Protocol engineering is the application of systematic methods to the development of communication protocols. It uses many of the principles of software engineering, but it is specific to the development of distributed systems. == History == When the first experimental and commercial computer networks were developed in the 1970s, the concept of protocols was not yet well developed. These were the first distributed systems. In the context of the newly adopted layered protocol architecture (see OSI model), the definition of the protocol of a specific layer should be such that any entity implementing that specification in one computer would be compatible with any other computer containing an entity implementing the same specification, and their interactions should be such that the desired communication service would be obtained. On the other hand, the protocol specification should be abstract enough to allow different choices for the implementation on different computers. It was recognized that a precise specification of the expected service provided by the given layer was important. It is important for the verification of the protocol, which should demonstrate that the communication service is provided if both protocol entities implement the protocol specification correctly. This principle was later followed during the standardization of the OSI protocol stack, in particular for the transport layer. It was also recognized that some kind of formalized protocol specification would be useful for the verification of the protocol and for developing implementations, as well as test cases for checking the conformance of an implementation against the specification. While initially mainly finite-state machine were used as (simplified) models of a protocol entity, in the 1980s three formal specification languages were standardized, two by ISO and one by ITU. The latter, called SDL, was later used in industry and has been merged with UML state machines. == Principles == The following are the most important principles for the development of protocols: Layered architecture: A protocol layer at the level n consists of two (or more) entities that have a service interface through which the service of the layer is provided to the users of the protocol, and which uses the service provided by a local entity of level (n-1). The service specification of a layer describes, in an abstract and global view, the behavior of the layer as visible at the service interfaces of the layer. The protocol specification defines the requirements that should be satisfied by each entity implementation. Protocol verification consists of showing that two (or more) entities satisfying the protocol specification will provide at their service interfaces the specified service of that layer. The (verified) protocol specification is used mainly for the following two activities: The development of an entity implementation. Note that the abstract properties of the service interface are defined by the service specification (and also used by the protocol specification), but the detailed nature of the interface can be chosen during the implementation process, separately for each entity. Test suite development for conformance testing. Protocol conformance testing checks that a given entity implementation conforms to the protocol specification. The conformance test cases are developed based on the protocol specification and are applicable to all entity implementations. Therefore standard conformance test suites have been developed for certain protocol standards. == Methods and tools == Tools for the activities of protocol verification, entity implementation and test suite development can be developed when the protocol specification is written in a formalized language which can be understood by the tool. As mentioned, formal specification languages have been proposed for protocol specification, and the first methods and tools where based on finite-state machine models. Reachability analysis was proposed to understand all possible behaviors of a distributed system, which is essential for protocol verification. This was later complemented with model checking. However, finite-state descriptions are not powerful enough to describe constraints between message parameters and the local variables in the entities. Such constraints can be described by the standardized formal specification languages mentioned above, for which powerful tools have been developed. It is in the field of protocol engineering that model-based development was used very early. These methods and tools have later been used for software engineering as well as hardware design, especially for distributed and real-time systems. On the other hand, many methods and tools developed in the more general context of software engineering can also be used of the development of protocols, for instance model checking for protocol verification, and agile methods for entity implementations. == Constructive methods for protocol design == Most protocols are designed by human intuition and discussions during the standardization process. However, some methods have been proposed for using constructive methods possibly supported by tools to automatically derive protocols that satisfy certain properties. The following are a few examples: Semi-automatic protocol synthesis: The user defines all message sending actions of the entities, and the tool derives all necessary reception actions (even if several messages are in transit). Synchronizing protocol: The state transitions of one protocol entity are given by the user, and the method derives the behavior of the other entity such that it remains in states that correspond to the former entity. Protocol derived from service specification: The service specification is given by the user and the method derives a suitable protocol for all entities. Protocol for control applications: The specification of one entity (called the plant - which must be controlled) is given, and the method derives a specification of the other entity such that certain fail states of the plant are never reached and certain given properties of the plant's service interactions are satisfied. This is a case of supervisory control. == Books == Ming T. Liu, Protocol Engineering, Advances in Computers, Volume 29, 1989, Pages 79–195. G.J. Holzmann, Design and Validation of Computer Protocols, Prentice Hall, 1991. H. König, Protocol Engineering, Springer, 2012. M. Popovic, Communication Protocol Engineering, CRC Press, 2nd Ed. 2018. P. Venkataram, S.S. Manvi, B.S. Babu, Communication Protocol Engineering, 2014.
