Flat-field correction

Flat-field correction (FFC) is a digital imaging technique to mitigate pixel-to-pixel differences in the photodetector sensitivity and distortions in the optical path. It is a standard calibration procedure in everything from personal digital cameras to large telescopes. == Overview == Flat fielding refers to the process of compensating for different gains and dark currents in a detector. Once a detector has been appropriately flat-fielded, a uniform signal will create a uniform output (hence flat-field). This then means any further signal is due to the phenomenon being detected and not a systematic error. A flat-field image is acquired by imaging a uniformly-illuminated screen, thus producing an image of uniform color and brightness across the frame. For handheld cameras, the screen could be a piece of paper at arm's length, but a telescope will frequently image a clear patch of sky at twilight, when the illumination is uniform and there are few, if any, stars visible. Once the images are acquired, processing can begin. A flat-field consists of two numbers for each pixel, the pixel's gain and its dark current (or dark frame). The pixel's gain is how the amount of signal given by the detector varies as a function of the amount of light (or equivalent). The gain is almost always a linear variable, as such the gain is given simply as the ratio of the input and output signals. The dark-current is the amount of signal given out by the detector when there is no incident light (hence dark frame). In many detectors this can also be a function of time, for example in astronomical telescopes it is common to take a dark-frame of the same time as the planned light exposure. The gain and dark-frame for optical systems can also be established by using a series of neutral density filters to give input/output signal information and applying a least squares fit to obtain the values for the dark current and gain. C = ( R − D ) × m ( F − D ) = ( R − D ) × G {\displaystyle C={\frac {(R-D)\times m}{(F-D)}}=(R-D)\times G} where: C = corrected image R = raw image F = flat field image D = dark frame image m = image-averaged value of (F−D) G = Gain = m ( F − D ) {\displaystyle m \over (F-D)} In this equation, capital letters are 2D matrices, and lowercase letters are scalars. All matrix operations are performed element-by-element. In order for an astrophotographer to capture a light frame, they must place a light source over the imaging instrument's objective lens such that the light source emanates evenly through the users optics. The photographer must then adjust the exposure of their imaging device (charge-coupled device (CCD) or digital single-lens reflex camera (DSLR) ) so that when the histogram of the image is viewed, a peak reaching about 40–70% of the dynamic range (maximum range of pixel values) of the imaging device is seen. The photographer typically takes 15–20 light frames and performs median stacking. Once the desired light frames are acquired, the objective lens is covered so that no light is allowed in, then 15–20 dark frames are taken, each of equal exposure time as a light frame. These are called Dark-Flat frames. == In X-ray imaging == In X-ray imaging, the acquired projection images generally suffer from fixed-pattern noise, which is one of the limiting factors of image quality. It may stem from beam inhomogeneity, gain variations of the detector response due to inhomogeneities in the photon conversion yield, losses in charge transport, charge trapping, or variations in the performance of the readout. Also, the scintillator screen may accumulate dust and/or scratches on its surface, resulting in systematic patterns in every acquired X-ray projection image. In X-ray computed tomography (CT), fixed-pattern noise is known to significantly degrade the achievable spatial resolution and generally leads to ring or band artifacts in the reconstructed images. Fixed pattern noise can be easily removed using flat field correction. In conventional flat field correction, projection images without sample are acquired with and without the X-ray beam turned on, which are referred to as flat fields (F) and dark fields (D). Based on the acquired flat and dark fields, the measured projection images (P) with sample are then normalized to new images (N) according to: N = ( P − D ) ( F − D ) {\displaystyle N={\frac {(P-D)}{(F-D)}}} == Dynamic flat field correction == While conventional flat field correction is an elegant and easy procedure that largely reduces fixed-pattern noise, it heavily relies on the stationarity of the X-ray beam, scintillator response and CCD sensitivity. In practice, however, this assumption is only approximately met. Indeed, detector elements are characterized by intensity dependent, nonlinear response functions and the incident beam often shows time dependent non-uniformities, which render conventional FFC inadequate. In synchrotron X-ray tomography, many factors may cause flat field variations: instability of the bending magnets of the synchrotron, temperature variations due to the water cooling in mirrors and the monochromator, or vibrations of the scintillator and other beamline components. The latter is responsible for the biggest variations in the flat fields. To deal with such variations, a dynamic flat field correction procedure can be employed that estimates a flat field for each individual projection. Through principal component analysis of a set of flat fields, which are acquired prior and/or posterior to the actual scan, eigen flat fields can be computed. A linear combination of the most important eigen flat fields can then be used to individually normalize each X-ray projection: N j = P j − D ¯ F ¯ + ∑ k w j k u k − D ¯ {\displaystyle N_{j}={\frac {P_{j}-{\bar {D}}}{{\bar {F}}+\sum _{k}w_{jk}u_{k}-{\bar {D}}}}} where N j {\displaystyle N_{j}} = intensity normalized X-ray projection P j {\displaystyle P_{j}} = raw X-ray projection F ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {F}}} = mean flat field image (average of flat fields) u k {\displaystyle u_{k}} = k-th eigen flat field w j k {\displaystyle w_{jk}} = weight of the eigen flat field u k {\displaystyle u_{k}} D ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {D}}} = mean dark field (average of dark fields)

