Google Clips is a discontinued miniature clip-on camera device developed by Google. == History == It was announced on October 4, 2017 and went on sale on January 27, 2018. Google Clips automatically captured video clips (without audio) at moments its machine learning algorithms determined to be interesting or relevant. An indicator flashed when the camera was looking for scenes to capture. Google Clips' artificial intelligence (AI) could learn the faces of people to take photographs with certain people, and could automatically set lighting and framing. It had 16 GB of storage built-in storage and could record clips for up to 3 hours. This camera was originally priced at US$249 in the United States. It was withdrawn from sale on October 15, 2019, but supported until the end of December 2021. == Reception == The Independent wrote that Google Clips is "an impressive little device, but one that also has the potential to feel very creepy." According to The Verge's generally negative review, "it didn't capture anything special" over two weeks of testing.
Bayesian programming
Bayesian programming is a formalism and a methodology for having a technique to specify probabilistic models and solve problems when less than the necessary information is available. Edwin T. Jaynes proposed that probability could be considered as an alternative and an extension of logic for rational reasoning with incomplete and uncertain information. In his founding book Probability Theory: The Logic of Science he developed this theory and proposed what he called "the robot," which was not a physical device, but an inference engine to automate probabilistic reasoning—a kind of Prolog for probability instead of logic. Bayesian programming is a formal and concrete implementation of this "robot". Bayesian programming may also be seen as an algebraic formalism to specify graphical models such as, for instance, Bayesian networks, dynamic Bayesian networks, Kalman filters or hidden Markov models. Indeed, Bayesian programming is more general than Bayesian networks and has a power of expression equivalent to probabilistic factor graphs. == Formalism == A Bayesian program is a means of specifying a family of probability distributions. The constituent elements of a Bayesian program are presented below: Program { Description { Specification ( π ) { Variables Decomposition Forms Identification (based on δ ) Question {\displaystyle {\text{Program}}{\begin{cases}{\text{Description}}{\begin{cases}{\text{Specification}}(\pi ){\begin{cases}{\text{Variables}}\\{\text{Decomposition}}\\{\text{Forms}}\\\end{cases}}\\{\text{Identification (based on }}\delta )\end{cases}}\\{\text{Question}}\end{cases}}} A program is constructed from a description and a question. A description is constructed using some specification ( π {\displaystyle \pi } ) as given by the programmer and an identification or learning process for the parameters not completely specified by the specification, using a data set ( δ {\displaystyle \delta } ). A specification is constructed from a set of pertinent variables, a decomposition and a set of forms. Forms are either parametric forms or questions to other Bayesian programs. A question specifies which probability distribution has to be computed. === Description === The purpose of a description is to specify an effective method of computing a joint probability distribution on a set of variables { X 1 , X 2 , ⋯ , X N } {\displaystyle \left\{X_{1},X_{2},\cdots ,X_{N}\right\}} given a set of experimental data δ {\displaystyle \delta } and some specification π {\displaystyle \pi } . This joint distribution is denoted as: P ( X 1 ∧ X 2 ∧ ⋯ ∧ X N ∣ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(X_{1}\wedge X_{2}\wedge \cdots \wedge X_{N}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)} . To specify preliminary knowledge π {\displaystyle \pi } , the programmer must undertake the following: Define the set of relevant variables { X 1 , X 2 , ⋯ , X N } {\displaystyle \left\{X_{1},X_{2},\cdots ,X_{N}\right\}} on which the joint distribution is defined. Decompose the joint distribution (break it into relevant independent or conditional probabilities). Define the forms of each of the distributions (e.g., for each variable, one of the list of probability distributions). ==== Decomposition ==== Given a partition of { X 1 , X 2 , … , X N } {\displaystyle \left\{X_{1},X_{2},\ldots ,X_{N}\right\}} containing K {\displaystyle K} subsets, K {\displaystyle K} variables are defined L 1 , ⋯ , L K {\displaystyle L_{1},\cdots ,L_{K}} , each corresponding to one of these subsets. Each variable L k {\displaystyle L_{k}} is obtained as the conjunction of the variables { X k 1 , X k 2 , ⋯ } {\displaystyle \left\{X_{k_{1}},X_{k_{2}},\cdots \right\}} belonging to the k t h {\displaystyle k^{th}} subset. Recursive application of Bayes' theorem leads to: P ( X 1 ∧ X 2 ∧ ⋯ ∧ X N ∣ δ ∧ π ) = P ( L 1 ∧ ⋯ ∧ L K ∣ δ ∧ π ) = P ( L 1 ∣ δ ∧ π ) × P ( L 2 ∣ L 1 ∧ δ ∧ π ) × ⋯ × P ( L K ∣ L K − 1 ∧ ⋯ ∧ L 1 ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&P\left(X_{1}\wedge X_{2}\wedge \cdots \wedge X_{N}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)\\={}&P\left(L_{1}\wedge \cdots \wedge L_{K}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)\\={}&P\left(L_{1}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)\times P\left(L_{2}\mid L_{1}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)\times \cdots \times P\left(L_{K}\mid L_{K-1}\wedge \cdots \wedge L_{1}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)\end{aligned}}} Conditional independence hypotheses then allow further simplifications. A conditional independence hypothesis for variable L k {\displaystyle L_{k}} is defined by choosing some variable X n {\displaystyle X_{n}} among the variables appearing in the conjunction L k − 1 ∧ ⋯ ∧ L 2 ∧ L 1 {\displaystyle L_{k-1}\wedge \cdots \wedge L_{2}\wedge L_{1}} , labelling R k {\displaystyle R_{k}} as the conjunction of these chosen variables and setting: P ( L k ∣ L k − 1 ∧ ⋯ ∧ L 1 ∧ δ ∧ π ) = P ( L k ∣ R k ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(L_{k}\mid L_{k-1}\wedge \cdots \wedge L_{1}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)=P\left(L_{k}\mid R_{k}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)} We then obtain: P ( X 1 ∧ X 2 ∧ ⋯ ∧ X N ∣ δ ∧ π ) = P ( L 1 ∣ δ ∧ π ) × P ( L 2 ∣ R 2 ∧ δ ∧ π ) × ⋯ × P ( L K ∣ R K ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&P\left(X_{1}\wedge X_{2}\wedge \cdots \wedge X_{N}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)\\={}&P\left(L_{1}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)\times P\left(L_{2}\mid R_{2}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)\times \cdots \times P\left(L_{K}\mid R_{K}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)\end{aligned}}} Such a simplification of the joint distribution as a product of simpler distributions is called a decomposition, derived using the chain rule. This ensures that each variable appears at the most once on the left of a conditioning bar, which is the necessary and sufficient condition to write mathematically valid decompositions. ==== Forms ==== Each distribution P ( L k ∣ R k ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(L_{k}\mid R_{k}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)} appearing in the product is then associated with either a parametric form (i.e., a function f μ ( L k ) {\displaystyle f_{\mu }\left(L_{k}\right)} ) or a question to another Bayesian program P ( L k ∣ R k ∧ δ ∧ π ) = P ( L ∣ R ∧ δ ^ ∧ π ^ ) {\displaystyle P\left(L_{k}\mid R_{k}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)=P\left(L\mid R\wedge {\widehat {\delta }}\wedge {\widehat {\pi }}\right)} . When it is a form f μ ( L k ) {\displaystyle f_{\mu }\left(L_{k}\right)} , in general, μ {\displaystyle \mu } is a vector of parameters that may depend on R k {\displaystyle R_{k}} or δ {\displaystyle \delta } or both. Learning takes place when some of these parameters are computed using the data set δ {\displaystyle \delta } . An important feature of Bayesian programming is this capacity to use questions to other Bayesian programs as components of the definition of a new Bayesian program. P ( L k ∣ R k ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(L_{k}\mid R_{k}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)} is obtained by some inferences done by another Bayesian program defined by the specifications π ^ {\displaystyle {\widehat {\pi }}} and the data δ ^ {\displaystyle {\widehat {\delta }}} . This is similar to calling a subroutine in classical programming and provides an easy way to build hierarchical models. === Question === Given a description (i.e., P ( X 1 ∧ X 2 ∧ ⋯ ∧ X N ∣ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(X_{1}\wedge X_{2}\wedge \cdots \wedge X_{N}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)} ), a question is obtained by partitioning { X 1 , X 2 , ⋯ , X N } {\displaystyle \left\{X_{1},X_{2},\cdots ,X_{N}\right\}} into three sets: the searched variables, the known variables and the free variables. The 3 variables S e a r c h e d {\displaystyle Searched} , K n o w n {\displaystyle Known} and F r e e {\displaystyle Free} are defined as the conjunction of the variables belonging to these sets. A question is defined as the set of distributions: P ( S e a r c h e d ∣ Known ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(Searched\mid {\text{Known}}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)} made of many "instantiated questions" as the cardinal of K n o w n {\displaystyle Known} , each instantiated question being the distribution: P ( Searched ∣ Known ∧ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left({\text{Searched}}\mid {\text{Known}}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)} === Inference === Given the joint distribution P ( X 1 ∧ X 2 ∧ ⋯ ∧ X N ∣ δ ∧ π ) {\displaystyle P\left(X_{1}\wedge X_{2}\wedge \cdots \wedge X_{N}\mid \delta \wedge \pi \right)} , it is always possible to compute any possible question using the following general inference: P ( Searched ∣ Known ∧ δ ∧ π ) = ∑ Free [ P ( Searched ∧ Free ∣ Known ∧ δ ∧ π ) ] = ∑ Free [ P ( Searched ∧ Free ∧ Known ∣ δ ∧ π ) ] P ( Known ∣ δ ∧ π ) = ∑ Free [ P ( Searched ∧ Free ∧ Known ∣ δ ∧ π ) ] ∑ Free ∧ Searched [ P ( Searched ∧ Free ∧ Known ∣ δ ∧ π ) ] = 1 Z × ∑ Free [ P ( Searched ∧ Free ∧ Known ∣ δ ∧ π ) ] {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&P\left({\text{Searched}}\mid {\text{Known}}\wedge \delta \wedge \pi \right)\\={}&\sum _{\text{Free}}\left[P\left({\text{Searched}}\wedge {\text{Free}}\mid {\text{Known}}\wedge \delta \wedge \
