Rayid Ghani (born 1977) is a Distinguished Career Professor in the Machine Learning Department (in the School of Computer Science) and the Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. Previously, he was the director of the Center for Data Science and Public Policy, research associate professor in the department of computer science, and a senior fellow at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago. He was also the co-founder of Edgeflip, an analytics startup that grew out of the Obama 2012 Campaign, focused on social media products for non-profits, advocacy groups, and charities. In September 2019, it was announced that he will be leaving the University of Chicago and joining Carnegie Mellon University's School of Computer Science and Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy. Prior to that, Rayid was the Chief Scientist of the Obama 2012 Election Campaign and focused on using data science, machine learning, and technology to improve fundraising, volunteer mobilization, voter registration, persuasion, and turnout. Ghani started and runs the Eric & Wendy Schmidt Data Science for Social Good Summer Fellowship. He's also the co-founder of Coleridge Initiative, a nonprofit organization working with governments to ensure that data and evidence is used more effectively for policymaking. == Education and career == Ghani completed his schooling at the Karachi Grammar School, in Karachi, Pakistan. Ghani completed his graduate studies in the machine learning department at Carnegie Mellon University with Tom M. Mitchell on machine learning and text classification and received his undergraduate degrees in computer science and mathematics from University of the South. Before his role at the University of Chicago, he was the chief scientist of the Obama 2012 Campaign. Before that, he was a senior research scientist and director of analytics research at Accenture Labs, where he led a technology research team focused on applied R&D in analytics, machine learning, and data mining for large-scale and emerging business problems. == Policy efforts == Ghani has been actively working with government agencies and non-profits on designing AI and Machine Learning Systems to help tackle societal problems in public health, criminal justice, social services, education, economic development, and workforce development He has also testified in front of the US Senate in 2023 and the US House of Representatives in 2020, on AI Governance and Regulation. == Research contributions == Ghani's research focuses on developing and applying machine learning, data science, and artificial intelligence methods to large-scale social problems in areas such as education, healthcare, economic development, criminal justice, energy, transportation, and public safety. His work has previously focused on text analytics, fundraising, volunteer, and voter mobilization using analytics, social media, and machine learning., and data mining. Rayid's research contributions have been in the areas of text mining, co-training, active learning, consumer behavior modeling, and fraud detection. His research focus has been on 1) dealing with bias and fairness issues in machine learning and AI, 2) designing Human-AI collaborative systems that support people in making decisions, and 3) evaluating AI systems to focus on the entire workflow and outcomes He has given keynote speeches on Analytics and the Presidential Elections (for example at Predictive Analytics World, Digital Leaders Forum, Carnegie Mellon University, and CeBIT Australia), on Business Applications of Data Mining, and Data Science for Social Good. == Selected publications == Big Data and Social Science: A Practical Guide to Methods and Tools. Editors: Ian Foster, Rayid Ghani, Ron Jarmin, Frauke Kreuter, Julia Lane. CRC Press 2016. Empirical observation of negligible fairness–accuracy trade-offs in machine learning for public policy. Kit Rodolfa, Hemank Lamba, Rayid Ghani. Nature Machine Intelligence 2021. Explainable machine learning for public policy: Use cases, gaps, and research directions. Kasun Amarasinghe, Kit T. Rodolfa, Hemank Lamba, Rayid Ghani. Data and Policy 2023. Data Mining for Business Applications. Editors: Carlos Soares, Rayid Ghani. Book. IOS Press 2010. Mining the Web to Add Semantics to Retail Data Mining. R. Ghani. Invited Paper. Web Mining: From Web to Semantic Web. Springer Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 3209. Berendt, B.; Hotho, A.; Mladenic, D.; van Someren, M.; Spiliopoulou, M.; Stumme, G. (Eds.) 2004
Artificial consciousness
Artificial consciousness, also known as machine consciousness, synthetic consciousness, or digital consciousness, is consciousness hypothesized to be possible for artificial intelligence. It is also the corresponding field of study, which draws insights from philosophy of mind, philosophy of artificial intelligence, cognitive science and neuroscience. The term "sentience" can be used when specifically designating ethical considerations stemming from a form of phenomenal consciousness (P-consciousness, or the ability to feel qualia). Since sentience involves the ability to experience ethically positive or negative (i.e., valenced) mental states, it may justify welfare concerns and legal protection, as with non-human animals. Some scholars believe that consciousness is generated by the interoperation of various parts of