Graphics software

In computer graphics, graphics software refers to a program or collection of programs that enable a person to manipulate images or models visually on a computer. Computer graphics can be classified into two distinct categories: raster graphics and vector graphics, with further 2D and 3D variants. Many graphics programs focus exclusively on either vector or raster graphics, but there are a few that operate on both. It is simple to convert from vector graphics to raster graphics, but going the other way is harder. Some software attempts to do this. In addition to static graphics, there are animation and video editing software. Different types of software are often designed to edit different types of graphics such as video, photos, and vector-based drawings. The exact sources of graphics may vary for different tasks, but most can read and write files. Most graphics programs have the ability to import and export one or more graphics file formats, including those formats written for a particular computer graphics program. Such programs include, but are not limited to: GIMP, Adobe Photoshop, CorelDRAW, Microsoft Publisher, Picasa, etc. The use of a swatch is a palette of active colours that are selected and rearranged by the preference of the user. A swatch may be used in a program or be part of the universal palette on an operating system. It is used to change the colour of a text or image and in video editing. Vector graphics animation can be described as a series of mathematical transformations that are applied in sequence to one or more shapes in a scene. Raster graphics animation works in a similar fashion to film-based animation, where a series of still images produces the illusion of continuous movement. == History == SuperPaint was one of the earliest graphics software applications, first conceptualized in 1972 and achieving its first stable image in 1973 Fauve Matisse (later Macromedia xRes) was a pioneering program of the early 1990s, notably introducing layers in customer software. Currently Adobe Photoshop is one of the most used and best-known graphics programs in the Americas, having created more custom hardware solutions in the early 1990s, but was initially subject to various litigation. GIMP is a popular open-source alternative to Adobe Photoshop.

Sysomos

Sysomos Inc. is a Toronto-based social media analytics company owned by Outside Insight market leaders Meltwater. The company developed text analytics and machine learning technologies for user generated content, and served 80% of the top agencies and Fortune 500. == History == Sysomos was founded by Nilesh Bansal and Nick Koudas. The company is a spinoff of the University of Toronto research project BlogScope. The BlogScope project, which started in 2005, resulted in creation of the underlying content aggregation and analysis engine commercialized by Sysomos. The company raised venture capital in 2008 and was acquired by Marketwire in 2010. The company's original flagship product, Media Analysis Platform (MAP), mines and analyzes content from social media or user-generated content to create a picture of media coverage. Sysomos launched its flagship offering MAP in Sept 2007, followed by addition of Heartbeat to its product suite in 2009. In addition to the two main products, the company released FourWhere, a free location-based social search service that mashes up Foursquare in March 2010. The company also offers Sysomos Heartbeat which provides social media monitoring and engagement capabilities to communication professionals, brand managers and customer support groups. In 2013, Heartbeat was extended to add publishing components to deliver a complete end-to-end social media marketing platform. On July 6, 2010, it was announced that Marketwire, a press release distribution company, had acquired Sysomos. After the acquisition, Sysomos founders Nick Koudas and Nilesh Bansal, left Sysomos to start Aislelabs. In February 2015, Sysomos split from Marketwired, as an independent company, and appointed Adnan Ahmed as the new CEO. In March 2015, newly independent Sysomos launched a redesign for its Heartbeat product and a new API for its MAP product. In the same year, the company acquired Expion. In September 2016, Peter Heffring was announced as the new CEO. In April 2017, Sysomos showcased a new unified platform offering new insights. In April 2018, media monitoring firm Meltwater announced it had acquired Sysomos. The CEO of Sysomos, Peter Heffring, said the company will continue to operate as an independent unit of Meltwater. Heffring will run the social analytics division of Meltwater. == Reports == Inside Twitter series of reports is the most extensive third-party survey on Twitter's growth and demographics. Another extensive survey regarding the top 5% of most active Twitter users found that over 25% of all tweets are machine created. The report also confirms Twitter's international growth. Inside Facebook Pages report found that only four percent of pages have more than 10,000 fans, 0.76% of pages have more than 100,000 fans, and 0.05% of pages (or 297 in total) have more than a million fans. Inside YouTube reports focus more on video hosting services and YouTube.

