DiscoVision is the name of several things related to the video LaserDisc format. It was the original name of the "Reflective Optical Videodisc System" format later known as "LaserVision" or LaserDisc. == Description == MCA DiscoVision, Inc. was a division of entertainment giant MCA (Music Corporation of America), established in 1969 to develop and sell an optical videodisc system. MCA released discs pressed in Carson and Costa Mesa, California on the DiscoVision label from the format's Atlanta, Georgia launch in 1978 to 1982 and the release of the film The Four Seasons. DiscoVision titles included films from Universal Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, and Disney content. Agreements were made with Columbia Pictures and United Artists, though no discs were released on the DiscoVision label from either studio. Most of these companies later established their own labels for the format, the first being Paramount with a dozen movies released on the Paramount Home Video label in the summer of 1981. The successor to MCA DiscoVision, DiscoVision Associates (DVA), was the result of a partnership between IBM and MCA. It was hoped that the merger would provide the basis for improvement of the quality of DiscoVision pressings, but no appreciable improvement ever took hold. In 1981, responsibility for the laser videodisc was sold to Pioneer Electronic Corporation, after MCA Discovision had previously started a partnership in 1977 with Pioneer, Universal Pioneer, to produce the Pioneer PR-7820 player (the first industrial model of DiscoVision player from 1978), as well as establishing disc pressing plants in Japan. As part of the partnership, Pioneer, in association with MCA, had a disc replication facility in Kofu, Japan that produced discs. Some of the last DiscoVision label discs were manufactured by Pioneer in Japan. In the same year, MCA discontinued their DiscoVision branding, due to the sale of the technology to Pioneer (who then rebranded the format as LaserDisc) and in turn rebranded their laserdisc releases, now fabricated by Pioneer, under the MCA Videodisc banner; this was changed to the "MCA Home Video" name for both its VHS and videodisc releases. Some of DiscoVision's technical staff went on to form MCA Video Games, in an effort to produce video game cartridges. DiscoVision Associates later evolved into a patent holding company which manages and licenses intellectual property related to LaserDisc, Compact Disc, and optical disc technologies, as well as other non-disc related fields. In 1989, Pioneer acquired DiscoVision Associates where it continues to license its technologies independently. As the portfolio of patent expired, the presence of DiscoVision became less visible. However, it established the success of a patent holding company, which other companies are stimulated to generate royalty income from their own patent portfolio.
Semantic neural network
Semantic neural network (SNN) is based on John von Neumann's neural network [von Neumann, 1966] and Nikolai Amosov M-Network. There are limitations to a link topology for the von Neumann’s network but SNN accept a case without these limitations. Only logical values can be processed, but SNN accept that fuzzy values can be processed too. All neurons into the von Neumann network are synchronized by tacts. For further use of self-synchronizing circuit technique SNN accepts neurons can be self-running or synchronized. In contrast to the von Neumann network there are no limitations for topology of neurons for semantic networks. It leads to the impossibility of relative addressing of neurons as it was done by von Neumann. In this case an absolute readdressing should be used. Every neuron should have a unique identifier that would provide a direct access to another