Algorithmic Puzzles

Algorithmic Puzzles is a book of puzzles based on computational thinking. It was written by computer scientists Anany and Maria Levitin, and published in 2011 by Oxford University Press. == Topics == The book begins with a "tutorial" introducing classical algorithm design techniques including backtracking, divide-and-conquer algorithms, and dynamic programming, methods for the analysis of algorithms, and their application in example puzzles. The puzzles themselves are grouped into three sets of 50 puzzles, in increasing order of difficulty. A final two chapters provide brief hints and more detailed solutions to the puzzles, with the solutions forming the majority of pages of the book. Some of the puzzles are well known classics, some are variations of known puzzles making them more algorithmic, and some are new. They include: Puzzles involving chessboards, including the eight queens puzzle, knight's tours, and the mutilated chessboard problem Balance puzzles River crossing puzzles The Tower of Hanoi Finding the missing element in a data stream The geometric median problem for Manhattan distance == Audience and reception == The puzzles in the book cover a wide range of difficulty, and in general do not require more than a high school level of mathematical background. William Gasarch notes that grouping the puzzles only by their difficulty and not by their themes is actually an advantage, as it provides readers with fewer clues about their solutions. Reviewer Narayanan Narayanan recommends the book to any puzzle aficionado, or to anyone who wants to develop their powers of algorithmic thinking. Reviewer Martin Griffiths suggests another group of readers, schoolteachers and university instructors in search of examples to illustrate the power of algorithmic thinking. Gasarch recommends the book to any computer scientist, evaluating it as "a delight".

MoltenVK

MoltenVK is a software library which allows Vulkan applications to run on top of Metal on Apple's macOS, iOS, and tvOS operating systems. It is the first software component to be released for the Vulkan Portability Initiative, a project to have a subset of Vulkan run on platforms lacking native Vulkan drivers. There are some limitations compared with a native Vulkan implementation. == History == MoltenVK was first released as a proprietary and commercially licensed product by The Brenwill Workshop on July 27, 2016. On July 31, 2017, Khronos announced the formation of the Vulkan Portability Technical Subgroup. === Open source === On February 26, 2018, Khronos announced that Vulkan became available on macOS and iOS products through the MoltenVK library. Valve announced that Dota 2 will run on macOS using the Vulkan API with the aid of MoltenVK, and that they had made an arrangement with developer The Brenwill Workshop Ltd to release MoltenVK as open-source software under the Apache License version 2.0. On May 30, 2018, Qt was updated with Vulkan for Qt on macOS using MoltenVK. On May 31, 2018, optional Vulkan support for Dota 2 on macOS was released. Benchmarks for the game were available the following day, showing better performance using Vulkan and MoltenVK compared to OpenGL. On July 20, 2018, Wine was updated with Vulkan support on macOS using MoltenVK. On 29 July 2018, the first app using MoltenVK was accepted onto the App Store, after initially being rejected. On 6 August 2018, Google open-sourced Filament, a crossplatform real-time physically based rendering engine with MoltenVK for macOS/iOS. On November 28, 2018, Valve released Artifact, their first Vulkan-only game on macOS using MoltenVK. === Version 1.0 === On 29 January 2019, MoltenVK 1.0.32 was released with early prototype of Vulkan Portability Extensions. RPCS3 and Dolphin emulators were updated with Vulkan support on macOS using MoltenVK. On 13 April 2019, MoltenVK 1.0.34 was released with support for tessellation. On July 30, 2019, MoltenVK 1.0.36 was released targeting Metal 3.0. On July 31, 2020, MoltenVK 1.0.44 was released, adding support for the tvOS platform. On January 23, 2020, MoltenVK was updated to support for some of the new features of Vulkan 1.2, as of Vulkan SDK 1.2.121. === Version 1.1 === On October 1, 2020, MoltenVK 1.1.0 was released, adding full support for Vulkan 1.1, as of Vulkan SDK 1.2.154. On 9 December 2020, MoltenVK 1.1.1 was released, providing support for Vulkan on Apple silicon GPUs and support for the Mac Catalyst platform for porting iOS/iPadOS apps to macOS. === Version 1.2 === On October 18, 2022, MoltenVK 1.2.0 was released, adding full support for Vulkan 1.2 as of Vulkan SDK 1.3.231. In January 2023, MoltenVK 1.2.2 added support for Vulkan as of SDK 1.3.239, while this version of Vulkan SDK fixed some issues with the interconnectivity with Metal API, while version 1.2.3 supported some additional extensions. === Version 1.3 === On May 1, 2025, MoltenVK 1.3 was released with support for Vulkan 1.3. === Version 1.4 === On August 20, 2025, MoltenVK 1.4 was released with support for Vulkan 1.4.