Reasoning model
A reasoning model, also known as a reasoning language model (RLM) or large reasoning model (LRM), is a type of large language model (LLM) that has been specifically trained to solve complex tasks requiring multiple steps of logical reasoning. These models demonstrate superior performance on logic, mathematics, and programming tasks compared to standard LLMs. They possess the ability to revisit and revise earlier reasoning steps and utilize additional computation during inference as a method to scale performance, complementing traditional scaling approaches based on training data size, model parameters, and training compute. == Overview == Unlike traditional language models that generate responses immediately, reasoning models allocate additional compute, or thinking, time before producing an answer to solve multi-step problems. OpenAI introduced this terminology in September 2024 when it released the o1 series, describing the models as designed to "spend more time thinking" before responding. The company framed o1 as a reset in model naming that targets complex tasks in science, coding, and mathematics, and it contrasted o1's performance with GPT-4o on benchmarks such as AIME and Codeforces. Independent reporting the same week summarized the launch and highlighted OpenAI's claim that o1 automates chain-of-thought style reasoning to achieve large gains on difficult exams. In operation, reasoning models generate internal chains of intermediate steps, then select and refine a final answer. OpenAI reported that o1's accuracy improves as the model is given more reinforcement learning during training and more test-time compute at inference. The company initially chose to hide raw chains and instead return a model-written summary, stating that it "decided not to show" the underlying thoughts so researchers could monitor them without exposing unaligned content to end users. Commercial deployments document separate "reasoning tokens" that meter hidden thinking and a control for "reasoning effort" that tunes how much compute the model uses. These features make the models slower than ordinary chat systems while enabling stronger performance on difficult problems. == History == The research trajectory toward reasoning models combined advances in supervision, prompting, and search-style inference. Early alignment work on reinforcement learning from human feedback showed that models can be fine-tuned to follow instructions with "human feedback" and preference-based rewards. In 2022, Google Research scientists Jason Wei and Denny Zhou showed that chain-of-thought prompting "significantly improves the ability" of large models on complex reasoning tasks. Input → Step 1 → Step 2 → ⋯ → Step n ⏟ Reasoning chain → Answer {\displaystyle {\text{Input}}\rightarrow \underbrace {{\text{Step}}_{1}\rightarrow {\text{Step}}_{2}\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow {\text{Step}}_{n}} _{\text{Reasoning chain}}\rightarrow {\text{Answer}}} A companion result demonstrated that the simple instruction "Let's think step by step" can elicit zero-shot reasoning. Follow-up work introduced self-consistency decoding, which "boosts the performance" of chain-of-thought by sampling diverse solution paths and choosing the consensus, and tool-augmented methods such as ReAct, a portmanteau of Reason and Act, that prompt models to "generate both reasoning traces" and actions. Research then generalized chain-of-thought into search over multiple candidate plans. The Tree-of-Thoughts framework from Princeton computer scientist Shunyu Yao proposes that models "perform deliberate decision making" by exploring and backtracking over a tree of intermediate thoughts. OpenAI's reported breakthrough focused on supervising reasoning processes rather than only outcomes, with Lightman et al.'s "Let's Verify Step by Step" reporting that rewarding each correct step "significantly outperforms outcome supervision" on challenging math problems and improves interpretability by aligning the chain-of-thought with human judgment. OpenAI's o1 announcement ties these strands together with a large-scale reinforcement learning algorithm that trains the model to refine its own chain of thought, and it reports that accuracy rises with more training compute and more time spent thinking at inference. Together, these developments define the core of reasoning models. They use supervision signals that evaluate the quality of intermediate steps, they