Sysomos

Undeniable signature

An undeniable signature is a digital signature scheme which allows the signer to be selective to whom they allow to verify signatures. The scheme adds explicit signature repudiation, preventing a signer later refusing to verify a signature by omission; a situation that would devalue the signature in the eyes of the verifier. It was invented by David Chaum and Hans van Antwerpen in 1989. == Overview == In this scheme, a signer possessing a private key can publish a signature of a message. However, the signature reveals nothing to a recipient/verifier of the message and signature without taking part in either of two interactive protocols: Confirmation protocol, which confirms that a candidate is a valid signature of the message issued by the signer, identified by the public key. Disavowal protocol, which confirms that a candidate is not a valid signature of the message issued by the signer. The motivation for the scheme is to allow the signer to choose to whom signatures are verified. However, that the signer might claim the signature is invalid at any later point, by refusing to take part in verification, would devalue signatures to verifiers. The disavowal protocol distinguishes these cases removing the signer's plausible deniability. It is important that the confirmation and disavowal exchanges are not transferable. They achieve this by having the property of zero-knowledge; both parties can create transcripts of both confirmation and disavowal that are indistinguishable, to a third-party, of correct exchanges. The designated verifier signature scheme improves upon deniable signatures by allowing, for each signature, the interactive portion of the scheme to be offloaded onto another party, a designated verifier, reducing the burden on the signer. == Zero-knowledge protocol == The following protocol was suggested by David Chaum. A group, G, is chosen in which the discrete logarithm problem is intractable, and all operation in the scheme take place in this group. Commonly, this will be the finite cyclic group of order p contained in Z/nZ, with p being a large prime number; this group is equipped with the group operation of integer multiplication modulo n. An arbitrary primitive element (or generator), g, of G is chosen; computed powers of g then combine obeying fixed axioms. Alice generates a key pair, randomly chooses a private key, x, and then derives and publishes the public key, y = gx. === Message signing === Alice signs the message, m, by computing and publishing the signature, z = mx. === Confirmation (i.e., avowal) protocol === Bob wishes to verify the signature, z, of m by Alice under the key, y. Bob picks two random numbers: a and b, and uses them to blind the message, sending to Alice: c = magb. Alice picks a random number, q, uses it to blind, c, and then signing this using her private key, x, sending to Bob: s1 = cgq ands2 = s1x. Note that s1x = (cgq)x = (magb)xgqx = (mx)a(gx)b+q = zayb+q. Bob reveals a and b. Alice verifies that a and b are the correct blind values, then, if so, reveals q. Revealing these blinds makes the exchange zero knowledge. Bob verifies s1 = cgq, proving q has not been chosen dishonestly, and s2 = zayb+q, proving z is valid signature issued by Alice's key. Note that zayb+q = (mx)a(gx)b+q. Alice can cheat at step 2 by attempting to randomly guess s2. === Disavowal protocol === Alice wishes to convince Bob that z is not a valid signature of m under the key, gx; i.e., z ≠ mx. Alice and Bob have agreed an integer, k, which sets the computational burden on Alice and the likelihood that she should succeed by chance. Bob picks random values, s ∈ {0, 1, ..., k} and a, and sends: v1 = msga and v2 = zsya, where exponentiating by a is used to blind the sent values. Note that v2 = zsya = (mx)s(gx)a = v1x. Alice, using her private key, computes v1x and then the quotient, v1xv2−1 = (msga)x(zsgxa)−1 = msxz−s = (mxz−1)s. Thus, v1xv2−1 = 1, unless z ≠ mx. Alice then tests v1xv2−1 for equality against the values: (mxz−1)i for i ∈ {0, 1, …, k}; which are calculated by repeated multiplication of mxz−1 (rather than exponentiating for each i). If the test succeeds, Alice conjectures the relevant i to be s; otherwise, she conjectures random value. Where z = mx, (mxz−1)i = v1xv2−1 = 1 for all i, s is unrecoverable. Alice commits to i: she picks a random r and sends hash(r, i) to Bob. Bob reveals a. Alice confirms that a is the correct blind (i.e., v1 and v2 can be generated using it), then, if so, reveals r. Revealing these blinds makes the exchange zero knowledge. Bob checks hash(r, i) = hash(r, s), proving Alice knows s, hence z ≠ mx. If Alice attempts to cheat at step 3 by guessing s at random, the probability of succeeding is 1/(k + 1). So, if k = 1023 and the protocol is conducted ten times, her chances are 1 to 2100.