the brain; these mechanisms are labeled the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC). Some further believe that constructing a system (e.g., a computer system) that can emulate this NCC interoperation would result in a system that is conscious. Some scholars reject the possibility of non-biological conscious beings. == Philosophical views == As there are many hypothesized types of consciousness, there are many potential implementations of artificial consciousness. In the philosophical literature, perhaps the most common taxonomy of consciousness is into "access" and "phenomenal" variants. Access consciousness concerns those aspects of experience that can be apprehended, while phenomenal consciousness concerns those aspects of experience that seemingly cannot be apprehended, instead being characterized qualitatively in terms of "raw feels", "what it is like" or qualia. === Plausibility debate === Type-identity theorists and other skeptics hold the view that consciousness can be realized only in particular physical systems because consciousness has properties that necessarily depend on physical constitution. In his 2001 article "Artificial Consciousness: Utopia or Real Possibility," Giorgio Buttazzo says that a common objection to artificial consciousness is that, "Working in a fully automated mode, they [the computers] cannot exhibit creativity, unreprogrammation (which means can 'no longer be reprogrammed', from rethinking), emotions, or free will. A computer, like a washing machine, is a slave operated by its components." For other theorists (e.g., functionalists), who define mental states in terms of causal roles, any system that can instantiate the same pattern of causal roles, regardless of physical constitution, will instantiate the same mental states, including consciousness. ==== Thought experiments ==== David Chalmers proposed two thought experiments intending to demonstrate that "functionally isomorphic" systems (those with the same "fine-grained functional organization", i.e., the same information processing) will have qualitatively identical conscious experiences, regardless of whether they are based on biological neurons or digital hardware. The "fading qualia" is a reductio ad absurdum thought experiment. It involves replacing, one by one, the neurons of a brain with a functionally identical component, for example based on a silicon chip. Chalmers makes the hypothesis, knowing it in advance to be absurd, that "the qualia fade or disappear" when neurons are replaced one-by-one with identical silicon equivalents. Since the original neurons and their silicon counterparts are functionally identical, the brain's information processing should remain unchanged, and the subject's behaviour and introspective reports would stay exactly the same. Chalmers argues that this leads to an absurd conclusion: the subject would continue to report normal conscious experiences even as their actual qualia fade away. He concludes that the subject's qualia actually don't fade, and that the resulting robotic brain, once every neuron is replaced, would remain just as sentient as the original biological brain. Similarly, the "dancing qualia" thought experiment is another reductio ad absurdum argument. It supposes that two functionally isomorphic systems could have different perceptions (for instance, seeing the same object in different colors, like red and blue). It involves a switch that alternates between a chunk of brain that causes the perception of red, and a functionally isomorphic silicon chip, that causes the perception of blue. Since both perform the same function within the brain, the subject would not notice any change during the switch. Chalmers argues that this would be highly implausible if the qualia were truly switching between red and blue, hence the contradiction. Therefore, he concludes that the equivalent digital system would not only experience qualia, but it would perceive the same qualia as the biological system (e.g., seeing the same color). Greg Egan's short story Learning To Be Me (mentioned in §In fiction), illustrates how undetectable duplication of the brain and its functionality could be from a first-person perspective. Critics object that Chalmers' proposal begs the question in assuming that all mental properties and external connections are already sufficiently captured by abstract causal organization. Van Heuveln et al. argue that the dancing qualia argument contains an equivocation fallacy, conflating a "change in experience" between two systems with an "experience of change" within a single system. Mogensen argues that the fading qualia argument can be resisted by appealing to vagueness at the boundaries of consciousness and the holistic structure of conscious neural activity, which suggests consciousness may require specific biological substrates rather than being substrate-independent. Anil Seth argues that the complexity of brain neurons intrinsically matters in addition to their function and that it is not possible to replace any part of the brain with a perfect silicon equivalent. He points out that some of biological neurons exhibit activity aimed at cleaning up metabolic waste products, and writes that a perfect silicon replacement would require a silicon-based metabolism, but silicon is not suitable for creating such artificial metabolism. ==== In large language models ==== In 