exploit inference-time exploration such as consensus or tree search, and they expose controls for how much internal thinking compute to allocate. OpenAI's o1 family made this approach available at scale in September 2024 and popularized the label "reasoning model" for LLMs that deliberately think before they answer. The development of reasoning models illustrates Richard S. Sutton's "bitter lesson" that scaling compute typically outperforms methods based on human-designed insights. This principle was demonstrated by researchers at the Generative AI Research Lab (GAIR), who initially attempted to replicate o1's capabilities using sophisticated methods including tree search and reinforcement learning in late 2024. Their findings, published in the "o1 Replication Journey" series, revealed that knowledge distillation, a comparatively straightforward technique that trains a smaller model to mimic o1's outputs, produced unexpectedly strong performance. This outcome illustrated how direct scaling approaches can, at times, outperform more complex engineering solutions. === Drawbacks === Reasoning models require significantly more computational resources during inference compared to non-reasoning models. Research on the American Invitational Mathematics Examination (AIME) benchmark found that reasoning models were 10 to 74 times more expensive to operate than their non-reasoning counterparts. The extended inference time is attributed to the detailed, step-by-step reasoning outputs that these models generate, which are typically much longer than responses from standard large language models that provide direct answers without showing their reasoning process. One researcher in early 2025 argued that these models may face potential additional denial-of-service concerns with "overthinking attacks." === Releases === ==== 2024 ==== In September 2024, OpenAI released o1-preview, a large language model with enhanced reasoning capabilities. The full version, o1, was released in December 2024. OpenAI initially shared preliminary results on its successor model, o3, in December 2024, with the full o3 model becoming available in 2025. Alibaba released reasoning versions of its Qwen large language models in November 2024. In December 2024, the company introduced QvQ-72B-Preview, an experimental visual reasoning model. In December 2024, Google introduced Deep Research in Gemini, a feature designed to conduct multi-step research tasks. On December 16, 2024, researchers demonstrated that by scaling test-time compute, a relatively small Llama 3B model could outperform a much larger Llama 70B model on challenging reasoning tasks. This experiment suggested that improved inference strategies can unlock reasoning capabilities even in smaller models. ==== 2025 ==== In January 2025, DeepSeek released R1, a reasoning model that achieved performance comparable to OpenAI's o1 at significantly lower computational cost. The release demonstrated the effectiveness of Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), a reinforcement learning technique used to train the model. On January 25, 2025, DeepSeek enhanced R1 with web search capabilities, allowing the model to retrieve information from the internet while performing reasoning tasks. Research during this period further validated the effectiveness of knowledge distillation for creating reasoning models. The s1-32B model achieved strong performance through budget forcing and scaling methods, reinforcing findings that simpler training approaches can be highly effective for reasoning capabilities. On February 2, 2025, OpenAI released Deep Research, a feature powered by their o3 model that enables users to conduct comprehensive research tasks. The system generates detailed reports by automatically gathering and synthesizing information from multiple web sources. OpenAI called GPT-4.5 its "last non-chain-of-thought model", and implemented with GPT-5 a router model that selects a model based on the difficulty of the task. ==== 2026 ==== In January 2026, Moonshot AI released Kimi K2.5, an open-source 1 trillion parameter MoE model with 32 billion active parameters. It uses an “Agent Swarm” system that dynamically decomposes tasks into sub-agents for reasoning and execution, enabling more scalable multi-step problem solving than a single sequential reasoning chain. == Training == Reasoning models follow the familiar large-scale pretraining used for frontier language models, then diverge in the post-training and optimization. OpenAI reports that o1 is trained with a large-
Artificial wisdom