Automatic summarization
Automatic summarization is the process of shortening a set of data computationally, to create a subset (a summary) that represents the most important or relevant information within the original content. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms are commonly developed and employed to achieve this, specialized for different types of data. Text summarization is usually implemented by natural language processing methods, designed to locate the most informative sentences in a given document. On the other hand, visual content can be summarized using computer vision algorithms. Image summarization is the subject of ongoing research; existing approaches typically attempt to display the most representative images from a given image collection, or generate a video that only includes the most important content from the entire collection. Video summarization algorithms identify and extract from the original video content the most important frames (key-frames), and/or the most important video segments (key-shots), normally in a temporally ordered fashion. Video summaries simply retain a carefully selected subset of the original video frames and, therefore, are not identical to the output of video synopsis algorithms, where new video frames are being synthesized based on the original video content. == Commercial products == In 2022 Google Docs released an automatic summarization feature. == Approaches == There are two general approaches to automatic summarization: extraction and abstraction. === Extraction-based summarization === Here, content is extracted from the original data, but the extracted content is not modified in any way. Examples of extracted content include key-phrases that can be used to "tag" or index a text document, or key sentences (including headings) that collectively comprise an abstract, and representative images or video segments, as stated above. For text, extraction is analogous to the process of skimming, where the summary (if available), headings and subheadings, figures, the first and last paragraphs of a section, and optionally the first and last sentences in a paragraph are read before one chooses to read the entire document in detail. Other examples of extraction that include key sequences of text in terms of clinical relevance (including patient/problem, intervention, and outcome). === Abstractive-based summarization === Abstractive summarization methods generate new text that did not exist in the original text. This has been applied mainly for text. Abstractive methods build an internal semantic representation of the original content (often called a language model), and then use this representation to create a summary that is closer to what a human might express. Abstraction may transform the extracted content by paraphrasing sections of the source document, to condense a text more strongly than extraction. Such transformation, however, is computationally much more challenging than extraction, involving both natural language processing and often a deep understanding of the domain of the original text in cases where the original document relates to a special field of knowledge. "Paraphrasing" is even more difficult to apply to images and videos, which is why most summarization systems are extractive. === Aided summarization === Approaches aimed at higher summarization quality rely on combined software and human effort. In Machine Aided Human Summarization, extractive techniques highlight candidate passages for inclusion (to which the human adds or removes text). In Human Aided Machine Summarization, a human post-processes software output, in the same way that one edits the output of automatic translation by Google Translate. == Applications and systems for summarization == There are broadly two types of extractive summarization tasks depending on what the summarization program focuses on. The first is generic summarization, which focuses on obtaining a generic summary or abstract of the collection (whether documents, or sets of images, or videos, news stories etc.). The second is query relevant summarization, sometimes called query-based summarization, which summarizes objects specific to a query. Summarization systems are able to create both query relevant text summaries and generic machine-generated summaries depending on what the user needs. An example of a summarization problem is document summarization, which attempts to automatically produce an abstract from a given document. Sometimes one might be interested in generating a summary from a single source document, while others can use multiple source documents (for example, a cluster of articles on the same topic). This problem is called multi-document summarization. A related application is summarizing news articles. Imagine a system, which automatically pulls together news articles on a given topic (from the web), and concisely represents the latest news as a summary. Image collection summarization is another application example of automatic summarization. It consists in selecting a representative set of images from a larger set of images. A summary in this context is useful to show the most representative images of results in an image collection exploration system. Video summarization is a related domain, where the system automatically creates a trailer of a long video. This also has applications in consumer or personal videos, where one might want to skip the boring or repetitive actions. Similarly, in surveillance videos, one would want to extract important and suspicious activity, while ignoring all the boring and redundant frames captured. At a very high level, summarization