Floyd–Steinberg dithering is an image dithering algorithm first published in 1976 by Robert W. Floyd and Louis Steinberg. It is commonly used by image manipulation software, for example, when converting an image from a Truecolor 24-bit PNG format into a GIF format, which is restricted to a maximum of 256 colors. == Implementation == The algorithm achieves dithering using error diffusion, meaning it pushes (adds) the residual quantization error of a pixel onto its neighboring pixels, to be quantized after. It spreads the debt out according to the distribution (shown as a map of the neighboring pixels): [ ∗ 7 16 … … 3 16 5 16 1 16 … ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}&&&{\frac {\displaystyle 7}{\displaystyle 16}}&\ldots \\\ldots &{\frac {\displaystyle 3}{\displaystyle 16}}&{\frac {\displaystyle 5}{\displaystyle 16}}&{\frac {\displaystyle 1}{\displaystyle 16}}&\ldots \\\end{bmatrix}}} The pixel indicated with a star () indicates the pixel currently being scanned, and the blank pixels are the previously scanned pixels. The specific values (7/16, 3/16, 5/16, 1/16) were originally found by trial-and-error, "guided by the desire to have a region of desired density 0.5 come out as a checkerboard pattern". The algorithm scans the image from left to right, top to bottom, quantizing pixel values one by one. Each time, the quantization error is transferred to the neighboring pixels, while not affecting the pixels that already have been quantized. Hence, if a number of pixels have been rounded downwards, it becomes more likely that the next pixel is rounded upwards, such that on average, the quantization error is close to zero. The diffusion coefficients have the property that if the original pixel values are exactly halfway in between the nearest available colors, the dithered result is a checkerboard pattern. For example, 50% grey data could be dithered as a black-and-white checkerboard pattern. For optimal dithering, the counting of quantization errors should be in sufficient accuracy to prevent rounding errors from affecting the result. For correct results, all values should be linearized first, rather than operating directly on sRGB values as is common for images stored on computers. In some implementations, the horizontal direction of scan alternates between lines; this is called "serpentine scanning" or boustrophedon transform dithering. The algorithm described above is in the following pseudocode. This works for any approximately linear encoding of pixel values, such as 8-bit integers, 16-bit integers or real numbers in the range [0, 1]. for each y from top to bottom do for each x from left to right do oldpixel := pixels[x][y] newpixel := find_closest_palette_color(oldpixel) pixels[x][y] := newpixel quant_error := oldpixel - newpixel pixels[x + 1][y ] := pixels[x + 1][y ] + quant_error × 7 / 16 pixels[x - 1][y + 1] := pixels[x - 1][y + 1] + quant_error × 3 / 16 pixels[x ][y + 1] := pixels[x ][y + 1] + quant_error × 5 / 16 pixels[x + 1][y + 1] := pixels[x + 1][y + 1] + quant_error × 1 / 16 When converting grayscale pixel values from a high to a low bit depth (e.g. 8-bit grayscale to 1-bit black-and-white), find_closest_palette_color() may perform just a simple rounding, for example: find_closest_palette_color(oldpixel) = round(oldpixel / 255) The pseudocode can result in pixel values exceeding the valid values (such as greater than 255 in 8-bit grayscale images). Such values should ideally be handled by the find_closest_palette_color() function, rather than clipping the intermediate values, since a subsequent error may bring the value back into range. However, if fixed-width integers are used, wrapping of intermediate values would cause inversion of black and white, and so should be avoided. The find_closest_palette_color() implementation is nontrivial for a palette that is not evenly distributed, however small inaccuracies in selecting the correct palette color have minimal visual impact due to error being propagated to future pixels. A nearest neighbor search in 3D is frequently used.