neuron. Of course, neurons interacting by axons-dendrites should have each other's identifiers. An absolute readdressing can be modulated by using neuron specificity as it was realized for biological neural networks. There’s no description for self-reflectiveness and self-modification abilities into the initial description of semantic networks [Dudar Z.V., Shuklin D.E., 2000]. But in [Shuklin D.E. 2004] a conclusion had been drawn about the necessity of introspection and self-modification abilities in the system. For maintenance of these abilities a concept of pointer to neuron is provided. Pointers represent virtual connections between neurons. In this model, bodies and signals transferring through the neurons connections represent a physical body, and virtual connections between neurons are representing an astral body. It is proposed to create models of artificial neuron networks on the basis of virtual machine supporting the opportunity for paranormal effects. SNN is generally used for natural language processing. == Related models == Computational creativity Semantic hashing Semantic Pointer Architecture Sparse distributed memory
Count sketch
Count sketch is a type of dimensionality reduction that is particularly efficient in statistics, machine learning and algorithms. It was invented by Moses Charikar, Kevin Chen and Martin Farach-Colton in an effort to speed up the AMS Sketch by Alon, Matias and Szegedy for approximating the frequency moments of streams (these calculations require counting of the number of occurrences for the distinct elements of the stream). The sketch is nearly identical to the Feature hashing algorithm by John Moody, but differs in its use of hash functions with low dependence, which makes it more practical. In order to still have a high probability of success, the median trick is used to aggregate multiple count sketches, rather than the mean. These properties allow use for explicit kernel methods, bilinear pooling in neural networks and is a cornerstone in many numerical linear algebra algorithms. == Intuitive explanation == The inventors of this data structure offer the following iterative explanation of its operation: at the simplest level, the output of a single hash function s mapping stream elements q into {+1, -1} is feeding a single up/down counter C. After a single pass over the data, the frequency n ( q ) {\displaystyle n(q)} of a stream element q can be approximated, although extremely poorly, by the expected value E [ C ⋅ s ( q ) ] {\displaystyle {\mathbf {E}}[C\cdot s(q)]} ; a straightforward way to improve the variance of the previous estimate is to use an array of different hash functions s i {\displaystyle s_{i}} , each connected to its own counter C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} . For each i, the E [ C i ⋅ s i ( q ) ] = n ( q ) {\displaystyle {\mathbf {E}}[C_{i}\cdot s_{i}(q)]=n(q)} still holds, so averaging across the i range will tighten the approximation; the previous construct still has a major deficiency: if a lower-frequency-but-still-important output element a exhibits a hash collision with a high-frequency element even for one of the s i {\displaystyle s_{i}} hashes, n ( a ) {\displaystyle n(a)} estimate can be significantly affected. Avoiding this requires reducing the frequency of collision counter updates between any two distinct elements. This is achieved by replacing each C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} in the previous construct with an array of m counters (making the counter set into a two-dimensional matrix C i , j {\displaystyle C_{i,j}} ), with index j of a particular counter to be incremented/decremented selected via another set of hash functions h i {\displaystyle h_{i}} that map element q into the range {1..m}. Since