algorithms try to find subsets of objects (like set of sentences, or a set of images), which cover information of the entire set. This is also called the core-set. These algorithms model notions like diversity, coverage, information and representativeness of the summary. Query based summarization techniques, additionally model for relevance of the summary with the query. Some techniques and algorithms which naturally model summarization problems are TextRank and PageRank, Submodular set function, Determinantal point process, maximal marginal relevance (MMR) etc. === Keyphrase extraction === The task is the following. You are given a piece of text, such as a journal article, and you must produce a list of keywords or key[phrase]s that capture the primary topics discussed in the text. In the case of research articles, many authors provide manually assigned keywords, but most text lacks pre-existing keyphrases. For example, news articles rarely have keyphrases attached, but it would be useful to be able to automatically do so for a number of applications discussed below. Consider the example text from a news article: "The Army Corps of Engineers, rushing to meet President Bush's promise to protect New Orleans by the start of the 2006 hurricane season, installed defective flood-control pumps last year despite warnings from its own expert that the equipment would fail during a storm, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press". A keyphrase extractor might select "Army Corps of Engineers", "President Bush", "New Orleans", and "defective flood-control pumps" as keyphrases. These are pulled directly from the text. In contrast, an abstractive keyphrase system would somehow internalize the content and generate keyphrases that do not appear in the text, but more closely resemble what a human might produce, such as "political negligence" or "inadequate protection from floods". Abstraction requires a deep understanding of the text, which makes it difficult for a computer system. Keyphrases have many applications. They can enable document browsing by providing a short summary, improve information retrieval (if documents have keyphrases assigned, a user could search by keyphrase to produce more reliable hits than a full-text search), and be employed in generating index entries for a large text corpus. Depending on the different literature and the definition of key terms, words or phrases, keyword extraction is a highly related theme. ==== Supervised learning approaches ==== Beginning with the work of Turney, many researchers have approached keyphrase extraction as a supervised machine learning problem. Given a document, we construct an example for each unigram, bigram, and trigram found in the text (though other text units are also possible, as discussed below). We then compute various features describing each example (e.g., does the phrase begin with an upper-case letter?). We assume there are known keyphrases available for a set of training documents. Using the known keyphrases, we can assign positive or negative labels to the examples. Then we learn a classifier that can discriminate between positive and negative examples as a function of the features. Some classifiers make a binary classification for a test example, while others assign a probability of being a keyphrase. For ins
DBGallery
DBGallery, short for Database Gallery, is a cloud-based Software as a Service (SaaS) and on-prem webserver for teams of various sizes. DBGallery enables users to centrally store, manage, catalog, archive, and securely share image, video, and document files. It facilitates version control, detects duplicates, and offers an intuitive and advanced search functionality, making assets easily accessible to all users. It takes advantage of current AI technologies to automatically add significant metadata to images, facilitates custom-trained AI models, and offers bespoke AI features. Additionally, DBGallery provides team management tools, workflow management, an activity audit trail, and other collaborative features that foster a productive environment for both internal and external stakeholders. == History == DBGallery's first public release was December 2007. Since then each year has seen continuous enhancements. 2013 added support for additional non-English languages in its meta-data. 2014 added support for creating custom data fields for tagging and search. In 2015 included the ability to auto-tag images using Reverse Geocoding. 2018 added artificial intelligence (AI) image recognition as a further addition to auto-tagging. March 2020 added complete image collection management via the web (e.g. file and folder drag and drop), a new collection dashboard, custom data layouts, and an improved audit trail. 2021 saw user experience improvements provided by improved styling and performance enhancements. Version 12 was released in October 2021. It added the ability to upload unlimited file sizes and made significant performance improvements for very large collections. June 2022 saw the release of a global duplicate images search. In late 2022, DBGallery began offering significantly reduced cloud storage cost, at a third of its previous prices, which played into its recent high-volume/high-capacity capabilities and its clients' subsequent demand for additional storage. 2023 saw improvements in user and role management, introduced it's mobile app (PWA), and improved custom-trained object detection. Release 14.0 in the spring of 2024 had large sharing improvements and a new find related images feature. Winter 2025's v15 release introduced AI-generated image descriptions, image-to-text, and facial recognition.