Differentiable imaging
Differentiable imaging is a method within computational imaging that incorporates differentiable programming to design imaging systems. It treats the entire imaging process - from light passing through optical components to the numerical reconstruction—as a differentiable programming problem. This approach links optical hardware with numerical reconstruction, enabling joint optimization of both parts through differentiable programming. Differentiable imaging additionally extends the scope of computational imaging beyond image reconstruction, such as by aiding in characterization of optical components. == Background == Computational imaging combines optical hardware and computational algorithms to capture and reconstruct information that conventional imaging system cannot. This is achieved from a combination of the imaging system and the software used in the image reconstruction. Since the captured information may not directly show the image of the target, these systems often rely on numerical models that describe how light encodes the target. In practice, such models may deviate from the physical systems due to uncertainties such as noise, misalignments, manufacturing imperfections, environmental variations, etc. These uncertainties can cause a mismatch between the physical system and its numerical model, which may degrade reconstruction quality and limit the effectiveness of the hardware–software co-design. Uncertainty quantification is also studied in other hybrid physical–numerical systems, such as digital twin. While numerical modeling imaging systems date back to the several decades, such as the multislice method in electron microscopy or X-Ray nanotomography, differentiable imaging emphasizes jointly modeling uncertainties and solving inverse problems with image reconstruction simultaneously. Differentiable imaging transforms the traditional encoding model y = f ( x ) {\textstyle y=f(x)} into a more comprehensive formulation y = f ( x , θ ) {\textstyle y=f(x,\theta )} , where θ {\displaystyle \theta } represents a parameter set of mismatches between physical systems and numerical models. The forward model captures the entire imaging pipeline through a series of interconnected component functions: y = f ( x , θ ) , f = f n o i s e ∘ f c ∘ f o c ∘ f x ∘ f o i ∘ f i , {\displaystyle y=f(x,\theta ),\qquad f=f_{noise}\circ f_{c}\circ f_{oc}\circ f_{x}\circ f_{oi}\circ f_{i},} where the function composition operator ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } connects each system component, and θ = { θ c , θ o c , … } {\displaystyle \theta =\{\theta _{c},\theta _{oc},\ldots \}} encompasses uncertainty system parameters. Each component corresponds to specific physical processes within the imaging system, from illumination through object interactions to sensor behavior and noises. This forward model enables the formulation of an inverse problem that simultaneously optimizes system parameters while reconstructing images: x ∗ , θ ∗ = argmin x , θ L ( f ( x , θ ) , y ) + ∑ n = 1 N β n R n ( x ) {\displaystyle x^{},\theta ^{}={\text{argmin}}_{x,\theta }{\mathcal {L}}(f(x,\theta ),y)+\sum _{n=1}^{N}\beta _{n}{\mathcal {R}}_{n}(x)} s . t . x ∈ Ω x , θ ∈ Ω θ {\displaystyle s.t.\quad x\in \Omega _{x},\theta \in \Omega _{\theta }} Here, L ( f ( x , θ ) , y ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}(f(x,\theta ),y)} represents the fidelity term that quantifies the discrepancy between the model predictions and measured data. The whole process of the y = f ( x , θ ) {\displaystyle y=f(x,\theta )} is constructed as a computer graph based on differentiable programming, and the inverse problem is solved with gradient based algorithm, while the gradient is calculated with automatic differentiation. == Applications == One application of differentiable imaging is uncertainty management, which seeks to quantify and mitigate the impact of factors induce reality-numerical mismatch. Explicitly accounting for uncertainties can improve reconstruction accuracy and system robustness. Examples include: Model-related uncertainties: unknown or unmeasurable variables—for instance, optical system quantities that differ from the design specifications Data and system uncertainties: artifacts introduced during image acquisition, such as low-quality data, noise, or hardware imperfections Manufacturing uncertainties: variability in the production of imaging hardware—such as slight deviations in lens curvature or sensor alignment—that alters the physical system's behavior
International Conference on Computer Vision