Learning rate

In machine learning and statistics, the learning rate is a tuning parameter in an optimization algorithm that determines the step size at each iteration while moving toward a minimum of a loss function. Since it influences to what extent newly acquired information overrides old information, it metaphorically represents the speed at which a machine learning model "learns". In the adaptive control literature, the learning rate is commonly referred to as gain. In setting a learning rate, there is a trade-off between the rate of convergence and overshooting. While the descent direction is usually determined from the gradient of the loss function, the learning rate determines how big a step is taken in that direction. Too high a learning rate will make the learning jump over minima, but too low a learning rate will either take too long to converge or get stuck in an undesirable local minimum. In order to achieve faster convergence, prevent oscillations and getting stuck in undesirable local minima the learning rate is often varied during training either in accordance to a learning rate schedule or by using an adaptive learning rate. The learning rate and its adjustments may also differ per parameter, in which case it is a diagonal matrix that can be interpreted as an approximation to the inverse of the Hessian matrix in Newton's method. The learning rate is related to the step length determined by inexact line search in quasi-Newton methods and related optimization algorithms. == Learning rate schedule == Initial rate can be left as system default or can be selected using a range of techniques. A learning rate schedule changes the learning rate during learning and is most often changed between epochs/iterations. This is mainly done with two parameters: decay and momentum. There are many different learning rate schedules but the most common are time-based, step-based and exponential. Decay serves to settle the learning in a nice place and avoid oscillations, a situation that may arise when too high a constant learning rate makes the learning jump back and forth over a minimum, and is controlled by a hyperparameter. Momentum is analogous to a ball rolling down a hill; we want the ball to settle at the lowest point of the hill (corresponding to the lowest error). Momentum both speeds up the learning (increasing the learning rate) when the error cost gradient is heading in the same direction for a long time and also avoids local minima by 'rolling over' small bumps. Momentum is controlled by a hyperparameter analogous to a ball's mass which must be chosen manually—too high and the ball will roll over minima which we wish to find, too low and it will not fulfil its purpose. The formula for factoring in the momentum is more complex than for decay but is most often built in with deep learning libraries such as Keras. Time-based learning schedules alter the learning rate depending on the learning rate of the previous time iteration. Factoring in the decay the mathematical formula for the learning rate is: η n + 1 = η 0 1 + d n {\displaystyle \eta _{n+1}={\frac {\eta _{0}}{1+dn}}} where η {\displaystyle \eta } is the learning rate, η 0 {\displaystyle \eta _{0}} is the original learning rate, d {\displaystyle d} is a decay parameter and n {\displaystyle n} is the iteration step. Step-based learning schedules changes the learning rate according to some predefined steps. The decay application formula is here defined as: η n = η 0 d ⌊ 1 + n r ⌋ {\displaystyle \eta _{n}=\eta _{0}d^{\left\lfloor {\frac {1+n}{r}}\right\rfloor }} where η n {\displaystyle \eta _{n}} is the learning rate at iteration n {\displaystyle n} , η 0 {\displaystyle \eta _{0}} is the initial learning rate, d {\displaystyle d} is how much the learning rate should change at each drop (0.5 corresponds to a halving) and r {\displaystyle r} corresponds to the drop rate, or how often the rate should be dropped (10 corresponds to a drop every 10 iterations). The floor function ( ⌊ … ⌋ {\displaystyle \lfloor \dots \rfloor } ) here drops the value of its input to 0 for all values smaller than 1. Exponential learning schedules are similar to step-based, but instead of steps, a decreasing exponential function is used. The mathematical formula for factoring in the decay is: η n = η 0 e − d n {\displaystyle \eta _{n}=\eta _{0}e^{-dn}} where d {\displaystyle d} is a decay parameter. == Adaptive learning rate == The issue with learning rate schedules is that they all depend on hyperparameters that must be manually chosen for each given learning session and may vary greatly depending on the problem at hand or the model used. To combat this, there are many different types of adaptive gradient descent algorithms such as Adagrad, Adadelta, RMSprop, and Adam which are generally built into deep learning libraries such as Keras.