Pose (computer vision)
In the fields of computing and computer vision, pose (or spatial pose) represents the position and the orientation of an object, each usually in three dimensions. Poses are often stored internally as transformation matrices. The term “pose” is largely synonymous with the term “transform”, but a transform may often include scale, whereas pose does not. In computer vision, the pose of an object is often estimated from camera input by the process of pose estimation. This information can then be used, for example, to allow a robot to manipulate an object or to avoid moving into the object based on its perceived position and orientation in the environment. Other applications include skeletal action recognition. == Pose estimation == The specific task of determining the pose of an object in an image (or stereo images, image sequence) is referred to as pose estimation. Pose estimation problems can be solved in different ways depending on the image sensor configuration, and choice of methodology. Three classes of methodologies can be distinguished: Analytic or geometric methods: Given that the image sensor (camera) is calibrated and the mapping from 3D points in the scene and 2D points in the image is known. If also the geometry of the object is known, it means that the projected image of the object on the camera image is a well-known function of the object's pose. Once a set of control points on the object, typically corners or other feature points, has been identified, it is then possible to solve the pose transformation from a set of equations which relate the 3D coordinates of the points with their 2D image coordinates. Algorithms that determine the pose of a point cloud with respect to another point cloud are known as point set registration algorithms, if the correspondences between points are not already known. Genetic algorithm methods: If the pose of an object does not have to be computed in real-time a genetic algorithm may be used. This approach is robust especially when the images are not perfectly calibrated. In this particular case, the pose represent the genetic representation and the error between the projection of the object control points with the image is the fitness function. Learning-based methods: These methods use artificial learning-based system which learn the mapping from 2D image features to pose transformation. In short, this means that a sufficiently large set of images of the object, in different poses, must be presented to the system during a learning phase. Once the learning phase is completed, the system should be able to present an estimate of the object's pose given an image of the object. == Camera pose ==
Automatic acquisition of sense-tagged corpora
The knowledge acquisition bottleneck is perhaps the major impediment to solving the word-sense disambiguation (WSD) problem. Unsupervised learning methods rely on knowledge about word senses, which is barely formulated in dictionaries and lexical databases. Supervised learning methods depend heavily on the existence of manually annotated examples for every word sense, a requisite that can so far be met only for a handful of words for testing purposes, as it is done in the Senseval exercises. == Existing methods == Therefore, one of the most promising trends in WSD research is using the largest corpus ever accessible, the World Wide Web, to acquire lexical information automatically. WSD has been traditionally understood as an intermediate language engineering technology which could improve applications such as information retrieval (IR). In this case, however, the reverse is also true: Web search engines implement simple and robust IR techniques that can be successfully used when mining the Web for information to be employed in WSD. The most direct way of using the Web (and other corpora) to enhance WSD performance is the automatic acquisition of sense-tagged corpora, the fundamental resource to feed supervised WSD algorithms. Although this is far from being commonplace in the WSD literature, a number of different and effective strategies to achieve this goal have already been proposed. Some of these strategies are: acquisition by direct Web searching (searches for monosemous synonyms, hypernyms, hyponyms, parsed gloss' words, etc.), Yarowsky algorithm (bootstrapping), acquisition via Web directories, and acquisition via cross-language meaning evidences. == Summary == === Optimistic results === The automatic extraction of examples to train supervised learning algorithms reviewed has been, by far, the best explored approach to mine the web for word-sense disambiguation. Some results are certainly encouraging: In some experiments, the quality of the Web data for WSD equals that of human-tagged examples. This is the case of the monosemous relatives plus bootstrapping with Semcor seeds technique and the examples taken from the ODP Web directories. In the first case, however, Semcor-size example seeds are necessary (and only available for English), and it has only been tested with a very limited set of nouns; in the second case, the coverage is quite limited, and it is not yet clear whether it can be grown without compromising the quality of the examples retrieved. It