The International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) is a research conference sponsored by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) held every other year. It is considered to be one of the top conferences in computer vision, alongside CVPR and ECCV, and it is held on years in which ECCV is not. The conference is usually spread over four to five days. Typically, experts in the focus areas give tutorial talks on the first day, then the technical sessions (and poster sessions in parallel) follow. Recent conferences have also had an increasing number of focused workshops and a commercial exhibition. == Awards == === Azriel Rosenfeld Lifetime Achievement Award === The Azriel Rosenfeld Award, or Azriel Rosenfeld Lifetime Achievement Award, recognizes researchers who have made significant contributions to the field of computer vision over their careers. It is named in memory of computer scientist and mathematician Azriel Rosenfeld. The following people have received this award: === Helmholtz Prize === The ICCV Helmholtz Prize, known as the Test of Time Award before 2013, is awarded every other year at the ICCV, recognizing ICCV papers from ten or more years earlier that had a significant impact on computer vision research. Winners are selected by the IEEE Computer Society's Technical Committee on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. The award is named after the 19th century physician and physicist Hermann von Helmholtz, and the ICCV's award is not related to the various Helmholtz Prizes in physics, or the Hermann von Helmholtz Prize in neuroscience. === Marr Prize === The ICCV best-paper award is the Marr Prize, named after British neuroscientist David Marr. === Mark Everingham Prize === The Mark Everingham Prize is an award given yearly by the Technical Committee on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence of the IEEE Computer Society at the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision or the European Conference on Computer Vision to commemorate the late Mark Everingham, "one of the rising stars of computer vision", and to encourage others to follow in his footsteps by acting to further progress in the computer vision community as a whole. The prize is given to a researcher, or a team of researchers, who have made a selfless contribution of significant benefit to other members of the computer vision community. The Mark Everingham Prize for Rigorous Evaluation was an award given in 2012 at the British Machine Vision Conference. === PAMI Distinguished Researcher Award === The PAMI Distinguished Researcher Award (until 2013 called Significant Researcher Award) is awarded to candidates whose research projects have significantly contributed to the progress of computer vision. Awards are made based on major research contributions, as well as the role of those contributions in influencing and inspiring other research. Candidates are nominated by the community. The following people have received this award: == Conference list == The conference is usually held in the Spring in various international locations.
List of datasets for machine-learning research
These datasets are used in machine learning (ML) research and have been cited in peer-reviewed academic journals. Datasets are an integral part of the field of machine learning. Major advances in this field can result from advances in learning algorithms (such as deep learning), computer hardware, and, less intuitively, the availability of high-quality training datasets. High-quality labeled training datasets for supervised and semi-supervised machine-learning algorithms are usually difficult and expensive to produce because of the large amount of time needed to label the data. Although they do not need to be labeled, high-quality unlabeled datasets for unsupervised learning can also be difficult and costly to produce. Many organizations, including governments, publish and share their datasets, often using common metadata formats (such as Croissant). The datasets are classified, based on the licenses, into two groups: open data and non-open data. The datasets from various governmental-bodies are presented in List of open government data sites. The datasets are ported on open data portals. They are made available for searching, depositing and accessing through interfaces like Open API. The datasets are made available as various sorted types and subtypes. == List of sorting used for datasets == The data portal is classified based on its type of license. The open source license based data portals are known as open data portals which are used by many government organizations and academic institutions. == List of open data portals == == List of portals suitable for multiple types of applications == The data portal sometimes lists a wide variety of subtypes of datasets pertaining to many machine learning applications. == List of portals suitable for a specific subtype of applications == The data portals which are suitable for a specific subtype of machine learning application are listed in the subsequent sections. == Image data == == Text data == These datasets consist primarily of text for tasks such as natural language processing, sentiment analysis, translation, and cluster analysis. === Reviews === === News articles === === Messages === === Twitter and tweets === === Dialogues === === Legal === === Other text === == Sound data == These datasets consist of sounds and sound features used for tasks such as speech recognition and speech synthesis. === Speech === === Music === === Other sounds === == Signal data == Datasets containing electric signal information requiring some sort of signal processing for further analysis. === Electrical === === Motion-tracking === === Other signals === == Chemical data == Datasets from physical systems. === Chemical Reactions with transition states (TS) === === OpenReACT-CHON-EFH === OpenReACT-CHON-EFH (Open Reaction Dataset of Atomic ConfiguraTions comprising