Puck App is a mobile application that allows hockey players to quickly find and rent a hockey goalie. Founded in 2015 in Toronto, the application primarily operates throughout Canada. It is available on Apple's App Store and Google Play. == History == Puck App was founded in 2016 by Niki Sawni. Users can rate the goalies, message with available goalies, and coordinate skill levels. In 2017, Puck App expanded to Western Canada and has over 1,000 goalies registered. In 2018, Puck App charged approximately $40 CDN to rent a goalie with more than 2 hours notice. Previously, Puck App was a competitor to a similar application called GoalieUp. As of 2024, both companies have agreed to a merger deal.
TargetLink
TargetLink is a software for automatic code generation, based on a subset of Simulink/Stateflow models, produced by dSPACE GmbH. TargetLink requires an existing MATLAB/Simulink model to work on. TargetLink generates both ANSI-C and production code optimized for specific processors. It also supports the generation of AUTOSAR-compliant code for software components for the automotive sector. The management of all relevant information for code generation takes place in a central data container, called the Data Dictionary. Testing of the generated code is implemented in Simulink, which is also used for the specification of the underlying simulation models. TargetLink supports three simulation modes to test the generated code: Model-in-the-loop simulation (MIL): this mode allows the model design to be checked. An MIL simulation is also known as a floating-point simulation, since the variables are typically floating-point variables. Software-in-the-loop (SIL): the simulation is based on the execution of generated code, which runs on a PC system. The variables are typically plain or fixed point numbers. Processor-in-the-loop (PIL): in a PIL simulation, the generated code runs on the target hardware or on an evaluation board. So-called real-time frames are included, making it possible to transfer the simulation results as well as memory consumption and runtime information to the PC. The Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) published official MISRA modeling guidelines for TargetLink in late 2007, which are particularly important for functional safety of safety-critical applications. In 2009, TÜV SÜD certified TargetLink for use during the development of safety-critical systems to ISO DIS 26262 and IEC 61508.
SemEval
SemEval (Semantic Evaluation) is an ongoing series of evaluations of computational semantic analysis systems; it evolved from the Senseval word sense evaluation series. The evaluations are intended to explore the nature of meaning in language. While meaning is intuitive to humans, transferring those intuitions to computational analysis has proved elusive. This series of evaluations provides a mechanism to characterize in more precise terms exactly what is necessary to compute in meaning. As such, the evaluations provide an emergent mechanism to identify the problems and solutions for computations with meaning. These exercises have evolved to articulate more of the dimensions that are involved in our use of language. They began with apparently simple attempts to identify word senses computationally. They have evolved to investigate the interrelationships among the elements in a sentence (e.g., semantic role labeling), relations between sentences (e.g., coreference), and the nature of what we are saying (semantic relations and sentiment analysis). The purpose of the SemEval and Senseval exercises is to evaluate semantic analysis systems. "Semantic Analysis" refers to a formal analysis of meaning, and "computational" refer to approaches that in principle support effective implementation. The first three evaluations, Senseval-1 through Senseval-3, were focused on word sense disambiguation (WSD), each time growing in the number of languages offered in the tasks and in the number of participating teams. Beginning with the fourth workshop, SemEval-2007 (SemEval-1), the nature of the tasks evolved to include semantic analysis tasks outside of word sense disambiguation. Triggered by the conception of the SEM conference, the SemEval community had decided to hold the evaluation workshops yearly in association with the SEM conference. It was also the decision that not every evaluation task will be run every year, e.g. none of the WSD tasks were included in the SemEval-2012 workshop. == History == === Early evaluation of algorithms for word sense disambiguation === From the earliest days, assessing the quality of word sense disambiguation algorithms had been primarily a matter of intrinsic evaluation, and “almost no attempts had been made to evaluate embedded WSD components”. Only very recently (2006) had extrinsic evaluations begun to provide