Artificial wisdom (AW) is an artificial intelligence (AI) system which is able to display the human traits of wisdom and morals while being able to contemplate its own “endpoint”. Artificial wisdom can be described as artificial intelligence reaching the top-level of decision-making when confronted with the most complex challenging situations. The term artificial wisdom is used when the "intelligence" is based on more than by chance collecting and interpreting data, but by design enriched with smart and conscience strategies that wise people would use. == Overview == The goal of artificial wisdom is to create artificial intelligence that can successfully replicate the “uniquely human trait[s]” of having wisdom and morals as closely as possible. Thus, artificial wisdom, must “incorporate [the] ethical and moral considerations” of the data it uses. There are also many significant ethical and legal implications of AW which are compounded by the rapid advances in AI and related technologies alongside the lack of the development of ethics, guidelines, and regulations without the oversight of any kind of overarching advisory board. Additionally, there are challenges in how to develop, test, and implement AW in real world scenarios. Existing tests do not test the internal thought process by which a computer system reaches its conclusion, only the result of said process. When examining computer-aided wisdom; the partnership of artificial intelligence and contemplative neuroscience, concerns regarding the future of artificial intelligence shift to a more optimistic viewpoint. This artificial wisdom forms the basis of Louis Molnar's monographic article on artificial philosophy, where he coined the term and proposes how artificial intelligence might view its place in the grand scheme of things. == Definitions == There are no universal or standardized definitions for human intelligence, artificial intelligence, human wisdom, or artificial wisdom. However, the DIKW pyramid, describes the continuum of relationship between data, information, knowledge, and wisdom, puts wisdom at the highest level in its hierarchy. Gottfredson defines intelligence as “the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience”. Definitions for wisdom typically include requiring: The ability for emotional regulation, Pro-social behaviors (e.g., empathy, compassion, and altruism), Self-reflection, “A balance between decisiveness and acceptance of uncertainty and diversity of perspectives, and social advising.” As previously defined, Artificial Wisdom would then be an AI system which is able to solve problems via “an understanding of…context, ethics and moral principles,” rather than simple pre-defined inputs or “learned patterns.” Some scientists have also considered the field of artificial consciousness. However, Jeste states that “…it is generally agreed that only humans can have consciousness, autonomy, will, and theory of mind.” An artificially wise system must also be able to contemplate its end goal and recognize its own ignorance. Additionally, to contemplate its end goal, a wise system must have a “correct conception of worthwhile goals (broadly speaking) or well-being (narrowly speaking)”. "Stephen Grimm further suggests that the following three types of knowledge are individually necessary for wisdom: first, "knowledge of what is good or important for well-being", second, "knowledge of one’s standing, relative to what is good or important for well-being", and third, "knowledge of a strategy for obtaining what is good or important for wellbeing."" == Problems == There are notable problems with attempting to create an artificially wise system. Consciousness, autonomy, and will are considered strictly human features. === Values === There are significant ethical and philosophical issues when attempting to create an intelligent or a wise system. Notably, whose moral values will be used to train the system to be wise. Differing moral values and prejudice can already be seen from various organizations and governments in artificial intelligence. Deployment strategies and values of Artificial Wisdom will conflict between leaders, companies, and countries. Nusbaum states, “When values are in conflict, leaders often make choices that are clever or smart about their own needs, but are often not wise.” === Ethics === Science fiction author Isaac Asimov realized the need to control the technology in the 1940s when he wrote the three laws of robotics as follows: A robot may not injure a human directly or indirectly. A robot must obey human’s orders. A robot should seek to protect its own existence. Additionally, the pace at which technology is rapidly advancing artificial intelligence and thus the need for artificial wisdom may “have outpaced the development of societal guidelines have raised serious questions about the ethics and morality of AI, and called for international oversight and regulations to ensure safety.” === Principal impossibility === One argument, coined by Tsai as the “argument against AW,” or AAAW, postulates the principal impossibility of Artificial Wisdom. The argument is based on the philosophical differences between practical wisdom, also called phronesis, and practical intelligence. Said difference isn’t in “selecting the correct means, but reasoning correctly about what ends to follow”. Tsai puts the argument into a logical proposition as follows: “(P1) An agent is genuinely wise only if the agent can deliberate about the final goal of the domain in which the agent is situated.” “(P2) An intelligent agent cannot deliberate about the final goal of the domain in which the agent is situated.” “(C1) An intelligent agent cannot be genuinely wise.” “(P3) An AW is, at its core, intelligent.” “(C2) An AW cannot be genuinely wise.”