C, H, O and N with Energies, Forces and Hessians) is a 2025 open-access benchmark for machine-learning interatomic potentials. RTP set – 35,087 stationary-point geometries (reactant, transition state and product) drawn from 11,961 elementary reactions, each labeled with density-functional energies, atomic forces and full Hessian matrices at the ωB97X-D/6-31G(d) level. IRC set – 34,248 structures along 600 minimum-energy reaction paths, used to test extrapolation beyond trained stationary points. NMS set – 62,527 off-equilibrium geometries generated by normal-mode sampling to probe model robustness under thermal perturbations. The collection underpins the study Does Hessian Data Improve the Performance of Machine Learning Potentials? and was used to train and benchmark the machine-learning interatomic potentials reported therein. The dataset itself is distributed under a CC licence via Figshare. == Physical data == Datasets from physical systems. === High-energy physics === === Systems === === Astronomy === === Earth science === === Other physical === == Biological data == Datasets from biological systems. === Human === === Animal === === Fungi === === Plant === === Microbe === === Drug discovery === == Anomaly data == == Question answering data == This section includes datasets that deals with structured data. == Dialog or instruction prompted data == This section includes datasets that contains multi-turn text with at least two actors, a "user" and an "agent". The user makes requests for the agent, which performs the request. == Cybersecurity == == Climate and sustainability == == Code data == == Multivariate data == === Financial === === Weather === === Census === === Transit === === Internet === === Games === === Other multivariate === == Curated repositories of datasets == As datasets come in myriad formats and can sometimes be difficult to use, there has been considerable work put into curating and standardizing the format of datasets to make them easier to use for machine learning research. OpenML: Web platform with Python, R, Java, and other APIs for downloading hundreds of machine learning datasets, evaluating algorithms on datasets, and benchmarking algorithm performance against dozens of other algorithms. PMLB: A large, curated repository of benchmark datasets for evaluating supervised machine learning algorithms. Provides classification and regression datasets in a standardized format that are accessible through a Python API. Metatext NLP: https://metatext.io/datasets web repository maintained by community, containing nearly 1000 benchmark datasets, and counting. Provides many tasks from classification to QA, and various languages from English, Portuguese to Arabic. Appen: Off The Shelf and Open Source Datasets hosted and maintained by the company. These biological, image, physical, question answering, signal, sound, text, and video resources number over 250 and can be applied to over 25 different use cases.
Calibration (statistics)
There are two main uses of the term calibration in statistics that denote special types of statistical inference problems. Calibration can mean a reverse process to regression, where instead of a future dependent variable being predicted from known explanatory variables, a known observation of the dependent variables is used to predict a corresponding explanatory variable; procedures in statistical classification to determine class membership probabilities which assess the uncertainty of a given new observation belonging to each of the already established classes. In addition, calibration is used in statistics with the usual general meaning of calibration. For example, model calibration can be also used to refer to Bayesian inference about the value of a model's parameters, given some data set, or more generally to any type of fitting of a statistical model. As Philip Dawid puts it, "a forecaster is well calibrated if, for example, of those events to which he assigns a probability 30 percent, the long-run proportion that actually occurs turns out to be 30 percent." == In classification == Calibration in classification means transforming classifier scores into class membership probabilities. An overview of calibration methods for two-class and multi-class classification tasks is given by Gebel (2009). A classifier might separate the classes well, but be poorly calibrated, meaning that the estimated class probabilities are far from the true class probabilities. In this case, a calibration step may help improve the estimated probabilities. A variety of metrics exist that are aimed to measure the extent to which a classifier produces well-calibrated probabilities. Foundational work includes the Expected Calibration Error (ECE). Into the 2020s, variants include the Adaptive Calibration Error (ACE) and the Test-based Calibration Error (TCE), which address limitations of the ECE metric that may arise when classifier scores concentrate on narrow subset of the [0,1] range. A 2020s advancement in calibration assessment is the introduction of the Estimated Calibration Index (ECI). The ECI extends the concepts of the Expected Calibration Error (ECE) to provide a more nuanced measure of a model's calibration, particularly addressing overconfidence and underconfidence tendencies. Originally