E [ C i , h i ( q ) ⋅ s i ( q ) ] = n ( q ) {\displaystyle {\mathbf {E}}[C_{i,h_{i}(q)}\cdot s_{i}(q)]=n(q)} , averaging across all values of i will work. == Mathematical definition == 1. For constants w {\displaystyle w} and t {\displaystyle t} (to be defined later) independently choose d = 2 t + 1 {\displaystyle d=2t+1} random hash functions h 1 , … , h d {\displaystyle h_{1},\dots ,h_{d}} and s 1 , … , s d {\displaystyle s_{1},\dots ,s_{d}} such that h i : [ n ] → [ w ] {\displaystyle h_{i}:[n]\to [w]} and s i : [ n ] → { ± 1 } {\displaystyle s_{i}:[n]\to \{\pm 1\}} . It is necessary that the hash families from which h i {\displaystyle h_{i}} and s i {\displaystyle s_{i}} are chosen be pairwise independent. 2. For each item q i {\displaystyle q_{i}} in the stream, add s j ( q i ) {\displaystyle s_{j}(q_{i})} to the h j ( q i ) {\displaystyle h_{j}(q_{i})} th bucket of the j {\displaystyle j} th hash. At the end of this process, one has w d {\displaystyle wd} sums ( C i j ) {\displaystyle (C_{ij})} where C i , j = ∑ h i ( k ) = j s i ( k ) . {\displaystyle C_{i,j}=\sum _{h_{i}(k)=j}s_{i}(k).} To estimate the count of q {\displaystyle q} s one computes the following value: r q = median i = 1 d s i ( q ) ⋅ C i , h i ( q ) . {\displaystyle r_{q}={\text{median}}_{i=1}^{d}\,s_{i}(q)\cdot C_{i,h_{i}(q)}.} The values s i ( q ) ⋅ C i , h i ( q ) {\displaystyle s_{i}(q)\cdot C_{i,h_{i}(q)}} are unbiased estimates of how many times q {\displaystyle q} has appeared in the stream. The estimate r q {\displaystyle r_{q}} has variance O ( m i n { m 1 2 / w 2 , m 2 2 / w } ) {\displaystyle O(\mathrm {min} \{m_{1}^{2}/w^{2},m_{2}^{2}/w\})} , where m 1 {\displaystyle m_{1}} is the length of the stream and m 2 2 {\displaystyle m_{2}^{2}} is ∑ q ( ∑ i [ q i = q ] ) 2 {\displaystyle \sum _{q}(\sum _{i}[q_{i}=q])^{2}} . Furthermore, r q {\displaystyle r_{q}} is guaranteed to never be more than 2 m 2 / w {\displaystyle 2m_{2}/{\sqrt {w}}} off from the true value, with probability 1 − e − O ( t ) {\displaystyle 1-e^{-O(t)}} . === Vector formulation === Alternatively Count-Sketch can be seen as a linear mapping with a non-linear reconstruction function. Let M ( i ∈ [ d ] ) ∈ { − 1 , 0 , 1 } w × n {\displaystyle M^{(i\in [d])}\in \{-1,0,1\}^{w\times n}} , be a collection of d = 2 t + 1 {\displaystyle d=2t+1} matrices, defined by M h i ( j ) , j ( i ) = s i ( j ) {\displaystyle M_{h_{i}(j),j}^{(i)}=s_{i}(j)} for j ∈ [ w ] {\displaystyle j\in [w]} and 0 everywhere else. Then a vector v ∈ R n {\displaystyle v\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} is sketched by C ( i ) = M ( i ) v ∈ R w {\displaystyle C^{(i)}=M^{(i)}v\in \mathbb {R} ^{w}} . To reconstruct v {\displaystyle v} we take v j ∗ = median i C j ( i ) s i ( j ) {\displaystyle v_{j}^{}={\text{median}}_{i}C_{j}^{(i)}s_{i}(j)} . This gives the same guarantees as stated above, if we take m 1 = ‖ v ‖ 1 {\displaystyle m_{1}=\|v\|_{1}} and m 2 = ‖ v ‖ 2 {\displaystyle m_{2}=\|v\|_{2}} . == Relation to Tensor sketch == The count sketch projection of the outer product of two vectors is equivalent to the convolution of two component count sketches. The count sketch computes a vector convolution C ( 1 ) x ∗ C ( 2 ) x T {\displaystyle C^{(1)}x\ast C^{(2)}x^{T}} , where C ( 1 ) {\displaystyle C^{(1)}} and C ( 2 ) {\displaystyle C^{(2)}} are independent count sketch matrices. Pham and Pagh show that this equals C ( x ⊗ x T ) {\displaystyle C(x\otimes x^{T})} – a count sketch C {\displaystyle C} of the outer product of vectors, where ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } denotes Kronecker product. The fast Fourier transform can be used to do fast convolution of count sketches. By using the face-splitting product such structures can be computed much faster than normal matrices.