has been shown that a mainstream supervised learning technique trained exclusively with web data can obtain better results than all unsupervised WSD systems which participated at Senseval-2. Web examples made a significant contribution to the best Senseval-2 English all-words system. === Difficulties === There are, however, several open research issues related to the use of Web examples in WSD: High precision in the retrieved examples (i.e., correct sense assignments for the examples) does not necessarily lead to good supervised WSD results (i.e., the examples are possibly not useful for training). The most complete evaluation of Web examples for supervised WSD indicates that learning with Web data improves over unsupervised techniques, but the results are nevertheless far from those obtained with hand-tagged data, and do not even beat the most-frequent-sense baseline. Results are not always reproducible; the same or similar techniques may lead to different results in different experiments. Compare, for instance, Mihalcea (2002) with Agirre and Martínez (2004), or Agirre and Martínez (2000) with Mihalcea and Moldovan (1999). Results with Web data seem to be very sensitive to small differences in the learning algorithm, to when the corpus was extracted (search engines change continuously), and on small heuristic issues (e.g., differences in filters to discard part of the retrieved examples). Results are strongly dependent on bias (i.e., on the relative frequencies of examples per word sense). It is unclear whether this is simply a problem of Web data, or an intrinsic problem of supervised learning techniques, or just a problem of how WSD systems are evaluated (indeed, testing with rather small Senseval data may overemphasize sense distributions compared to sense distributions obtained from the full Web as corpus). In any case, Web data has an intrinsic bias, because queries to search engines directly constrain the context of the examples retrieved. There are approaches that alleviate this problem, such as using several different seeds/queries per sense or assigning senses to Web directories and then scanning directories for examples; but this problem is nevertheless far from being solved. Once a Web corpus of examples is built, it is not entirely clear whether its distribution is safe from a legal perspective. === Future === Besides automatic acquisition of examples from the Web, there are some other WSD experiments that have profited from the Web: The Web as a social network has been successfully used for cooperative annotation of a corpus (OMWE, Open Mind Word Expert project), which has already been used in three Senseval-3 tasks (English, Romanian and Multilingual). The Web has been used to enrich WordNet senses with domain information: topic signatures and Web directories, which have in turn been successfully used for WSD. Also, some research benefited from the semantic information that the Wikipedia maintains on its disambiguation pages. It is clear, however, that most research opportunities remain largely unexplored. For instance, little is known about how to use lexical information extracted from the Web in knowledge-based WSD systems; and it is also hard to find systems that use Web-mined parallel corpora for WSD, even though there are already efficient algorithms that use parallel corpora in WSD.
Eyes of Things
Eyes of Things (EoT) is the name of a project funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement number 643924. The purpose of the project, which is funded under the Smart Cyber-physical systems topic, is to develop a generic hardware-software platform for embedded, efficient (i.e. battery-operated, wearable, mobile), computer vision, including deep learning inference. On November 29, 2018, the European Space Agency announced that it was testing the suitability of the device for space applications in advance of a flight in a Cubesat. == Motivation == EoT is based on the following tenets: Future embedded systems will have more intelligence and cognitive functionality. Vision is paramount to such intelligent capacity Unlike other sensors, vision requires intensive processing. Power consumption must be optimized if vision is to be used in mobile and wearable applications Cloud processing of edge-captured images is not sustainable. The sheer amount of visual data generated cannot be transferred to the cloud. Bandwidth is not sufficient and cloud servers cannot cope with it. == Partners == VISILAB group at University of Castilla–La Mancha (Coordinator) Movidius Awaiba Thales Security Solutions & Systems DFKI Fluxguide Evercam nVISO == Awards == 2019 Electronic Component and Systems Innovation Award by the European Commission 2018 HiPEAC Tech Transfer Award 2018 EC Innovation Radar - highlighting excellent innovations Award 2018 Internet of Things (IoT) Technology Research Award Pilot by Google 2016 Semifinalist "THE VISION SHOW STARTUP COMPETITION", Global Association for Vision Information, Boston US
Production (computer science)