formulated for binary settings, the ECI has been adapted for multiclass settings, offering both local and global insights into model calibration. This framework aims to overcome some of the theoretical and interpretative limitations of existing calibration metrics. Through a series of experiments, Famiglini et al. demonstrate the framework's effectiveness in delivering a more accurate understanding of model calibration levels and discuss strategies for mitigating biases in calibration assessment. An online tool has been proposed to compute both ECE and ECI. The following univariate calibration methods exist for transforming classifier scores into class membership probabilities in the two-class case: Assignment value approach, see Garczarek (2002) Bayes approach, see Bennett (2002) Isotonic regression, see Zadrozny and Elkan (2002) Platt scaling (a form of logistic regression), see Lewis and Gale (1994) and Platt (1999) Bayesian Binning into Quantiles (BBQ) calibration, see Naeini, Cooper, Hauskrecht (2015) Beta calibration, see Kull, Filho, Flach (2017) === In probability prediction and forecasting === In prediction and forecasting, a Brier score is sometimes used to assess prediction accuracy of a set of predictions, specifically that the magnitude of the assigned probabilities track the relative frequency of the observed outcomes. Philip E. Tetlock employs the term "calibration" in this sense in his 2015 book Superforecasting. This differs from accuracy and precision. For example, as expressed by Daniel Kahneman, "if you give all events that happen a probability of .6 and all the events that don't happen a probability of .4, your discrimination is perfect but your calibration is miserable". In meteorology, in particular, as concerns weather forecasting, a related mode of assessment is known as forecast skill. == In regression == The calibration problem in regression is the use of known data on the observed relationship between a dependent variable and an independent variable to make estimates of other values of the independent variable from new observations of the dependent variable. This can be known as "inverse regression"; there is also sliced inverse regression. The following multivariate calibration methods exist for transforming classifier scores into class membership probabilities in the case with classes count greater than two: Reduction to binary tasks and subsequent pairwise coupling, see Hastie and Tibshirani (1998) Dirichlet calibration, see Gebel (2009) === Example === One example is that of dating objects, using observable evidence such as tree rings for dendrochronology or carbon-14 for radiometric dating. The observation is caused by the age of the object being dated, rather than the reverse, and the aim is to use the method for estimating dates based on new observations. The problem is whether the model used for relating known ages with observations should aim to minimise the error in the observation, or minimise the error in the date. The two approaches will produce different results, and the difference will increase if the model is then used for extrapolation at some distance from the known results.
Pronunciation assessment
Automatic pronunciation assessment uses computer speech recognition to determine how accurately speech has been pronounced, instead of relying on a human instructor or proctor. It is also called speech verification, pronunciation evaluation, and pronunciation scoring. This technology is used to grade speech quality, for language testing, for computer-aided pronunciation teaching (CAPT) in computer-assisted language learning (CALL), for speaking skill remediation, and for accent reduction. Pronunciation assessment is different from dictation or automatic transcription, because instead of determining unknown speech, it verifies learners' pronunciation of known word(s), often from prior transcription of the same utterance; ideally scoring the intelligibility of the learners' speech. Sometimes pronunciation assessment evaluates the prosody of the learners' speech, such as intonation, pitch, tempo, rhythm, and syllable and word stress, although those are usually not essential for being understood in most languages. Pronunciation assessment is also used in reading tutoring, for example in products from Google, Microsoft, and Amira Learning. Automatic pronunciation assessment can also be used to help diagnose and treat speech disorders such as apraxia. == Intelligibility == Intelligibility refers to how well a learner's utterance is understood by a listener, rather than how much it sounds like a native speaker. This is separate from measures of fluency, such as so-called "Goodness of Pronunciation" (GoP) scores, which estimate how closely an utterance aligns with those of native speakers. Intelligibility is widely regarded as the most important communicative goal in pronunciation teaching and assessment. For example, in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) assessment criteria for "overall phonological control", intelligibility outweighs formally correct pronunciation at all levels. Studies in applied linguistics have shown that accent reduction does not always increase intelligibility because listeners can often comprehend heavily accented speech without