Defining length
In the field of genetic algorithms, a schema (plural: schemata) is a template that represents a subset of potential solutions. These templates use fixed symbols (e.g., `0` or `1`) for specific positions and a wildcard or "don't care" symbol (often `#` or ``) for others. The defining length of a schema, denoted as L(H), measures the distance between the outermost fixed positions in the template. According to the Schema theorem, a schema with a shorter defining length is less likely to be disrupted by the genetic operator of crossover. As a result, short schemata are considered more robust and are more likely to be propagated to the next generation. In genetic programming, where solutions are often represented as trees, the defining length is the number of links in the minimum tree fragment that includes all the non-wildcard symbols within a schema H. == Example == The defining length is calculated by subtracting the position of the first fixed symbol from the position of the last one. Using 1-based indexing for a string of length 5: The schema `1##0#` has its first fixed symbol (`1`) at position 1 and its last fixed symbol (`0`) at position 4. Its defining length is 4 − 1 = 3. The schema `00##0` has its first fixed symbol at position 1 and its last at position 5. Its defining length is 5 − 1 = 4. The schema `##0##` has only one fixed symbol at position 3. The first and last fixed positions are the same, so its defining length is 3 − 3 = 0.
Softplus
In mathematics and machine learning, the softplus function is f ( x ) = ln ( 1 + e x ) . {\displaystyle f(x)=\ln(1+e^{x}).} It is a smooth approximation (in fact, an analytic function) to the ramp function, which is known as the rectifier or ReLU (rectified linear unit) in machine learning. For large negative x {\displaystyle x} it is ln ( 1 + e x ) = ln ( 1 + ϵ ) ⪆ ln 1 = 0 {\displaystyle \ln(1+e^{x})=\ln(1+\epsilon )\gtrapprox \ln 1=0} , so just above 0, while for large positive x {\displaystyle x} it is ln ( 1 + e x ) ⪆ ln ( e x ) = x {\displaystyle \ln(1+e^{x})\gtrapprox \ln(e^{x})=x} , so just above x {\displaystyle x} . The names softplus and SmoothReLU are used in machine learning. The name "softplus" (2000), by analogy with the earlier softmax (1989) is presumably because it is a smooth (soft) approximation of the positive part of x, which is sometimes denoted with a superscript plus, x + := max ( 0 , x ) {\displaystyle x^{+}:=\max(0,x)} . == Alternative forms == This function can be approximated as: ln ( 1 + e x ) ≈ { ln 2 , x = 0 , x 1 − e − x / ln 2 , x ≠ 0 {\displaystyle \ln \left(1+e^{x}\right)\approx {\begin{cases}\ln 2,&x=0,\\[6pt]{\frac {x}{1-e^{-x/\ln 2}}},&x\neq 0\end{cases}}} By making the change of variables x = y ln ( 2 ) {\displaystyle x=y\ln(2)} , this is equivalent to log 2 ( 1 + 2 y ) ≈ { 1 , y = 0 , y 1 − e − y , y ≠ 0. {\displaystyle \log _{2}(1+2^{y})\approx {\begin{cases}1,&y=0,\\[6pt]{\frac {y}{1-e^{-y}}},&y\neq 0.\end{cases}}} A sharpness parameter k {\displaystyle k} may be included: f ( x ) = ln ( 1 + e k x ) k , f ′ ( x ) = e k x 1 + e k x = 1 1 + e − k x . {\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {\ln(1+e^{kx})}{k}},\qquad \qquad f'(x)={\frac {e^{kx}}{1+e^{kx}}}={\frac {1}{1+e^{-kx}}}.} Additionally, the softplus function is equivalent to the log of the sigmoid function in the following way: − ln ( sigmoid ( − x ) ) = − ln ( 1 1 + e x ) = ln ( 1 + e x ) = softplus ( x ) {\displaystyle -\ln({\text{sigmoid}}(-x))=-\ln \left({\frac {1}{1+e^{x}}}\right)=\ln \left(1+e^{x}\right)={\text{softplus}}(x)} == Related functions == The derivative of softplus is the standard logistic function: f ′ ( x ) = e x 1 + e x = 1 1 + e − x {\displaystyle f'(x)={\frac {e^{x}}{1+e^{x}}}={\frac {1}{1+e^{-x}}}} The logistic function or the sigmoid function is a smooth approximation of the rectifier, the Heaviside step function. === LogSumExp === The multivariable generalization of single-variable softplus is the LogSumExp with the first argument set to zero: L S E 0 + ( x 1 , … , x n ) := LSE ( 0 , x 1 , … , x n ) = ln ( 1 + e x 1 + ⋯ + e x n ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {LSE_{0}} ^{+}(x_{1},\dots ,x_{n}):=\operatorname {LSE} (0,x_{1},\dots ,x_{n})=\ln(1+e^{x_{1}}+\cdots +e^{x_{n}}).} The LogSumExp function is LSE ( x 1 , … , x n ) = ln ( e x 1 + ⋯ + e x n ) , {\displaystyle \operatorname {LSE} (x_{1},\dots ,x_{n})=\ln(e^{x_{1}}+\cdots +e^{x_{n}}),} and its gradient is the softmax; the softmax with the first argument set to zero is the multivariable generalization of the logistic function. Both LogSumExp and softmax are used in machine learning. === Convex conjugate === The convex conjugate (specifically, the Legendre transformation) of the softplus function is the negative binary entropy function (with base e). This is because (following the definition of the Legendre transformation: the derivatives are inverse functions) the derivative of softplus is the logistic function, whose inverse function is the logit, which is the derivative of negative binary entropy. Softplus can be interpreted as logistic loss (as a positive number), so, by duality, minimizing logistic loss corresponds to maximizing entropy. This justifies the principle of maximum entropy as loss minimization.