2022, Google engineer Blake Lemoine made a viral claim that Google's LaMDA chatbot was sentient. Lemoine supplied as evidence the chatbot's humanlike answers to many of his questions; however, the chatbot's behavior was judged by the scientific community as likely a consequence of mimicry, rather than machine sentience. Lemoine's claim was widely derided for being ridiculous. Moreover, attributing consciousness based solely on the basis of LLM outputs or the immersive experience created by an algorithm is considered a fallacy. However, while philosopher Nick Bostrom states that LaMDA is unlikely to be conscious, he additionally poses the question of "what grounds would a person have for being sure about it?" One would have to have access to unpublished information about LaMDA's architecture, and also would have to understand how consciousness works, and then figure out how to map the philosophy onto the machine: "(In the absence of these steps), it seems like one should be maybe a little bit uncertain. [...] there could well be other systems now, or in the relatively near future, that would start to satisfy the criteria." David Chalmers argued in 2023 that LLMs today display impressive conversational and general intelligence abilities, but are likely not conscious yet, as they lack some features that may be necessary, such as recurrent processing, a global workspace, and unified agency. Nonetheless, he considers that non-biological systems can be conscious, and suggested that future, extended models (LLM+s) incorporating these elements might eventually meet the criteria for consciousness, raising both profound scientific questions and significant ethical challenges. However, the view that consciousness can exist without biological phenomena is controversial and some reject it. Kristina Šekrst cautions that anthropomorphic terms such as "hallucination" can obscure important ontological differences between artificial and human cognition. While LLMs may produce human-like outputs, she argues that it does not justify ascribing mental states or consciousness to them. Instead, she advocates for an epistemological framework (such as reliabilism) that recognizes the distinct nature of AI knowledge production. She suggests that apparent understanding in LLMs may be a sophisticated form of AI hallucination. She also questions what would happen if an LLM were trained without any mention of consciousness. === Testing === Sentience is an inherently first-person phenomenon. Because of that, and due to the lack of an empirical definition of sentience, directly measuring it may be impossible. Although systems may display numerous behaviors correlated with sentience, determining whether a system is sentient is known as the hard pr
Scroll (web service)
Scroll was a subscription-based web service developed by Scroll Labs Inc., offering ad-free access to websites in exchange for a fee. Scroll was not an ad blocker; instead, it partnered directly with internet publishers who voluntarily removed ads from their sites for Scroll users in exchange for a portion of the subscription fee. In May 2021, Scroll was acquired by Twitter. In October 2021, Scroll sent out an email announcing its integration into Twitter Blue within 30 days. == Functionality == Scroll enabled users to browse websites that partnered with Scroll without encountering online advertising, in exchange for a subscription fee. Unlike ad blocker, which disable advertisements without compensating the publisher, Scroll sent a browser cookie indicating that the user was a subscriber. The Scroll software integrated into the website detected this cookie and served an ad-free version of the site. In exchange for disabling advertisements, partner websites received a portion of the subscription fee. As of January 2020, Scroll retained 30% of the subscription fee, with the remaining 70% distributed among publisher sites. Payments to sites were made individually by users based on their 'engagement and loyalty,' rather than from a single pool of all subscription revenue. Scroll did not grant subscribers access to partner sites behind a paywall; it only removed ads from the site if the user also paid the publication's subscription fee. == History == Scroll was founded in 2016 by former Chartbeat Chief Executive Tony Haile. Scroll raised US$3 million in its first round of funding in 2016, including investments from The New York Times, Uncork Capital, and Axel Springer SE. By October 2018, Scroll had raised US$10 million in funding. In 2018, Scroll signed its first partner websites, which included The Atlantic, Fusion Media Group, Business Insider, Slate, MSNBC, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Talking Points Memo. In February 2019, Scroll acquired the social media curation app Nuzzel. The same month, Mozilla and Scroll announced a partnership to run a "test pilot" together, but did not go into details. Scroll entered beta testing in 2019 and launched to the general public on January 28, 2020. In March 2020, Mozilla started offering Scroll as part of its "Firefox Better Web" service bundle. In May 2021, Scroll was acquired by Twitter, with the future of Scroll cited as being uncertain. An email to customers announcing the change said, "Later this year, Scroll will become part of a wider Twitter subscription that will expand on and adapt our services and functionality".