difficulty. Pronunciation assessment systems often rely on acoustic methods such as GoP which compare learner speech to reference models to produce phoneme-level scores, which are in turn aggregated to produce word and phrase scores. While these methods are effective for identifying deviations from native speakers' utterances, they do not effectively measure how understandable speech is to human listeners. Intelligibility is influenced by broader linguistic and contextual factors such as stress placement, speech rate, and coarticulation, which are not represented in purely segmental scores. The earliest work on pronunciation assessment avoided measuring genuine listener intelligibility, a shortcoming corrected in 2011 at the Toyohashi University of Technology, and included in the Versant high-stakes English fluency assessment from Pearson and mobile apps from 17zuoye Education & Technology, but still missing in 2023 products from Google Search, Microsoft, Educational Testing Service, Speechace, and ELSA. Assessing authentic listener intelligibility is essential for avoiding inaccuracies from accent bias, especially in high-stakes assessments; from words with multiple correct pronunciations; and from phoneme coding errors in machine-readable pronunciation dictionaries. In 2022, researchers found that some newer speech-to-text systems, based on end-to-end reinforcement learning to map audio signals directly into words, produce word and phrase confidence scores (from 10-25ms audio frame logit aggregation) closely correlated with genuine listener intelligibility. Others have been able to assess intelligibility using Levenshtein or dynamic time warping distance measures from Wav2Vec2 representation of good speech. Further work through 2025 has focused specifically on measuring intelligibility. A 2025 study of 42 pronunciation and speech coaching apps (32 mobile and 10 web) found that none offered intelligibility assessment. Instead, most provided only segmental and accent-focused scoring. About two-thirds of the apps provided some form of specific pronunciation feedback, usually with phonetic transcriptions, but accompanied by visual cues (such as animations of the vocal tract or the lips and tongue from the front) in only about 5% of the apps. Less than a third provided feedback on learner perception of exemplar speech. == Evaluation == Although there are as yet no industry-standard benchmarks for evaluating pronunciation assessment accuracy, researchers occasionally release evaluation speech corpuses for others to use for improving assessment quality. Such evaluation databases often emphasize formally unaccented pronunciation to the exclusion of genuine intelligibility evident from blinded listener transcriptions. As of mid-2025, state of the art approaches for automatically transcribing phonemes typically achieve an error rate of about 10% from known good speech. The International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) 2025 Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education (SLaTE) administered a Speak & Improve Challenge: Spoken Language Assessment and Feedback, introducing benchmarks for evaluating pronunciation assessment and remediation systems across languages, accents, and learner populations. The challenge emphasized cross-lingual generalization and alignment with human intelligibility judgments, for more robust and interpretable assessment systems. Ethical issues in pronunciation assessment are present in both human and automatic methods. Authentic validity, fairness, and mitigating bias in evaluation are all crucial. Diverse speech data should be included in automatic pronunciation assessment models. Combining human judgments, especially blinded transcriptions from a wide diversity of listeners, with automated feedback can improve accuracy and fairness. Second language learners benefit substantially from their use of widely available speech recognition systems for dictation, virtual assistants, and AI chatbots. In such systems, users naturally try to correct their own errors evident in speech recognition results that they notice. Such use improves their grammar and vocabulary development along with their pronunciation skills. The extent to which explicit pronunciation assessment and remediation approaches improve on such self-directed interactions remains an open question. Similarly, automatic dictation results have been shown to reflect intelligibility about as well as human scorers. == Recent developments == During 2021–22, a smartphone-based CAPT system was used to sense articulation through both audible and inaudible signals, providing feedback at the phoneme level. Some promising areas for improvement which were being developed in 2024 include articulatory feature extraction and transfer learning to suppress unnecessary corrections. Other interesting advances under development include "augmented reality" interfaces for mobile devices using optical character recognition to provide pronunciation training on text found in user environments. In 2024, audio multimodal large language models were first described as assessing pronunciation. That work has been carried forward by other researchers in 2025 who report positive results. Subsequently, researchers demonstrated pronunciation