Turret lathe
A turret lathe is a form of metalworking lathe that is used for repetitive production of duplicate parts, which by the nature of their cutting process are usually interchangeable. It evolved from earlier lathes with the addition of the turret, which is an indexable toolholder that allows multiple cutting operations to be performed, each with a different cutting tool, in easy, rapid succession, with no need for the operator to perform set-up tasks in between (such as installing or uninstalling tools) or to control the toolpath. The latter is due to the toolpath's being controlled by the machine, either in jig-like fashion, via the mechanical limits placed on it by the turret's slide and stops, or via digitally-directed servomechanisms for computer numerical control lathes. The name derives from the way early turrets took the general form of a flattened cylindrical block mounted to the lathe's cross-slide, capable of rotating about the vertical axis and with toolholders projecting out to all sides, and thus vaguely resembled a swiveling gun turret. Capstan lathe is the usual name in the UK and Commonwealth, though the two terms are also used in contrast: see below, Capstan versus turret. == History == Turret lathes became indispensable to the production of interchangeable parts and for mass production. The first turret lathe was built by Stephen Fitch in 1845 to manufacture screws for pistol percussion parts. In the mid-nineteenth century, the need for interchangeable parts for Colt revolvers enhanced the role of turret lathes in achieving this goal as part of the "American system" of manufacturing arms. Clock-making and bicycle manufacturing had similar requirements. Christopher Spencer invented the first fully automated turret lathe in 1873, which led to designs using cam action or hydraulic mechanisms. From the late-19th through mid-20th centuries, turret lathes, both manual and automatic (i.e., screw machines and chuckers), were one of the most important classes of machine tools for mass production. They were used extensively in the mass production for the war effort in World War II. The U.S. company Warner & Swasey was one of the premier brands in heavy turret lathes between the 1910s and 1960s; it became the world's largest manufacturer of such lathes by 1928. During World War II, it employed 7,000 people and produced half of the turret lathes manufactured in the United States. == Types == There are many variants of the turret lathe. They can be most generally classified by size (small, medium, or large); method of control (manual, automated mechanically, or automated via computer (numerical control (NC) or computer numerical control (CNC)); and bed orientation (horizontal or vertical). === Archetypical: horizontal, manual === In the late 1830s a "capstan lathe" with a turret was patented in Britain. The first American turret lathe was invented by Stephen Fitch in 1845. The archetypical turret lathe, and the first in order of historical appearance, is the horizontal-bed, manual turret lathe. The term "turret lathe" without further qualification is still understood to refer to this type. The formative decades for this class of machine were the 1840s through 1860s, when the basic idea of mounting an indexable turret on a bench lathe or engine lathe was born, developed, and disseminated from the originating shops to many other factories. Some important tool-builders in this development were Stephen Fitch; Gay, Silver & Co.; Elisha K. Root of Colt; J.D. Alvord of the Sharps Armory; Frederick W. Howe, Richard S. Lawrence, and Henry D. Stone of Robbins & Lawrence; J.R. Brown of Brown & Sharpe; and Francis A. Pratt of Pratt & Whitney. Various designers at these and other firms later made further refinements. === Semi-automatic === Sometimes machines similar to those above, but with power feeds and automatic turret-indexing at the end of the return stroke, are called "semi-automatic turret lathes". This nomenclature distinction is blurry and not consistently observed. The