some evidence for the value of WSD in end-user applications. Until 1990 or so, discussions of the sense disambiguation task focused mainly on illustrative examples rather than comprehensive evaluation. The early 1990s saw the beginnings of more systematic and rigorous intrinsic evaluations, including more formal experimentation on small sets of ambiguous words. === Senseval to SemEval === In April 1997, Martha Palmer and Marc Light organized a workshop entitled Tagging with Lexical Semantics: Why, What, and How? in conjunction with the Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. At the time, there was a clear recognition that manually annotated corpora had revolutionized other areas of NLP, such as part-of-speech tagging and parsing, and that corpus-driven approaches had the potential to revolutionize automatic semantic analysis as well. Kilgarriff recalled that there was "a high degree of consensus that the field needed evaluation", and several practical proposals by Resnik and Yarowsky kicked off a discussion that led to the creation of the Senseval evaluation exercises. === SemEval's 3, 2 or 1 year(s) cycle === After SemEval-2010, many participants feel that the 3-year cycle is a long wait. Many other shared tasks such as Conference on Natural Language Learning (CoNLL) and Recognizing Textual Entailments (RTE) run annually. For this reason, the SemEval coordinators gave the opportunity for task organizers to choose between a 2-year or a 3-year cycle. The SemEval community favored the 3-year cycle. Although the votes within the SemEval community favored a 3-year cycle, organizers and coordinators had settled to split the SemEval task into 2 evaluation workshops. This was triggered by the introduction of the new SEM conference. The SemEval organizers thought it would be appropriate to associate our event with the SEM conference and collocate the SemEval workshop with the SEM conference. The organizers got very positive responses (from the task coordinators/organizers and participants) about the association with the yearly SEM, and 8 tasks were willing to switch to 2012. Thus was born SemEval-2012 and SemEval-2013. The current plan is to switch to a yearly SemEval schedule to associate it with the SEM conference but not every task needs to run every year. ==== List of Senseval and SemEval Workshops ==== Senseval-1 took place in the summer of 1998 for English, French, and Italian, culminating in a workshop held at Herstmonceux Castle, Sussex, England on September 2–4. Senseval-2 took place in the summer of 2001, and was followed by a workshop held in July 2001 in Toulouse, in conjunction with ACL 2001. Senseval-2 included tasks for Basque, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Spanish and Swedish. Senseval-3 took place in March–April 2004, followed by a workshop held in July 2004 in Barcelona, in conjunction with ACL 2004. Senseval-3 included 14 different tasks for core word sense disambiguation, as well as identification of semantic roles, multilingual annotations, logic forms, subcategorization acquisition. SemEval-2007 (Senseval-4) took place in 2007, followed by a workshop held in conjunction with ACL in Prague. SemEval-2007 included 18 different tasks targeting the evaluation of systems for the semantic analysis of text. A special issue of Language Resources and Evaluation is devoted to the result. SemEval-2010 took place in 2010, followed by a workshop held in conjunction with ACL in Uppsala. SemEval-2010 included 18 different tasks targeting the evaluation of semantic analysis systems. SemEval-2012 took place in 2012; it was associated with the new SEM, First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, and co-located with NAACL, Montreal, Canada. SemEval-2012 included 8 different tasks targeting at evaluating computational semantic systems. However, there was no WSD task involved in SemEval-2012, the WSD related tasks were scheduled in the upcoming SemEval-2013. SemEval-2013 was associated with NAACL 2013, North American Association of Computational Linguistics, Georgia, USA and took place in 2013. It included 13 different tasks targeting at evaluating computational semantic systems. SemEval-2014 took place in 2014. It was co-located with COLING 2014, 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and SEM 2014, Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Dublin, Ireland. There were 10 different tasks in SemEval-2014 evaluating various computational semantic systems. SemEval-2015 took place in 2015. It was co-located with NAACL-HLT 2015, 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics – Human Language Technologies and SEM 2015, Third Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Denver, USA. There were 17 different tasks in SemEval-2015 evaluating various computational semantic systems. == SemEval Workshop framework == The framework of the SemEval/Senseval evaluation workshops emulates the Message Understanding Conferences (MUCs) and other evaluation workshops ran by ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency, renamed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)). Stages of SemEval/Senseval evaluation workshops Firstly, all likely participants were invited to express their interest and participate in the exercise design. A timetable towards a final workshop was worked out. A plan for selecting evaluation materials was agreed. 'Gold standards' for the individual tasks were acquired, often human annotators were considered as a gold standard to measure precision and recall scores of computer systems. These 'gold standards' are what the computational systems strive towards. In WSD tasks, human annotators were set on the task of generating a set of correct WSD answers (i.e. the correct sense for a given word in a given context) The gold standard materials, without answers, were released to participants, who then had a short time to run their programs over them and return their sets of answers to the organizers. The organizers then scored the answers and the scores were announced and discussed at a workshop. == Semantic evaluation tasks == Senseval-1 & Senseval-2 focused on evaluation WSD systems on major languages that were available corpus and computerized dictionary. Senseval-3 looked beyond the lexemes and started to evaluate systems that looked into wider areas of semantics, such as Semantic Roles (technically known as Theta roles in formal semantics), Logic Form Transformation (commonly semantics of phrases, clauses or sentences were represented
Referring expression generation
Referring expression generation (REG) is the subtask of natural language generation (NLG) that received most scholarly attention. While NLG is concerned with the conversion of non-linguistic information into natural language, REG focuses only on the creation of referring expressions (noun phrases) that identify specific entities called targets. This task can be split into two sections. The content selection part determines which set of properties distinguish the intended target and the linguistic realization part defines how these properties are translated into natural language. A variety of algorithms have been developed in the NLG community to generate different types of referring expressions. == Types of referring expressions == A referring expression (RE), in linguistics, is any noun phrase, or surrogate for a noun phrase, whose function in discourse is to identify some individual object (thing, being, event...) The technical terminology for identify differs a great deal from one school of linguistics to another. The most widespread term is probably refer, and a thing identified is a referent, as for example in the work of John Lyons. In linguistics, the study of reference relations belongs to pragmatics, the study of language use, though it is also a matter of great interest to philosophers, especially those wishing to understand the nature of knowledge, perception and cognition more generally. Various devices can be used for reference: determiners, pronouns, proper names... Reference relations can be of different kinds; referents can be in a "real" or imaginary world, in discourse itself, and they may be singular, plural, or collective. === Pronouns === The simplest type of referring expressions are pronoun such as he and it. The linguistics and natural language processing communities have developed various models for predicting anaphor referents, such as centering theory, and ideally referring-expression generation would be based on such models. However most NLG systems use much simpler algorithms, for example using a pronoun if the referent was mentioned in the previous sentence (or sentential clause), and no other entity of the same gender was mentioned in this sentence. === Definite noun phrases === There has been a considerable amount of research on generating definite noun phrases, such as the big red book. Much of this builds on the model proposed by Dale and Reiter. This has been extended in various ways, for example Krahmer et al. present a graph-theoretic model of definite NP generation with many nice properties. In recent years a shared-task event has compared different algorithms for definite NP generation, using the TUNA corpus. === Spatial and temporal reference === Recently there has been more research on generating referring expressions for time and space. Such references tend to be imprecise (what is the exact meaning of tonight?), and also to be interpreted in different ways by different people. Hence it may be necessary to explicitly reason about false positive vs false negative tradeoffs, and even calculate the utility of different possible referring expressions in a particular task context. === Criteria for good expressions === Ideally, a good referring expression should satisfy a number of criteria: Referential success: It should unambiguously identify the referent to the reader. Ease of comprehension: The reader should be able to quickly read and understand it. Computational complexity: The generation algorithm should be fast No false inferences: The expression should not confuse or mislead the reader by suggesting false implicatures or other pragmatic inferences. For example, a reader may be confused if he is told Sit by the brown wooden table in a context where there is only one table. == History == === Pre-2000 era === REG goes back to the early days of NLG. One of the first approaches was done by Winograd in 1972 who developed an "incremental" REG algorithm for his SHRDLU program. Afterwards researchers started to model the human abilities to create referring expressions in the 1980s. This new approach to the topic was influenced by the researchers Appelt and Kronfeld who created the programs KAMP and BERTRAND and considered referring expressions as parts of bigger speech acts. Some of their most interesting findings were the fact that referring expressions can be used to add information beyond the identification of the referent as well as the influence of communicative context and the Gricean maxims on referring expressions. Furthermore, its skepticism concerning the naturalness of minimal descriptions made Appelt and Kronfeld's research a foundation of later work on REG. The search for simple, well-defined problems changed the direction of research in the early 1990s. This new approach was led by Dale and Reiter who stressed the identification of the referent as the central goal. Like Appelt they discuss the connection between the Gricean maxims and referring expressions in their culminant paper in which they also propose a formal problem definition. Furthermore, Reiter and Dale discuss the Full Brevity and Greedy Heuristics algorithms as well as their Incremental Algorithm(IA) which became one of the most important algorithms in REG. === Later developments === After 2000 the research began to lift some of the simplifying assumptions, that had been made in early REG research in order to create more simple algorithms. Different research groups concentrated on different limitations creating several expanded algorithms. Often these extend the IA in a single perspective for example in relation to: Reference to Sets like "the t-shirt wearers" or "the green apples and the banana on the left" Relational Descriptions like "the cup on the table" or "the woman who has three children" Context Dependency, Vagueness and Gradeability include statements like "the older man" or "the car on the left" which are often unclear without a context Salience and Generation of Pronouns are highly discourse dependent making for example "she" a reference to "the (most salient) female person" Many simplifying assumptions are still in place or have just begun to be worked on. Also a combination of the different extensions has yet to be done and is called a "non-trivial enterprise" by Krahmer and van Deemter. Another important change after 2000 was the increasing use of empirical studies in order to evaluate algorithms. This development took place due to the emergence of transparent corpora. Although there are still discussions about what the best evaluation metrics are, the use of experimental evaluation has already led to a better comparability of algorithms, a discussion about the goals of REG and more task-oriented research. Furthermore, research has extended its range to related topics such as the choice of Knowledge Representation(KR) Frameworks. In this area the main question, which KR framework is most suitable for the use in REG remains open. The answer to this question depends on how well descriptions can be expressed or found. A lot of the potential of KR frameworks has been left unused so far. Some of the different approaches are the usage of: Graph search which treats relations between targets in the same way as properties. Constraint Satisfaction which allows for a separation between problem specification and the implementation. Modern Knowledge Representation which offers logical inference in for example Description Logic or Conceptual Graphs. == Problem definition == Dale and Reiter (1995) think about referring expressions as distinguishing descriptions. They define: The referent as the entity that should be described The context set as set of salient entities The contrast set or potential distractors as all elements of the context set except the referent A property as a reference to a single attribute–value pair Each entity in the domain can be characterised as a set of attribute–value pairs for example ⟨ {\displaystyle \langle } type, dog ⟩ {\displaystyle \rangle } , ⟨ {\displaystyle \langle } gender, female ⟩ {\displaystyle \rangle } or ⟨ {\displaystyle \langle } age, 10 years ⟩ {\displaystyle \rangle } . The problem then is defined as follows: Let r {\displaystyle r} be the intended referent, and C {\displaystyle C} be the contrast set. Then, a set L {\displaystyle L} of attribute–value pairs will represent a distinguishing description if the following two conditions hold: Every attribute–value pair in L {\displaystyle L} applies to r {\displaystyle r} : that is, every element of L {\displaystyle L} specifies an attribute–value that r {\displaystyle r} possesses. For every member c {\displaystyle c} of C {\displaystyle C} , there is at least one element l {\displaystyle l} of L {\displaystyle L} that does not apply to c {\displaystyle c} : that is, there is an l {\displaystyle l} in L {\displaystyle L} that specifies an attribute–value that c {\displaystyle c} does not possess. l {\displaystyle l} is said
AdTruth
AdTruth is a software product and the digital media division of 41st Parameter, a company headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, with regional offices in San Jose, California; London, England; and Munich, Germany. AdTruth allows marketers to recognize and reach target audiences across online devices. AdTruth software identifies users for targeting, tracking, performance tracking across digital media, including mobile and desktop, by analysing patterns in large numbers of advertisements served over the internet, rather than through the use of cookies. == History == AdTruth was founded in 2011 by Ori Eisen of 41st Parameter, to repurpose the company's fraud detection and prevention technology, for use within the advertising industry to accurately target intended audiences, particularly in mobile. Eisen was joined by James Lamberti in the role of vice president and general manager. In 2012 41st Parameter raised $13 million in Series D financing from Norwest Venture Partners, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Jafco Ventures and Georgian Partners, bringing total funding to about $35 million. In May 2012, AdTruth hosted a meeting of digital media executives to discuss Apple’s UDID deprecation, with the intent of developing a device-neutral replacement standard. AdTruth joined the World Wide Web Consortium's Tracking Protection Working Group, which provides guidance for implementing and adhering to Do Not Track policies. AdTruth also worked with privacy firm Truste to create a privacy compliant Do Not Track-style mechanism for mobile. In 2013, the company Experian purchased 41st Parameter, acquiring AdTruth as part of the deal. == Product == AdTruth software helps marketers track, target and retarget consumers using more than 100 parameters, including milliseconds in differences in the internal clock setting, to recognize a particular device anonymously. AdTruth's technology uses non-UDID information to identify a wide range of devices for cookieless ad targeting. Its technology currently has about a 90 percent accuracy rate on iOS, higher on Android and desktop. AdTruth also has mobile web to app bridging capabilities as well as DeviceInsight technology, enabling marketers to identify users across mobile web and app content. 41st Parameter's patented AdTruth technology is being used by MdotM, in response to the deprecation of the UDID that included tracking and targeting capabilities. == Competitors == AdTruth's main competitor is BlueCava, which deploys a similar device-fingerprinting technology.
Shape context
Shape context is a feature descriptor used in object recognition. Serge Belongie and Jitendra Malik proposed the term in their paper "Matching with Shape Contexts" in 2000. == Theory == The shape context is intended to be a way of describing shapes that allows for measuring shape similarity and the recovering of point correspondences. The basic idea is to pick n points on the contours of a shape. For each point pi on the shape, consider the n − 1 vectors obtained by connecting pi to all other points. The set of all these vectors is a rich description of the shape localized at that point but is far too detailed. The key idea is that the distribution over relative positions is a robust, compact, and highly discriminative descriptor. So, for the point pi, the coarse histogram of the relative coordinates of the remaining n − 1 points, h i ( k ) = # { q ≠ p i : ( q − p i ) ∈ bin ( k ) } {\displaystyle h_{i}(k)=\#\{q\neq p_{i}:(q-p_{i})\in {\mbox{bin}}(k)\}} is defined to be the shape context of p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} . The bins are normally taken to be uniform in log-polar space. The fact that the shape context is a rich and discriminative descriptor can be seen in the figure below, in which the shape contexts of two different versions of the letter "A" are shown. (a) and (b) are the sampled edge points of the two shapes. (c) is the diagram of the log-polar bins used to compute the shape context. (d) is the shape context for the point marked with a circle in (a), (e) is that for the point marked as a diamond in (b), and (f) is that for the triangle. As can be seen, since (d) and (e) are the shape contexts for two closely related points, they are quite similar, while the shape context in (f) is very different. For a feature descriptor to be useful, it needs to have certain invariances. In particular it needs to be invariant to translation, scaling, small perturbations, and, depending on the application, rotation. Translational invariance comes naturally to shape context. Scale invariance is obtained by normalizing all radial distances by the mean distance α {\displaystyle \alpha } between all the point pairs in the shape although the median distance can also be used. Shape contexts are empirically demonstrated to be robust to deformations, noise, and outliers using synthetic point set matching experiments. One can provide complete rotational invariance in shape contexts. One way is to measure angles at each point relative to the direction of the tangent at that point (since the points are chosen on edges). This results in a completely rotationally invariant descriptor. But of course this is not always desired since some local features lose their discriminative power if not measured relative to the same frame. Many applications in fact forbid rotational invariance e.g. distinguishing a "6" from a "9". == Use in shape matching == A complete system that uses shape contexts for shape matching consists of the following steps (which will be covered in more detail in the Details of Implementation section): Randomly select a set of points that lie on the edges of a known shape and another set of points on an unknown shape. Compute the shape context of each point found in step 1. Match each point from the known shape to a point on an unknown shape. To minimize the cost of matching, first choose a transformation (e.g. affine, thin plate spline, etc.) that warps the edges of the known shape to the unknown (essentially aligning the two shapes). Then select the point on the unknown shape that most closely corresponds to each warped point on the known shape. Calculate the "shape distance" between each pair of points on the two shapes. Use a weighted sum of the shape context distance, the image appearance distance, and the bending energy (a measure of how much transformation is required to bring the two shapes into alignment). To identify the unknown shape, use a nearest-neighbor classifier to compare its shape distance to shape distances of known objects. == Details of implementation == === Step 1: Finding a list of points on shape edges === The approach assumes that the shape of an object is essentially captured by a finite subset of the points on the internal or external contours on the object. These can be simply obtained using the Canny edge detector and picking a random set of points from the edges. Note that these points need not and in general do not correspond to key-points such as maxima of curvature or inflection points. It is preferable to sample the shape with roughly uniform spacing, though it is not critical. === Step 2: Computing the shape context === This step is described in detail in the Theory section. === Step 3: Computing the cost matrix === Consider two points p and q that have normalized K-bin histograms (i.e. shape contexts) g(k) and h(k). As shape contexts are distributions represented as histograms, it is natural to use the χ2 test statistic as the "shape context cost" of matching the two points: C S = 1 2 ∑ k = 1 K [ g ( k ) − h ( k ) ] 2 g ( k ) + h ( k ) {\displaystyle C_{S}={\frac {1}{2}}\sum _{k=1}^{K}{\frac {[g(k)-h(k)]^{2}}{g(k)+h(k)}}} The values of this range from 0 to 1. In addition to the shape context cost, an extra cost based on the appearance can be added. For instance, it could be a measure of tangent angle dissimilarity (particularly useful in digit recognition): C A = 1 2 ‖ ( cos ( θ 1 ) sin ( θ 1 ) ) − ( cos ( θ 2 ) sin ( θ 2 ) ) ‖ {\displaystyle C_{A}={\frac {1}{2}}{\begin{Vmatrix}{\dbinom {\cos(\theta _{1})}{\sin(\theta _{1})}}-{\dbinom {\cos(\theta _{2})}{\sin(\theta _{2})}}\end{Vmatrix}}} This is half the length of the chord in unit circle between the unit vectors with angles θ 1 {\displaystyle \theta _{1}} and θ 2 {\displaystyle \theta _{2}} . Its values also range from 0 to 1. Now the total cost of matching the two points could be a weighted-sum of the two costs: C = ( 1 − β ) C S + β C A {\displaystyle C=(1-\beta )C_{S}+\beta C_{A}\!\,} Now for each point pi on the first shape and a point qj on the second shape, calculate the cost as described and call it Ci,j. This is the cost matrix. === Step 4: Finding the matching that minimizes total cost === Now, a one-to-one matching π ( i ) {\displaystyle \pi (i)} that matches each point pi on shape 1 and qj on shape 2 that minimizes the total cost of matching, H ( π ) = ∑ i C ( p i , q π ( i ) ) {\displaystyle H(\pi )=\sum _{i}C\left(p_{i},q_{\pi (i)}\right)} is needed. This can be done in O ( N 3 ) {\displaystyle O(N^{3})} time using the Hungarian method, although there are more efficient algorithms. To have robust handling of outliers, one can add "dummy" nodes that have a constant but reasonably large cost of matching to the cost matrix. This would cause the matching algorithm to match outliers to a "dummy" if there is no real match. === Step 5: Modeling transformation === Given the set of correspondences between a finite set of points on the two shapes, a transformation T : R 2 → R 2 {\displaystyle T:\mathbb {R} ^{2}\to \mathbb {R} ^{2}} can be estimated to map any point from one shape to the other. There are several choices for this transformation, described below. ==== Affine ==== The affine model is a standard choice: T ( p ) = A p + o {\displaystyle T(p)=Ap+o\!} . The least squares solution for the matrix A {\displaystyle A} and the translational offset vector o is obtained by: o = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( p i − q π ( i ) ) , A = ( Q + P ) t {\displaystyle o={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(p_{i}-q_{\pi (i)}\right),A=(Q^{+}P)^{t}} Where P = ( 1 p 11 p 12 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 1 p n 1 p n 2 ) {\displaystyle P={\begin{pmatrix}1&p_{11}&p_{12}\\\vdots &\vdots &\vdots \\1&p_{n1}&p_{n2}\end{pmatrix}}} with a similar expression for Q {\displaystyle Q\!} . Q + {\displaystyle Q^{+}\!} is the pseudoinverse of Q {\displaystyle Q\!} . ==== Thin plate spline ==== The thin plate spline (TPS) model is the most widely used model for transformations when working with shape contexts. A 2D transformation can be separated into two TPS function to model a coordinate transform: T ( x , y ) = ( f x ( x , y ) , f y ( x , y ) ) {\displaystyle T(x,y)=\left(f_{x}(x,y),f_{y}(x,y)\right)} where each of the ƒx and ƒy have the form: f ( x , y ) = a 1 + a x x + a y y + ∑ i = 1 n ω i U ( ‖ ( x i , y i ) − ( x , y ) ‖ ) , {\displaystyle f(x,y)=a_{1}+a_{x}x+a_{y}y+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\omega _{i}U\left({\begin{Vmatrix}(x_{i},y_{i})-(x,y)\end{Vmatrix}}\right),} and the kernel function U ( r ) {\displaystyle U(r)\!} is defined by U ( r ) = r 2 log r 2 {\displaystyle U(r)=r^{2}\log r^{2}\!} . The exact details of how to solve for the parameters can be found elsewhere but it essentially involves solving a linear system of equations. The bending energy (a measure of how much transformation is needed to align the points) will also be easily obtained. ==== Regularized TPS ==== The TPS formulation above has exact matching requirement for the pairs of points on the two shapes. For noisy data, it is best to
Logical Machine Corporation
Logical Machine Corporation (LOMAC) was an American computer company active from the mid-1970s to the 1980s and based in the San Francisco Bay Area. It was founded as John Peers and Company by the British entrepreneur John Peers in 1974. LOMAC developed the ADAM, a minicomputer which ran a specialized compiler for the company's natural English programming language. Throughout the late 1970s, the company acquired several technology firms, including Byte, Inc., the owner of the Byte Shop retail chain. Despite its unique approach to computing and earning $5 million in revenue in 1977, LOMAC struggled as the industry began to standardize around the IBM Personal Computer (IBM PC). Following Peers's departure in 1980, the company rebranded as Logical Business Machines, Inc. (LBM, or simply Logical), and attempted to pivot toward IBM PC–compatible hardware. However, financial difficulties led to the company filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1984. After emerging from bankruptcy in 1985 with new investment, Logical ceased hardware manufacturing to focus exclusively on software development and value-added reselling. == History == John Peers (born 1942) founded Logical Machine Corporation as John Peers and Company in September 1974. The company originally occupied a 4,500-square-foot office in Burlingame, California. The company was Peers' fourth; he had recently sold off Allied Business Systems of London to Trafalgar House in 1974. Peers sought to set up manufacturing in an agricultural zone in Ukiah, California. Following a delay, caused in part by concerned residents, a 30,000-square-foot plant was raised in Burke Hill, three miles south of Ukiah. The Ukiah plant was built to mass manufacture the company's ADAM minicomputer. The ADAM computer ran a specialized compiler for the company's natural English programming language; that is to say, the programming language attempted to closely emulate English syntax. Prototypes of the ADAM were built in May 1974, based on specifications devised in October 1973. Peers had yet to patent the technology as of June 1975. The ADAM's central processing unit was bolted onto an 7-by-6-foot L-shaped desk, on which rested its terminal. Twenty units of the ADAM were installed between April 1975 and February 1976, out of a backlog of orders for 3,500 from 500 clients, manufactured out of the company's Burlingame headquarters. It cost US$40,000. A controversial print advertisement featuring a naked woman seated at an ADAM terminal—as a pastiche of Adam and Eve—was recalled in early 1976 as a result of outcry from the National Organization for Women. The company changed its name to Logical Machine Corporation (LOMAC) in October 1976 and moved its headquarters to a 26,000-square-foot building in Sunnyvale, California, in anticipation of a ramping up of orders for the ADAM. The company originally occupied half of the building; they later purchased the other half from the tenant in July 1977 to double its manufacturing output. For fiscal year 1977, the company earned $5 million in revenue. In December 1977, LOMAC acquired Byte, Inc.—the proprietor of The Byte Shop, the first computer retail chain—from Paul Terrell and Boyd Wilson for an unspecified amount. The Byte Shop had 65 locations in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1978; it catered mainly to hobbyists with low cost microcomputer kits, in contrast to the high cost of LOMAC's ADAM. By July 1978, however, LOMAC were able to reduce the price of the ADAM down to $15,000. The company by that point had shipped their 50th ADAM and expanded to 14 countries. Also in 1978, LOMAC acquired Mass Memory—a high-tech optical storage company based in Phoenix, Arizona, whose products had storage capacities on the order gigabytes and terabytes—and Centigram, makers of the Mike—a computer with speech recognition. Later that year, the company introduced Tina, a low-cost version of the ADAM. LOMAC suffered losses that year and appointed Jerry Brandt to the board of directions, naming him chief operating officer, in August 1978. Brandt had Logical absorb Mass Memory and Centigram into the parent operations, shutting down their respective plants in the process, converted 10 Byte Shops to franchises and opened 25 more franchised Byte locations, and stopped direct sales of LOMAC's business computer products. By the beginning of 1979, LOMAC was profitable once more, and Brandt was let go from LOMAC. Peers left LOMAC in 1980, following a slump in the company's sales. He became an executive director of the United States Robotics Society, a consortium for industrial automation companies, that year. Following Peers' departure, LOMAC changed its name to Logical Business Machines, adopting the name of its European subsidiary. In 1983, the company announced a 16-bit clone of the IBM PC, called the Logical L-XT, which featured a 10-MB hard drive, 320-KB floppy drive and 192 KB of RAM, and a real-time clock, and came shipped with various software (including MS-DOS, a word processor, and a spreadsheet application) and an amber CRT monitor. The following year, the company introduced L-NET, a local area network system based on the L-XT that could link up to 64 computers. L-NET came shipped with a natural programming language, Diplomat—a descendant of the programming language used on the ADAM. In June 1983, Logical sued Coleco Industries over trademark infringement with the latter's to-be-released Adam microcomputer. Logical cited confusion from their existing ADAM customer base caused by the announcement of the Coleco Adam as the basis for the suit. Coleco challenged Logical in the press, writing that Logical's rights to the Adam trademark for use in computers had lapsed earlier in the year. The two settled out of court, with Coleco agreeing to license the Adam name from Logical in exchange for unlimited rights to the Adam trademark. Logical halted development of the L-XT when they filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in July 1984. The company had been $4 million in debt. They emerged from bankruptcy in September 1985, after being infused with $2 million from Carat Ltd. The latter immediately received a little less than 50 percent ownership in Logical—this stake set to grow to over 50 percent over the next six months. As part of the terms of exiting bankruptcy, Logical stopped manufacturing hardware and strictly became a software development company and value-added reseller of computer systems.