In computer science, a production or production rule is a rewrite rule that replaces some symbols with other symbols. A finite set of productions P {\displaystyle P} is the main component in the specification of a formal grammar (specifically a generative grammar). In such grammars, a set of productions is a special case of relation on the set of strings V ∗ {\displaystyle V^{}} (where ∗ {\displaystyle {}^{}} is the Kleene star operator) over a finite set of symbols V {\displaystyle V} called a vocabulary that defines which non-empty strings can be substituted with others. The set of productions is thus a special kind subset P ⊂ V ∗ × V ∗ {\displaystyle P\subset V^{}\times V^{}} and productions are then written in the form u → v {\displaystyle u\to v} to mean that ( u , v ) ∈ P {\displaystyle (u,v)\in P} (not to be confused with → {\displaystyle \to } being used as function notation, since there may be multiple rules for the same u {\displaystyle u} ). Given two subsets A , B ⊂ V ∗ {\displaystyle A,B\subset V^{}} , productions can be restricted to satisfy P ⊂ A × B {\displaystyle P\subset A\times B} , in which case productions are said "to be of the form A → B {\displaystyle A\to B} . Different choices and constructions of A , B {\displaystyle A,B} lead to different types of grammars. In general, any production of the form u → ϵ , {\displaystyle u\to \epsilon ,} where ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } is the empty string (sometimes also denoted λ {\displaystyle \lambda } ), is called an erasing rule, while productions that would produce strings out of nowhere, namely of the form ϵ → v , {\displaystyle \epsilon \to v,} are never allowed. In order to allow the production rules to create meaningful sentences, the vocabulary is partitioned into (disjoint) sets Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } and N {\displaystyle N} providing two different roles: Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } denotes the terminal symbols known as an alphabet containing the symbols allowed in a sentence; N {\displaystyle N} denotes nonterminal symbols, containing a distinguished start symbol S ∈ N {\displaystyle S\in N} , that are needed together with the production rules to define how to build the sentences. In the most general case of an unrestricted grammar, a production u → v {\displaystyle u\to v} , is allowed to map arbitrary strings u {\displaystyle u} and v {\displaystyle v} in V {\displaystyle V} (terminals and nonterminals), as long as u {\displaystyle u} is not empty. So unrestricted grammars have productions of the form V ∗ ∖ { ϵ } → V ∗ {\displaystyle V^{}\setminus \{\epsilon \}\to V^{}} or if we want to disallow changing finished sentences V ∗ N V ∗ = ( V ∗ ∖ Σ ∗ ) → V ∗ {\displaystyle V^{}NV^{}=(V^{}\setminus \Sigma ^{})\to V^{}} , where V ∗ N V ∗ {\displaystyle V^{}NV^{}} indicates concatenation and forces a non-terminal symbol to always be present on the left-hand side of the productions, and ∖ {\displaystyle \setminus } denotes set minus or set difference. If we do not allow the start symbol to occur in v {\displaystyle v} (the word on the right side), we have to replace V ∗ {\displaystyle V^{}} with ( V ∖ { S } ) ∗ {\displaystyle (V\setminus \{S\})^{}} on the right-hand side. The other types of formal grammar in the Chomsky hierarchy impose additional restrictions on what constitutes a production. Notably in a context-free grammar, the left-hand side of a production must be a single nonterminal symbol. So productions are of the form: N → V ∗ {\displaystyle N\to V^{}} == Grammar generation == To generate a string in the language, one begins with a string consisting of only a single start symbol, and then successively applies the rules (any number of times, in any order) to rewrite this string. This stops when a string containing only terminals is obtained. The language consists of all the strings that can be generated in this manner. Any particular sequence of legal choices taken during this rewriting process yields one particular string in the language. If there are multiple different ways of generating this single string, then the grammar is said to be ambiguous. For example, assume the alphabet consists of a {\displaystyle a} and b {\displaystyle b} , with the start symbol S {\displaystyle S} , and we have the following rules: 1. S → a S b {\displaystyle S\rightarrow aSb} 2. S → b a {\displaystyle S\rightarrow ba} then we start with S {\displaystyle S} , and can choose a rule to apply to it. If we choose rule 1, we replace S {\displaystyle S} with a S b {\displaystyle aSb} and obtain the string a S b {\displaystyle aSb} . If we choose rule 1 again, we replace S {\displaystyle S} with a S b {\displaystyle aSb} and obtain the string a a S b b {\displaystyle aaSbb} . This process is repeated until we only have symbols from the alphabet (i.e., a {\displaystyle a} and b {\displaystyle b} ). If we now choose rule 2, we replace S {\displaystyle S} with b a {\displaystyle ba} and obtain the string a a b a b b {\displaystyle aababb} , and are done. We can write this series of choices more briefly, using symbols: S ⇒ a S b ⇒ a a S b b ⇒ a a b a b b {\displaystyle S\Rightarrow aSb\Rightarrow aaSbb\Rightarrow aababb} . The language of the grammar is the set of all the strings that can be generated using this process: { b a , a b a b , a a b a b b , a a a b a b b b , … } {\displaystyle \{ba,abab,aababb,aaababbb,\dotsc \}} .