term "turret lathe" encompasses them all. During the 1860s, when semi-automatic turret lathes were developed, they were sometimes called "automatic". What we today would call "automatics", that is, fully automatic machines, had not been developed yet. During that era both manual and semi-automatic turret lathes were sometimes called "screw machines", although we today reserve that term for fully automatic machines. === Automatic === During the 1870s through 1890s, the mechanically automated "automatic" turret lathe was developed and disseminated. These machines can execute many part-cutting cycles without human intervention. Thus the duties of the operator, which were already greatly reduced by the manual turret lathe, were even further reduced, and productivity increased. These machines use cams to automate the sliding and indexing of the turret and the opening and closing of the chuck. Thus, they execute the part-cutting cycle somewhat analogously to the way in which an elaborate cuckoo clock performs an automated theater show. Small- to medium-sized automatic turret lathes are usually called "screw machines" or "automatic screw machines", while larger ones are usually called "automatic chucking lathes", "automatic chuckers", or "chuckers". Such machine tools of the "automatic" variety, which in the pre-computer era meant mechanically automated, had already reached a highly advanced state by World War I. === Computer numerical control === When World War II ended, the digital computer was poised to develop from a colossal laboratory curiosity into a practical technology that could begin to disseminate into business and industry. The advent of computer-based automation in machine tools via numerical control (NC) and then computer numerical control (CNC) displaced to a large extent, but not at all completely, the previously existing manual and mechanically automated machines. Numerically controlled turrets allow automated selection of tools on a turret. CNC lathes may be horizontal or vertical in orientation and mount six separate tools on one or more turrets. Such machine tools can work in two axes per turret, with up to six axes being feasible for complex work. === Vertical === Vertical turret lathes have the workpiece held vertically, which allows the headstock to sit on the floor and the faceplate to become a horizontal rotating table, analogous to a huge potter's wheel. This is useful for the handling of very large, heavy, short workpieces. Vertical lathes in general are also called "vertical boring mills" or often simply "boring mills"; therefore a vertical turret lathe is a vertical boring mill equipped with a turret. == Other variations == === Capstan versus turret === The term "capstan lathe" overlaps in sense with the term "turret lathe" to a large extent. In many times and places, it has been understood to be synonymous with "turret lathe". In other times and places it has been held in technical contradistinction to "turret lathe", with the difference being in whether the turret's slide is fixed to the bed (ram-type turret) or slides on the bed's ways (saddle-type turret). The difference in terminology is mostly a matter of United Kingdom and Commonwealth usage versus United States usage. === Flat === A subtype of horizontal turret lathe is the flat-turret lathe. Its turret is flat (and analogous to a rotary table), allowing the turret to pass beneath the part. Patented by James Hartness of Jones & Lamson, and first disseminated in the 1890s, it was developed to provide more rigidity via requiring less overhang in the tool setup, especially when the part is relatively long. === Hollow-hexagon === Hollow-hexagon turret lathes competed with flat-turret lathes by taking the conventional hexagon turret and making it hollow, allowing the part to pass into it during the cut, analogously to how the part would pass over the flat turret. In both cases, the main idea is to increase rigidity by allowing a relatively long part to be turned without the tool overhang that would be needed with a conventional turret, which is not flat or hollow. === Monitor lathe === The term "monitor lathe" formerly (1860s–1940s) referred to the class of small- to medium-sized manual turret lathes used on relatively small work. The name was inspired by the monitor-class warships, which the monitor lathe's turret resembled. Today, lathes of such appearance, such as the Hardinge DSM-59 and its many clones, are still common, but the name "monitor lathe" is no longer current in the industry. === Toolpost turrets and tailstock turrets === Turrets can be added to non-turret lathes (bench lathes, engine lathes, toolroom lathes, etc.) by mounting them on the toolpost, tailstock, or both. Often these turrets are not as large as a turret lathe's, and they usually do not offer the sliding and stopping that a turret lathe's turret does; but they do offer the ability to index through successive tool
Quantum neural network
Quantum neural networks are computational neural network models which are based on the principles of quantum mechanics. The first ideas on quantum neural computation were published independently in 1995 by Subhash Kak and Ron Chrisley, engaging with the theory of quantum mind, which posits that quantum effects play a role in cognitive function. However, typical research in quantum neural networks involves combining classical artificial neural network models (which are widely used in machine learning for the important task of pattern recognition) with the advantages of quantum information in order to develop more efficient algorithms. One important motivation for these investigations is the difficulty to train classical neural networks, especially in big data applications. The hope is that features of quantum computing such as quantum parallelism or the effects of interference and entanglement can be used as resources. Since the technological implementation of a quantum computer is still in a premature stage, such quantum neural network models are mostly theoretical proposals that await their full implementation in physical experiments. Most Quantum neural networks are developed as feed-forward networks. Similar to their classical counterparts, this structure intakes input from one layer of qubits, and passes that input onto another layer of qubits. This layer of qubits evaluates this information and passes on the output to the next layer. Eventually the path leads to the final layer of qubits. The layers do not have to be of the same width, meaning they don't have to have the same number of qubits as the layer before or after it. This structure is trained on which path to take similar to classical artificial neural networks. This is discussed in a lower section. Quantum neural networks refer to three different categories: Quantum computer with classical data, classical computer with quantum data, and quantum computer with quantum data. == Examples == Quantum neural network research is still in its infancy, and a conglomeration of proposals and ideas of varying scope and mathematical rigor have been put forward. Most of them are based on the idea of replacing classical binary or McCulloch-Pitts neurons with a qubit (which can be called a "quron"), resulting in neural units that can be in a superposition of the state 'firing' and 'resting'. === Quantum perceptrons === A lot of proposals attempt to find a quantum equivalent for the perceptron unit from which neural nets are constructed. A problem is that nonlinear activation functions do not immediately correspond to the mathematical structure of quantum theory, since a quantum evolution is described by linear operations and leads to probabilistic observation. Ideas to imitate the perceptron activation function with a quantum mechanical formalism reach from special measurements to postulating non-linear quantum operators (a mathematical framework that is disputed). A direct implementation of the activation function using the circuit-based model of quantum computation has recently been proposed by Schuld, Sinayskiy and Petruccione based on the quantum phase estimation algorithm. === Quantum networks === At a larger scale, researchers have attempted to generalize neural networks to the quantum setting. One way of constructing a quantum neuron is to first generalise classical neurons and then generalising them further to make unitary gates. Interactions between neurons can be controlled quantumly, with unitary gates, or classically, via measurement of the network states. This high-level theoretical technique can be applied broadly, by taking different types of networks and different implementations of quantum neurons, such as photonically implemented neurons and quantum reservoir processor (quantum version of reservoir computing). Most learning algorithms follow the classical model of training an artificial neural network to learn the input-output function of a given training set and use classical feedback loops to update parameters of the quantum system until they converge to an optimal configuration. Learning as a parameter optimisation problem has also been approached by adiabatic models of quantum computing. Quantum neural networks can be applied to algorithmic design: given qubits with tunable mutual interactions, one can attempt to learn interactions following the classical backpropagation rule from a training set of desired input-output relations, taken to be the desired output algorithm's behavior. The quantum network thus 'learns' an algorithm. === Quantum associative memory === The first quantum associative memory algorithm was introduced by Dan Ventura and Tony Martinez in 1999. The authors do not attempt to translate the structure of artificial neural network models into quantum theory, but propose an algorithm for a circuit-based quantum computer that simulates associative memory. The memory states (in Hopfield neural networks saved in the weights of the neural connections) are written into a superposition, and a Grover-like quantum search algorithm retrieves the memory state closest to a given input. As such, this is not a fully content-addressable memory, since only incomplete patterns can be retrieved. The first truly content-addressable quantum memory, which can retrieve patterns also from corrupted inputs, was proposed by Carlo A. Trugenberger. Both memories can store an exponential (in terms of n qubits) number of patterns but can be used only once due to the no-cloning theorem and their destruction upon measurement. Trugenberger, however, has shown that his probabilistic model of quantum associative memory can be efficiently implemented and re-used multiples times for any polynomial number of stored patterns, a large advantage with respect to classical associative memories. === Classical neural networks inspired by quantum theory === A substantial amount of interest has been given to a "quantum-inspired" model that uses ideas from quantum theory to implement a neural network based on fuzzy logic. == Training == Quantum Neural Networks can be theoretically trained similarly to training classical/artificial neural networks. A key difference lies in communication between the layers of a neural networks. For classical neural networks, at the end of a given operation, the current perceptron copies its output to the next layer of perceptron(s) in the network. However, in a quantum neural network, where each perceptron is a qubit, this would violate the no-cloning theorem. A proposed generalized solution to this is to replace the classical fan-out method with an arbitrary unitary that spreads out, but does not copy, the output of one qubit to the next layer of qubits. Using this fan-out Unitary ( U f {\displaystyle U_{f}} ) with a dummy state qubit in a known state (Ex. | 0 ⟩ {\displaystyle |0\rangle } in the computational basis), also known as an Ancilla bit, the information from the qubit can be transferred to the next layer of qubits. This process adheres to the quantum operation requirement of reversibility. Using this quantum feed-forward network, deep neural networks can be executed and trained efficiently. A deep neural network is essentially a network with many hidden-layers, as seen in the sample model neural network above. Since the Quantum neural network being discussed uses fan-out Unitary operators, and each operator only acts on its respective input, only two layers are used at any given time. In other words, no Unitary operator is acting on the entire network at any given time, meaning the number of qubits required for a given step depends on the number of inputs in a given layer. Since Quantum Computers are notorious for their ability to run multiple iterations in a short period of time, the efficiency of a quantum neural network is solely dependent on the number of qubits in any given layer, and not on the depth of the network. === Cost functions === To determine the effectiveness of a neural network, a cost function is used, which essentially measures the proximity of the network's output to the expected or desired output. In a Classical Neural Network, the weights ( w {\displaystyle w} ) and biases ( b {\displaystyle b} ) at each step determine the outcome of the cost function C ( w , b ) {\displaystyle C(w,b)} . When training a Classical Neural network, the weights and biases are adjusted after each iteration, and given equation 1 below, where y ( x ) {\displaystyle y(x)} is the desired output and a out ( x ) {\displaystyle a^{\text{out}}(x)} is the actual output, the cost function is optimized when C ( w , b ) {\displaystyle C(w,b)} = 0. For a quantum neural network, the cost function is determined by measuring the fidelity of the outcome state ( ρ out {\displaystyle \rho ^{\text{out}}} ) with the desired outcome state ( ϕ out {\displaystyle \phi ^{\text{out}}} ), seen in Equation 2 below. In this case, the Unitary operators are adjusted after each it