Serverless computing
Serverless computing is "a cloud service category where the customer can use different cloud capability types without the customer having to provision, deploy and manage either hardware or software resources, other than providing customer application code or providing customer data. Serverless computing represents a form of virtualized computing", according to ISO/IEC 22123-2. Serverless computing is a broad ecosystem that includes the cloud provider, function as a service (FaaS), managed services, tools, frameworks, engineers, stakeholders, and other interconnected elements. == Overview == Serverless is a misnomer in the sense that servers are still used by cloud service providers to execute code for developers. The definition of serverless computing has evolved over time, leading to varied interpretations. According to Ben Kehoe, serverless represents a spectrum rather than a rigid definition. Emphasis should shift from strict definitions and specific technologies to adopting a serverless mindset, focusing on leveraging serverless solutions to address business challenges. Serverless computing does not eliminate complexity but shifts much of it from the operations team to the development team. However, this shift is not absolute, as operations teams continue to manage aspects such as identity and access management (IAM), networking, security policies, and cost optimization. Additionally, while breaking down applications into finer-grained components can increase management complexity, the relationship between granularity and management difficulty is not strictly linear. There is often an optimal level of modularization where the benefits outweigh the added management overhead. According to Yan Cui, serverless techniques should be adopted only when they help to deliver customer value faster. And while adopting, organizations should take small steps and de-risk along the way. == Challenges == Serverless applications are prone to fallacies of distributed computing. In addition, they are prone to the following fallacies: Versioning is simple Compensating transactions always work Observability is optional === Monitoring and debugging === Monitoring and debugging serverless applications can present unique challenges due to their distributed, event-driven nature and proprietary environments. Traditional tools may fall short, making it difficult to track execution flows across services. However, modern solutions such as distributed tracing tools (e.g., AWS X-Ray, Datadog), centralized logging, and cloud-agnostic observability platforms are mitigating these challenges. Emerging technologies like OpenTelemetry, AI-powered anomaly detection, and serverless-specific frameworks are further improving visibility and root cause analysis. While challenges persist, advancements in monitoring and debugging tools are steadily addressing these limitations. === Security === According to OWASP, serverless applications are vulnerable to variations of traditional attacks, insecure code, and some serverless-specific attacks (like denial of wallet). So, the risks have changed and attack prevention requires a shift in mindset. === Vendor lock-in === Serverless computing is provided as a third-party service. Applications and software that run in the serverless environment are by default locked to a specific cloud vendor. This issue is exacerbated in serverless computing, as with its increased level of abstraction, public vendors only allow customers to upload code to a FaaS platform without the authority to configure underlying environments. More importantly, when considering a more complex workflow that includes backend-as-a-service (BaaS), a BaaS offering can typically only natively trigger a FaaS offering from the same provider. This makes the workload migration in serverless computing virtually impossible. Therefore, considering how to design and deploy serverless workflows from a multi-cloud perspective could mitigate this. == High-performance computing == Serverless computing may not be ideal for certain high-performance computing (HPC) workloads due to resource limits often imposed by cloud providers, including maximum memory, CPU, and runtime restrictions. For workloads requiring sustained or predictable resource usage, bulk-provisioned servers can sometimes be more cost-effective than the pay-per-use model typical of serverless platforms. However, serverless computing is increasingly capable of supporting specific HPC workloads, particularly those that are highly parallelizable and event-driven, by leveraging its scalability and elasticity. The suitability of serverless computing for HPC continues to evolve with advancements in cloud technologies. == Anti-patterns == The grain of sand anti-pattern refers to the creation of excessively small components (e.g., functions) within a system, often resulting in increased complexity, operational overhead, and performance inefficiencies. Lambda pinball is a related anti-pattern that can occur in serverless architectures when functions (e.g., AWS Lambda, Azure functions) excessively invoke each other in fragmented chains, leading to latency, debugging and testing challenges, and reduced observability. These anti-patterns are associated with the formation of a distributed monolith. These anti-patterns are often addressed through the application of clear domain boundaries, which distinguish between public and published interfaces. Public interfaces are technically accessible interfaces, such as methods, classes, API endpoints, or triggers, but they do not come with formal stability guarantees. In contrast, published interfaces involve an explicit stability contract, including formal versioning, thorough documentation, a defined deprecation policy, and often support for backward compatibility. Published interfaces may also require maintaining multiple versions simultaneously and adhering to formal deprecation processes when breaking changes are introduced. Fragmented chains of function calls are often observed in systems where serverless components (functions) interact with other resources in complex patterns, sometimes described as spaghetti architecture or a distributed monolith. In contrast, systems exhibiting clearer boundaries typically organize serverless components into cohesive groups, where internal public interfaces manage inter-component communication, and published interfaces define communication across group boundaries. This distinction highlights differences in stability guarantees and maintenance commitments, contributing to reduced dependency complexity. Additionally, patterns associated with excessive serverless function chaining are sometimes addressed through architectural strategies that emphasize native service integrations instead of individual functions, a concept referred to as the functionless mindset. However, this approach is noted to involve a steeper learning curve, and integration limitations may vary even within the same cloud vendor ecosystem. Reporting on serverless databases presents challenges, as retrieving data for a reporting service can either break the bounded contexts, reduce the timeliness of the data, or do both. This applies regardless of whether data is pulled directly from databases, retrieved via HTTP, or collected in batches. Mark Richards refers to this as the reach-in reporting anti-pattern. A possible alternative to this approach is for databases to asynchronously push the necessary data to the reporting service instead of the reporting service pulling it. While this method requires a separate contract between services and the reporting service and can be complex to implement, it helps preserve bounded contexts while maintaining a high level of data timeliness. == Principles == Adopting DevSecOps practices can help improve the use and security of serverless technologies. In serverless applications, the distinction between infrastructure and business logic is often blurred, with applications typically distributed across multiple services. To maximize the effectiveness of testing, integration testing is emphasized for serverless applications. Additionally, to facilitate debugging and implementation, orchestration is used within the bounded context, while choreography is employed between different bounded contexts. Ephemeral resources are typically kept together to maintain high cohesion. However, shared resources with long spin-up times, such as AWS RDS clusters and landing zones, are often managed in separate repositories, deployment pipeline, and stacks.
Enonic XP
Enonic XP is a free and open-source content platform. Developed by the Norwegian software company Enonic, the platform can be used to build websites, progressive web applications, or web-based APIs. Enonic XP uses an application framework for coding server logic with JavaScript, and has no need for SQL as it ships with an integrated content repository. The CMS is fully decoupled, meaning developers can create traditional websites and landing pages, or use XP in headless mode, that is without the presentation layer, for loading editorial content onto any device or client. Enonic is used by major organizations in Norway, including the national postal service Norway Post, the insurance company Gjensidige, the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration, and all the top football clubs in the national football league for men, Eliteserien. == Overview == Enonic XP ships with the content management system (CMS) Content Studio. This includes a visual drag and drop editor, a landing page editor, support for multi-site and multi-language, media and structured content, advanced image editing, responsive user interface, permissions and roles management, revision and version control, and bulk publishing. Integrations and applications can be directly installed via the "Applications" section in XP, where the platform finds apps approved in the official Enonic Market. There are no third-party databases in Enonic XP. Instead, the developers have built a distributed storage repository, avoiding the need to index content. The system brings together capabilities from Filesystem, NoSQL, document stores, and search in the storage technology, which automatically indexes everything put into the storage. Enonic XP supports deployment of server side JavaScript. The open-source framework runs on top of a JVM (Java virtual machine), and allows developers to run the same code in the browser and on the server, thus enabling them to employ JavaScript. While running on the Java virtual machine, Enonic XP can be deployed on most infrastructures. The dependency on a third-party application server to deploy code has been removed, as the platform is an application server by default. A developer can for instance insert his own modules and code straight into the system while it is running. JavaScript unifies all the technical elements, and Enonic XP features a MVC framework where everything on the back-end can be coded with server-side JavaScript. The Enonic platform can use any template engine. === Progressive web apps === Another feature of Enonic XP is the possibility for developers to create progressive web apps (PWA). A PWA is a web application that is a regular web page or website, but can appear to the user like a mobile application. === Headless CMS and integrations === Enonic XP is headless, which means it separates content and presentation. The platform supports GraphQL, provides several default APIs, and allows for building custom APIs through the Guillotine starter kit. Consequently, Enonic supports modern front-end frameworks, and offers integrations with e.g. Next.js and React. == History == Enonic AS was founded in 2000 by Morten Øien Eriksen and Thomas Sigdestad. The software company specialized in building services and solutions, including a content management system known as "Vertical Site", then "Enonic CMS". Being aware that they had application, database, and website teams working on separate silos toward the same goal, Enonic sought to combine the different elements into a single software. The resulting application platform Enonic XP, first released in 2015, includes a CMS as an optional surface layer. In March 2020, Enonic XP was ranked by SoftwareReviews, a division of Info-Tech Research Group, a Canadian IT research and analyst firm, as the "Leader" in Web Experience Management. The ranking is based on user reviews, and is featured in SoftwareReviews‘ Digital Experience Data Quadrant Report, a comprehensive evaluation and ranking of leading Web Experience Management vendors. Enonic was also ranked first in 2021 and 2022. === Release history === Enonic XP assumed the mantle from the previous content management system Enonic CMS, and thus began with "version 5.0.0." The following list only contains major releases. == Development and support == Enonic offers a user and developer community consisting of a forum, support system with tickets, documentation, codex, learning and training center with certifications, and various community groups. Writing about the support system, Mike Johnston of CMS Critic notes that "enterprise customers obviously get access to a higher level of personalized support, where the Enonic support team can respond as fast as two hours." The support system is divided in three levels: silver, gold and platinum—from next day business support to 24/7 support. As Enonic XP is open-source, known vulnerabilities, bugs and issues are listed on GitHub.
Image fusion
The image fusion process is defined as gathering all the important information from multiple images, and their inclusion into fewer images, usually a single one. This single image is more informative and accurate than any single source image, and it consists of all the necessary information. The purpose of image fusion is not only to reduce the amount of data but also to construct images that are more appropriate and understandable for the human and machine perception. In computer vision, multisensor image fusion is the process of combining relevant information from two or more images into a single image. The resulting image will be more informative than any of the input images. In remote sensing applications, the increasing availability of space borne sensors gives a motivation for different image fusion algorithms. Several situations in image processing require high spatial and high spectral resolution in a single image. Most of the available equipment is not capable of providing such data convincingly. Image fusion techniques allow the integration of different information sources. The fused image can have complementary spatial and spectral resolution characteristics. However, the standard image fusion techniques can distort the spectral information of the multispectral data while merging. In satellite imaging, two types of images are available. The panchromatic image acquired by satellites is transmitted with the maximum resolution available and the multispectral data are transmitted with coarser resolution. This will usually be two or four times lower. At the receiver station, the panchromatic image is merged with the multispectral data to convey more information. Many methods exist to perform image fusion. The very basic one is the high-pass filtering technique. Later techniques are based on Discrete Wavelet Transform, uniform rational filter bank, and Laplacian pyramid. == Motivation == Multi sensor data fusion has become a discipline which demands more general formal solutions to a number of application cases. Several situations in image processing require both high spatial and high spectral information in a single image. This is important in remote sensing. However, the instruments are not capable of providing such information either by design or because of observational constraints. One possible solution for this is data fusion. == Methods == Image fusion methods can be broadly classified into two groups – spatial domain fusion and transform domain fusion. The fusion methods such as averaging, Brovey method, principal component analysis (PCA) and IHS based methods fall under spatial domain approaches. Another important spatial domain fusion method is the high-pass filtering based technique. Here the high frequency details are injected into upsampled version of MS images. The disadvantage of spatial domain approaches is that they produce spatial distortion in the fused image. Spectral distortion becomes a negative factor while we go for further processing, such as classification problem. Spatial distortion can be very well handled by frequency-domain approaches on image fusion. The multiresolution analysis has become a very useful tool for analysing remote sensing images. The discrete wavelet transform has become a very useful tool for fusion. Some other fusion methods are also there, such as Laplacian pyramid based, curvelet transform based etc. These methods show a better performance in spatial and spectral quality of the fused image compared to other spatial methods of fusion. The images used in image fusion should already be registered. Misregistration is a major source of error in image fusion. Some well-known image fusion methods are: High-pass filtering technique IHS transform based image fusion PCA-based image fusion Wavelet transform image fusion Pair-wise spatial frequency matching Comparative analysis of image fusion methods demonstrates that different metrics support different user needs, sensitive to different image fusion methods, and need to be tailored to the application. Categories of image fusion metrics are based on information theory features, structural similarity, or human perception. === Multi-focus image fusion === Multi-focus image fusion is used to collect useful and necessary information from input images with different focus depths in order to create an output image that ideally has all information from input images. In visual sensor network (VSN), sensors are cameras which record images and video sequences. In many applications of VSN, a camera can’t give a perfect illustration including all details of the scene. This is because of the limited depth of focus exists in the optical lens of cameras. Therefore, just the object located in the focal length of camera is focused and cleared and the other parts of image are blurred. VSN has an ability to capture images with different depth of focuses in the scene using several cameras. Due to the large amount of data generated by camera compared to other sensors such as pressure and temperature sensors and some limitation such as limited band width, energy consumption and processing time, it is essential to process the local input images to decrease the amount of transmission data. The aforementioned reasons emphasize the necessary of multi-focus images fusion. Multi-focus image fusion is a process which combines the input multi-focus images into a single image including all important information of the input images and it’s more accurate explanation of the scene than every single input image. == Applications == === In remote sensing === Image fusion in remote sensing has several application domains. An important domain is the multi-resolution image fusion (commonly referred to pan-sharpening). In satellite imagery we can have two types of images: Panchromatic images – An image collected in the broad visual wavelength range but rendered in black and white. Multispectral images – Images optically acquired in more than one spectral or wavelength interval. Each individual image is usually of the same physical area and scale but of a different spectral band. The SPOT PAN satellite provides high resolution (10m pixel) panchromatic data. While the LANDSAT TM satellite provides low resolution (30m pixel) multispectral images. Image fusion attempts to merge these images and produce a single high resolution multispectral image. The standard merging methods of image fusion are based on Red–Green–Blue (RGB) to Intensity–Hue–Saturation (IHS) transformation. The usual steps involved in satellite image fusion are as follows: Resize the low resolution multispectral images to the same size as the panchromatic image. Transform the R, G and B bands of the multispectral image into IHS components. Modify the panchromatic image with respect to the multispectral image. This is usually performed by histogram matching of the panchromatic image with Intensity component of the multispectral images as reference. Replace the intensity component by the panchromatic image and perform inverse transformation to obtain a high resolution multispectral image. Pan-sharpening can be done with Photoshop. Other applications of image fusion in remote sensing are available. === In medical imaging === Image fusion has become a common term used within medical diagnostics and treatment. The term is used when multiple images of a patient are registered and overlaid or merged to provide additional information. Fused images may be created from multiple images from the same imaging modality, or by combining information from multiple modalities, such as magnetic resonance image (MRI), computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). In radiology and radiation oncology, these images serve different purposes. For example, CT images are used more often to ascertain differences in tissue density while MRI images are typically used to diagnose brain tumors. For accurate diagnosis, radiologists must integrate information from multiple image formats. Fused, anatomically consistent images are especially beneficial in diagnosing and treating cancer. With the advent of these new technologies, radiation oncologists can take full advantage of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Being able to overlay diagnostic images into radiation planning images results in more accurate IMRT target tumor volumes.
Apache Hama
Apache Hama is a distributed computing framework based on bulk synchronous parallel computing techniques for massive scientific computations e.g., matrix, graph and network algorithms. Originally a sub-project of Hadoop, it became an Apache Software Foundation top level project in 2012. It was created by Edward J. Yoon, who named it (short for "Hadoop Matrix Algebra"), and Hama also means hippopotamus in Yoon's native Korean language (하마), following the trend of naming Apache projects after animals and zoology (such as Apache Pig). Hama was inspired by Google's Pregel large-scale graph computing framework described in 2010. When executing graph algorithms, Hama showed a fifty-fold performance increase relative to Hadoop. Retired in April 2020, project resources are made available as part of the Apache Attic. Yoon cited issues of installation, scalability, and a difficult programming model for its lack of adoption. == Architecture == Hama consists of three major components: BSPMaster, GroomServers and Zookeeper. === BSPMaster === BSPMaster is responsible for: Maintaining groom server status Controlling super steps in a cluster Maintaining job progress information Scheduling jobs and assigning tasks to groom servers Disseminating execution class across groom servers Controlling fault Providing users with the cluster control interface. A BSP Master and multiple grooms are started by the script. Then, the bsp master starts up with a RPC server for groom servers. Groom servers starts up with a BSPPeer instance and a RPC proxy to contact the bsp master. After started, each groom periodically sends a heartbeat message that encloses its groom server status, including maximum task capacity, unused memory, and so on. Each time the BSP master receives a heartbeat message, it brings the groom server status up-to-date. The bsp master makes use of groom servers' status in order to assign tasks to idle groom servers - and returns a heartbeat response containing assigned tasks and others actions for a groom server to do. Currently BSP master has a FIFO job scheduler and simple task assignment algorithms. === GroomServer === A groom server (shortly referred to as groom) is a process that performs BSP tasks assigned by BSPMaster. Each groom contacts the BSPMaster, and it takes assigned tasks and reports its status by means of periodical piggybacks with BSPMaster. Each groom is designed to run with HDFS or other distributed storages. Basically, a groom server and a data node should be run on one physical node. === Zookeeper === A Zookeeper is used to manage the efficient barrier synchronisation of the BSPPeers.