Emergent algorithm
An emergent algorithm is an algorithm that exhibits emergent behavior. In essence an emergent algorithm implements a set of simple building block behaviors that when combined exhibit more complex behaviors. One example of this is the implementation of fuzzy motion controllers used to adapt robot movement in response to environmental obstacles. An emergent algorithm has the following characteristics: it achieves predictable global effects it does not require global visibility it does not assume any kind of centralized control it is self-stabilizing Other examples of emergent algorithms and models include cellular automata, artificial neural networks and swarm intelligence systems (ant colony optimization, bees algorithm, etc.).
Image registration
Image registration is the process of transforming different sets of data into one coordinate system. Data may be multiple photographs, data from different sensors, times, depths, or viewpoints. It is used in computer vision, medical imaging, military automatic target recognition, and compiling and analyzing images and data from satellites. Registration is necessary in order to be able to compare or integrate the data obtained from these different measurements. == Algorithm classification == === Intensity-based vs feature-based === Image registration or image alignment algorithms can be classified into intensity-based and feature-based. One of the images is referred to as the target, fixed or sensed image and the others are referred to as the moving or source images. Image registration involves spatially transforming the source/moving image(s) to align with the target image. The reference frame in the target image is stationary, while the other datasets are transformed to match to the target. Intensity-based methods compare intensity patterns in images via correlation metrics, while feature-based methods find correspondence between image features such as points, lines, and contours. Intensity-based methods register entire images or sub-images. If sub-images are registered, centers of corresponding sub images are treated as corresponding feature points. Feature-based methods establish a correspondence between a number of especially distinct points in images. Knowing the correspondence between a number of points in images, a geometrical transformation is then determined to map the target image to the reference images, thereby establishing point-by-point correspondence between the reference and target images. Methods combining intensity-based and feature-based information have also been developed. === Transformation models === Image registration algorithms can also be classified according to the transformation models they use to relate the target image space to the reference image space. The first broad category of transformation models includes affine transformations, which include rotation, scaling, translation and shearing. Affine transformations are global in nature, thus, they cannot model local geometric differences between images. The second category of transformations allow 'elastic' or 'nonrigid' transformations. These transformations are capable of locally warping the target image to align with the reference image. Nonrigid transformations include radial basis functions (thin-plate or surface splines, multiquadrics, and compactly-supported transformations), physical continuum models (viscous fluids), and large deformation models (diffeomorphisms). Transformations are commonly described by a parametrization, where the model dictates the number of parameters. For instance, the translation of a full image can be described by a translation vector parameter. These models are called parametric models. Non-parametric models on the other hand, do not follow any parameterization, allowing each image element to be displaced arbitrarily. There are a number of programs that implement both estimation and application of a warp-field. It is a part of the SPM and AIR programs. === Transformations of coordinates via the law of function composition rather than addition === Alternatively, many advanced methods for spatial normalization are building on structure preserving transformations homeomorphisms and diffeomorphisms since they carry smooth submanifolds smoothly during transformation. Diffeomorphisms are generated in the modern field of Computational Anatomy based on flows since diffeomorphisms are not additive although they form a group, but a group under the law of function composition. For this reason, flows which generalize the ideas of additive groups allow for generating large deformations that preserve topology, providing 1-1 and onto transformations. Computational methods for generating such transformation are often called LDDMM which provide