scoring by providing a language model with textual descriptions of speech, including the speech-to-text transcript, phoneme sequences, pauses, and phoneme sequence matching; this approach can achieve performance similar to multimodal LLMs that analyze raw audio while avoiding their higher computational cost. In 2025, the Duolingo English Test authors published a description of their pronunciation assessment method, purportedly built to measure intelligibility rather than accent imitation. While achieving a correlation of 0.82 with expert human ratings, very close to inter-rater agreement and outperforming alternative methods, the method is nonetheless based on experts' scores along the six-point CEFR common reference levels scale, instead of actual blinded listener transcriptions. Further promising work in 2025 includes assessment feedback aligning learner speech to synthetic utterances using interpretable features, identifying continuous spans of words for remediation feedback; synthesizing corrected speech matching learners' self-perceived voices, which they prefer and imitate more accurately as corrections; and streaming such interactions. On January 21, 2026, Educational Testing Service's TOEFL iBT high-stakes English language test, required by US university admissions and employers from English as a foreign language applicants more often than all other internet-based tests combined, changed its speaking assessments. While official rubrics claim that the new scoring will be based primarily on intelligibility, the new test's technical description indicates that it ju
Evolutionary algorithm
Evolutionary algorithms (EA) reproduce essential elements of biological evolution in a computer algorithm in order to solve "difficult" problems, at least approximately, for which no exact or satisfactory solution methods are known. They are metaheuristics and population-based bio-inspired algorithms and evolutionary computation, which itself are part of the field of computational intelligence. The mechanisms of biological evolution that an EA mainly imitates are reproduction, mutation, recombination and selection. Candidate solutions to the optimization problem play the role of individuals in a population, and the fitness function determines the quality of the solutions (see also loss function). Evolution of the population then takes place after the repeated application of the above operators. Evolutionary algorithms often perform well approximating solutions to all types of problems because they ideally do not make any assumption about the underlying fitness landscape. Techniques from evolutionary algorithms applied to the modeling of biological evolution are generally limited to explorations of microevolution (microevolutionary processes) and planning models based upon cellular processes. In most real applications of EAs, computational complexity is a prohibiting factor. In fact, this computational complexity is due to fitness function evaluation. Fitness approximation is one of the solutions to overcome this difficulty. However, seemingly simple EA can solve often complex problems; therefore, there may be no direct link between algorithm complexity and problem complexity. == Generic definition == The following is an example of a generic evolutionary algorithm: Randomly generate the initial population of individuals, the first generation. Evaluate the fitness of each individual in the population. Check, if the goal is reached and the algorithm can be terminated. Select individuals as parents, preferably of higher fitness. Produce offspring with optional crossover (mimicking reproduction). Apply mutation operations on the offspring. Select individuals preferably of lower fitness for replacement with new individuals (mimicking natural selection). Return to 2 == Types == Similar techniques differ in genetic representation and other implementation details, and the nature of the particular applied problem. Genetic algorithm – This is the most popular type of EA. One seeks the solution of a problem in the form of strings of numbers (traditionally binary, although the best representations are usually those that reflect something about the problem being solved), by applying operators such as recombination and mutation (sometimes one, sometimes both). This type of EA is often used in optimization problems. Genetic programming – Here the solutions are in the form of computer programs, and their fitness is determined by their ability to solve a computational problem. There are many variants of Genetic Programming: Cartesian genetic programming Gene expression programming Grammatical evolution Linear genetic programming Multi expression programming Evolutionary programming – Similar to evolution strategy, but with a deterministic selection of all parents. Evolution strategy (ES) – Works with vectors of real numbers as representations of solutions, and typically uses self-adaptive mutation rates. The method is mainly used for numerical optimization, although there are also variants for combinatorial tasks. CMA-ES Natural evolution strategy Differential evolution – Based on vector differences and is therefore primarily suited for numerical optimization problems. Coevolutionary algorithm – Similar to genetic algorithms and evolution