Social media background check

A social media background check is an investigative technique that involves scrutinizing the social media profiles and activities of individuals, primarily for pre-employment screening and other official verifications. These checks are performed to review people's online behavioral history on social media websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Social media background checks have become a common part of recruitment processes, among other verification procedures. == History == In the early 21st century, with the rapid expansion of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, employers began to use these channels to gather additional information about prospective employees. Initially, social media background checks were an informal aspect of recruitment, but they have gradually gained formal recognition as a crucial element in candidate screening. Proponents of social media background checks argue that such reviews provide insight into a candidate's professional interests and networks, though the reliability of such assessments remains contested among researchers. == Rise in society == The practice of social media background checks has seen a significant surge in the last decade. This rise can be attributed to the exponential increase in social media users and the growing awareness among organizations regarding the importance of hiring individuals who align with their values and culture. Various platforms provide services explicitly designed to conduct social media background checks efficiently, simplifying the process for businesses. Companies providing social media background check services, such as Ferretly and Certn, have received venture capital funding, reflecting investor interest in the sector. The incorporation of artificial intelligence into conducting AI-powered social media background checks also illustrates its continued popularity and that businesses are looking to ramp up and even automate their use. High-profile cases in which individuals faced employment or admission consequences for past social media posts have raised awareness of social media background checking practices. For example, director James Gunn faced termination from Marvel Studios in 2018 over past offensive tweets, though he was later rehired. Additionally, multiple college admissions officers have acknowledged reviewing applicants' social media profiles, though such practices vary by institution. == Evolution of ethical considerations == Social media background checks are not without controversy, raising significant ethical considerations that have evolved in recent years. Privacy advocates argue that social media background checks raise concerns about data use and discrimination, particularly given the use of personal information that may not reflect job-relevant behavior. Legal scholars debate whether reviewing publicly posted information constitutes a privacy violation under U.S. law. Researchers and critics note that social media profiles often present curated representations of users' lives and may not reflect workplace behavior or professional competence. Moreover, the accuracy of social media background checks has been called into question, with critics pointing out that these checks may not always yield reliable or comprehensive results. Critics also warn about potential misuse of information obtained from social media, including cyberbullying and harassment. A 2023 study by found that approximately 90% of employers incorporate social media into hiring processes, with over half of those surveyed reporting they had rejected candidates based on social media content. This informal approach operates largely outside federal compliance frameworks. Critics argue that without regulation, candidates lack dispute mechanisms available under regulatory frameworks like the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which requires compliance when background checks formally influence employment decisions. In a hiring environment where the practice is already performed often on an individual basis, the introduction of systematic, regulated screening practices that meet federal compliance standards can present a better, fairer alternative for both employers and candidates. == Business considerations == From a business perspective, social media background checks can be a valuable tool in protecting an organization's reputation and maintaining a safe and respectful workplace environment. A well-conducted social media background check can identify potential red flags, helping to prevent instances of workplace harassment or other negative behaviors. However, businesses also face potential legal repercussions if social media background checks are conducted improperly, such as non-compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in the United States. Critics argue that over-reliance on social media data may exclude qualified candidates whose professional competence is not reflected in their online presence. The proliferation of social media screening services has prompted legal and industry experts to emphasize the importance of compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and relevant state privacy laws when conducting such checks.

Graphics software

Sysomos

Sysomos

Undeniable signature

Learning rate

Social media background check

Related Articles