flows of diffeomorphisms as the main computational tool for connecting coordinate systems corresponding to the geodesic flows of Computational Anatomy. There are a number of programs which generate diffeomorphic transformations of coordinates via diffeomorphic mapping including MRI Studio and MRI Cloud.org === Spatial vs frequency domain methods === Spatial methods operate in the image domain, matching intensity patterns or features in images. Some of the feature matching algorithms are outgrowths of traditional techniques for performing manual image registration, in which an operator chooses corresponding control points (CP) in images. When the number of control points exceeds the minimum required to define the appropriate transformation model, iterative algorithms like RANSAC can be used to robustly estimate the parameters of a particular transformation type (e.g. affine) for registration of the images. Frequency-domain methods find the transformation parameters for registration of the images while working in the transform domain. Such methods work for simple transformations, such as translation, rotation, and scaling. Applying the phase correlation method to a pair of images produces a third image which contains a single peak. The location of this peak corresponds to the relative translation between the images. Unlike many spatial-domain algorithms, the phase correlation method is resilient to noise, occlusions, and other defects typical of medical or satellite images. Additionally, the phase correlation uses the fast Fourier transform to compute the cross-correlation between the two images, generally resulting in large performance gains. The method can be extended to determine rotation and scaling differences between two images by first converting the images to log-polar coordinates. Due to properties of the Fourier transform, the rotation and scaling parameters can be determined in a manner invariant to translation. === Single- vs multi-modality methods === Another classification can be made between single-modality and multi-modality methods. Single-modality methods tend to register images in the same modality acquired by the same scanner/sensor type, while multi-modality registration methods tended to register images acquired by different scanner/sensor types. Multi-modality registration methods are often used in medical imaging as images of a subject are frequently obtained from different scanners. Examples include registration of brain CT/MRI images or whole body PET/CT images for tumor localization, registration of contrast-enhanced CT images against non-contrast-enhanced CT images for segmentation of specific parts of the anatomy, and registration of ultrasound and CT images for prostate localization in radiotherapy. === Automatic vs interactive methods === Registration methods may be classified based on the level of automation they provide. Manual, interactive, semi-automatic, and automatic methods have been developed. Manual methods provide tools to align the images manually. Interactive methods reduce user bias by performing certain key operations automatically while still relying on the user to guide the registration. Semi-automatic methods perform more of the registration steps automatically but depend on the user to verify the correctness of a registration. Automatic methods do not allow any user interaction and perform all registration steps automatically. === Similarity measures for image registration === Image similarities are broadly used in medical imaging. An image similarity measure quantifies the degree of similarity between intensity patterns in two images. The choice of an image similarity measure depends on the modality of the images to be registered. Common examples of image similarity measures include cross-correlation, mutual information, sum of squared intensity differences, and ratio image uniformity. Mutual information and normalized mutual information are the most popular image similarity measures for registration of multimodality images. Cross-correlation, sum of squared intensity differences and ratio image uniformity are commonly used for registration of images in the same modality. Many new features have been derived for cost functions based on matching methods via large deformations have emerged in the field Computational Anatomy including Measure matching which are pointsets or landmarks without correspondence, Curve matching and Surface matching via mathematical currents and varifolds. == Uncertainty == There is a level of uncertainty associated with registering images that have any spatio-temporal differences. A confident registration with a measure of uncertainty is critical for many change detection applications such as medical diagnostics. In remote sensing applications where a digital image pixel may represent several kilometers of spatial distance (such as NASA's LANDSAT imagery), an uncertain image registration can mean that a solution could b
Right to explanation
In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo