially, the nearest-neighbor field is filled with either random offsets or some prior information. Next, an iterative update process is applied to the NNF, in which good patch offsets are propagated to adjacent pixels, followed by random search in the neighborhood of the best offset found so far. Independent of these three components, the algorithm also uses a coarse-to-fine approach by building an image pyramid to obtain the better result. === Initialization === When initializing with random offsets, we use independent uniform samples across the full range of image B {\displaystyle B} . This algorithm avoids using an initial guess from the previous level of the pyramid because in this way the algorithm can avoid being trapped in local minima. === Iteration === After initialization, the algorithm attempted to perform iterative process of improving the N N F {\displaystyle NNF} . The iterations examine the offsets in scan order (from left to right, top to bottom), and each undergoes propagation followed by random search. === Propagation === We attempt to improve f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} using the known offsets of f ( x − 1 , y ) {\displaystyle f(x-1,y)} and f ( x , y − 1 ) {\displaystyle f(x,y-1)} , assuming that the patch offsets are likely to be the same. That is, the algorithm will take new value for f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} to be arg min ( x , y ) D ( f ( x , y ) ) , D ( f ( x − 1 , y ) ) , D ( f ( x , y − 1 ) ) {\displaystyle \arg \min \limits _{(x,y)}{D(f(x,y)),D(f(x-1,y)),D(f(x,y-1))}} . So if f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} has a correct mapping and is in a coherent region R {\displaystyle R} , then all of R {\displaystyle R} below and to the right of f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} will be filled with the correct mapping. Alternatively, on even iterations, the algorithm search for different direction, fill the new value to be arg min ( x , y ) { D ( f ( x , y ) ) , D ( f ( x + 1 , y ) ) , D ( f ( x , y + 1 ) ) } {\displaystyle \arg \min \limits _{(x,y)}\{D(f(x,y)),D(f(x+1,y)),D(f(x,y+1))\}} . === Random search === Let v 0 = f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle v_{0}=f(x,y)} , we attempt to improve f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} by testing a sequence of candidate offsets at an exponentially decreasing distance from v 0 {\displaystyle v_{0}} u i = v 0 + w α i R i {\displaystyle u_{i}=v_{0}+w\alpha ^{i}R_{i}} where R i {\displaystyle R_{i}} is a uniform random in [ − 1 , 1 ] × [ − 1 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [-1,1]\times [-1,1]} , w {\displaystyle w} is a large window search radius which will be set to maximum picture size, and α {\displaystyle \alpha } is a fixed ratio often assigned as 1/2. This part of the algorithm allows the f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} to jump out of local minimum through random process. === Halting criterion === The often used halting criterion is set the iteration times to be about 4~5. Even with low iteration, the algorithm works well.