strategies, but the created solutions are compared on the basis of their outcomes from interactions with other solutions. Solutions can either compete or cooperate during the search process. Coevolutionary algorithms are often used in scenarios where the fitness landscape is dynamic, complex, or involves competitive interactions. Neuroevolution – Similar to genetic programming but the genomes represent artificial neural networks by describing structure and connection weights. The genome encoding can be direct or indirect. Learning classifier system – Here the solution is a set of classifiers (rules or conditions). A Michigan-LCS evolves at the level of individual classifiers whereas a Pittsburgh-LCS uses populations of classifier-sets. Initially, classifiers were only binary, but now include real, neural net, or S-expression types. Fitness is typically determined with either a strength or accuracy based reinforcement learning or supervised learning approach. Quality–Diversity algorithms – QD algorithms simultaneously aim for high-quality and diverse solutions. Unlike traditional optimization algorithms that solely focus on finding the best solution to a problem, QD algorithms explore a wide variety of solutions across a problem space and keep those that are not just high performing, but also diverse and unique. == Theoretical background == The following theoretical principles apply to all or almost all EAs. === No free lunch theorem === The no free lunch theorem of optimization states that all optimization strategies are equally effective when the set of all optimization problems is considered. Under the same condition, no evolutionary algorithm is fundamentally better than another. This can only be the case if the set of all problems is restricted. This is exactly what is inevitably done in practice. Therefore, to improve an EA, it must exploit problem knowledge in some form (e.g. by choosing a certain mutation strength or a problem-adapted coding). Thus, if two EAs are compared, this constraint is implied. In addition, an EA can use problem specific knowledge by, for example, not randomly generating the entire start population, but creating some individuals through heuristics or other procedures. Another possibility to tailor an EA to a given problem domain is to involve suitable heuristics, local search procedures or other problem-related procedures in the process of generating the offspring. This form of extension of an EA is also known as a memetic algorithm. Both extensions play a major role in practical applications, as they can speed up the search process and make it more robust. === Convergence === For EAs in which, in addition to the offspring, at least the best individual of the parent generation is used to form the subsequent generation (so-called elitist EAs), there is a general proof of convergence under the condition that an optimum exists. Without loss of generality, a maximum search is assumed for the proof: From the property of elitist offspring acceptance and the existence of the optimum it follows that per generation k {\displaystyle k} an improvement of the fitness F {\displaystyle F} of the respective best individual x ′ {\displaystyle x'} will occur with a probability P > 0 {\displaystyle P>0} . Thus: F ( x 1 ′ ) ≤ F ( x 2 ′ ) ≤ F ( x 3 ′ ) ≤ ⋯ ≤ F ( x k ′ ) ≤ ⋯ {\displaystyle F(x'_{1})\leq F(x'_{2})\leq F(x'_{3})\leq \cdots \leq F(x'_{k})\leq \cdots } I.e., the fitness values represent a monotonically non-decreasing sequence, which is bounded due to the existence of the optimum. From this follows the convergence of the sequence against the optimum. Since the proof makes no statement about the speed of convergence, it is of little help in practical applications of EAs. But it does justify the recommendation to use elitist EAs. However, when using the usual panmictic population model, elitist EAs tend to converge prematurely more than non-elitist ones. In a panmictic population model, mate selection (see step 4 of the generic definition) is such that every individual in the entire population is eligible as a mate. In non-panmictic populations, selection is suitably restricted, so that the dispersal speed of better individuals is reduced compared to panmictic ones. Thus, the general risk of premature convergence of elitist EAs can be significantly reduced by suitable population models that restrict mate selection. === Virtual alphabets === With the theory of virtual alphabets, David E. Goldberg showed in 1990 that by using a representation with real numbers, an EA that uses classical recombination operators (e.g. uniform or n-point crossover) cannot reach certain areas of the search space, in contrast to a coding with binary numbers. This results in the recommendation for EAs with real representation to use arithmetic operators for recombination (e.g. arithmetic mean or intermediate recombination). With suitable operators, real-valued representations are more effective than binary ones, contrary to earlier opinion. == Comparison to other concepts == === Biological processes === A possible limitation of many evolutionary algorithms is their lack of a clear genotype–phenotype distinction. In nature, the fertilized egg cell undergoes a complex process known as embryogenesis to become a mature p