Types of artificial neural networks

Types of neural networks (NN) include a family of techniques. The simplest types have static components, including number of units, number of layers, unit weights and topology. Dynamic NNs evolve via learning. Some types allow/require learning to be "supervised" by the operator, while others operate independently. Some types operate purely in hardware, while others are purely software and run on general purpose computers. The main types are: Transformers: these use attention to analyze every token in the input stream against every other token in the stream. That technique has enabled neural networks to reach the general public via chatbots, code generators and many other forms. Convolutional neural networks (CNN): a FNN that uses kernels and regularization to evade problems in prior generations of NNs. They are typically used to analyze visual and other two-dimensional data. Generative adversarial networks set networks (of varying structure) against each other, each trying to push the other(s) to produce better results such as winning a game or to deceive the opponent about the authenticity of an input. == Feedforward == In feedforward neural networks the information moves from the input to output directly in every layer. There can be hidden layers with or without cycles/loops to sequence inputs. Feedforward networks can be constructed with various types of units, such as binary McCulloch–Pitts neurons, the simplest of which is the perceptron. Continuous neurons, frequently with sigmoidal activation, are used in the context of backpropagation. == Group method of data handling == The Group Method of Data Handling (GMDH) features fully automatic structural and parametric model optimization. The node activation functions are Kolmogorov–Gabor polynomials that permit additions and multiplications. It uses a deep multilayer perceptron with eight layers. It is a supervised learning network that grows layer by layer, where each layer is trained by regression analysis. Useless items are detected using a validation set, and pruned through regularization. The size and depth of the resulting network depends on the task. == Autoencoder == An autoencoder, autoassociator or Diabolo network is similar to the multilayer perceptron (MLP) – with an input layer, an output layer and one or more hidden layers connecting them. However, the output layer has the same number of units as the input layer. Its purpose is to reconstruct its own inputs (instead of emitting a target value). Therefore, autoencoders are unsupervised learning models. An autoencoder is used for unsupervised learning of efficient codings, typically for the purpose of dimensionality reduction and for learning generative models of data. == Probabilistic == A probabilistic neural network (PNN) is a four-layer feedforward neural network. The layers are Input, hidden pattern, hidden summation, and output. In the PNN algorithm, the parent probability distribution function (PDF) of each class is approximated by a Parzen window and a non-parametric function. Then, using PDF of each class, the class probability of a new input is estimated and Bayes’ rule is employed to allocate it to the class with the highest posterior probability. It was derived from the Bayesian network and a statistical algorithm called Kernel Fisher discriminant analysis. It is used for classification and pattern recognition. == Time delay == A time delay neural network (TDNN) is a feedforward architecture for sequential data that recognizes features independent of sequence position. In order to achieve time-shift invariance, delays are added to the input so that multiple data points (points in time) are analyzed together. It usually forms part of a larger pattern recognition system. It has been implemented using a perceptron network whose connection weights were trained with back propagation (supervised learning). == Convolutional == A convolutional neural network (CNN, or ConvNet or shift invariant or space invariant) is a class of deep network, composed of one or more convolutional layers with fully connected layers (matching those in typical ANNs) on top. It uses tied weights and pooling layers. In particular, max-pooling. It is often structured via Fukushima's convolutional architecture. They are variations of multilayer perceptrons that use minimal preprocessing. This architecture allows CNNs to take advantage of the 2D structure of input data. Its unit connectivity pattern is inspired by the organization of the visual cortex. Units respond to stimuli in a restricted region of space known as the receptive field. Receptive fields partially overlap, over-covering the entire visual field. Unit response can be approximated mathematically by a convolution operation. CNNs are suitable for processing visual and other two-dimensional data. They have shown superior results in both image and speech applications. They can be trained with standard backpropagation. CNNs are easier to train than other regular, deep, feed-forward neural networks and have many fewer parameters to estimate. Capsule Neural Networks (CapsNet) add structures called capsules to a CNN and reuse output from several capsules to form more stable (with respect to various perturbations) representations. Examples of applications in computer vision include DeepDream and robot navigation. They have wide applications in image and video recognition, recommender systems and natural language processing. == Deep stacking network == A deep stacking network (DSN) (deep convex network) is based on a hierarchy of blocks of simplified neural network modules. It was introduced in 2011 by Deng and Yu. It formulates the learning as a convex optimization problem with a closed-form solution, emphasizing the mechanism's similarity to stacked generalization. Each DSN block is a simple module that is easy to train by itself in a supervised fashion without backpropagation for the entire blocks. Each block consists of a simplified multi-layer perceptron (MLP) with a single hidden layer. The hidden layer h has logistic sigmoidal units, and the output layer has linear units. Connections between these layers are represented by weight matrix U; input-to-hidden-layer connections have weight matrix W. Target vectors t form the columns of matrix T, and the input data vectors x form the columns of matrix X. The matrix of hidden units is H = σ ( W T X ) {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {H}}=\sigma ({\boldsymbol {W}}^{T}{\boldsymbol {X}})} . Modules are trained in order, so lower-layer weights W are known at each stage. The function performs the element-wise logistic sigmoid operation. Each block estimates the same final label class y, and its estimate is concatenated with original input X to form the expanded input for the next block. Thus, the input to the first block contains the original data only, while downstream blocks' input adds the output of preceding blocks. Then learning the upper-layer weight matrix U given other weights in the network can be formulated as a convex optimization problem: min U T f = ‖ U T H − T ‖ F 2 , {\displaystyle \min _{U^{T}}f=\|{\boldsymbol {U}}^{T}{\boldsymbol {H}}-{\boldsymbol {T}}\|_{F}^{2},} which has a closed-form solution. Unlike other deep architectures, such as DBNs, the goal is not to discover the transformed feature representation. The structure of the hierarchy of this kind of architecture makes parallel learning straightforward, as a batch-mode optimization problem. In purely discriminative tasks, DSNs outperform conventional DBNs. === Tensor deep stacking networks === This architecture is a DSN extension. It offers two important improvements: it uses higher-order information from covariance statistics, and it transforms the non-convex problem of a lower-layer to a convex sub-problem of an upper-layer. TDSNs use covariance statistics in a bilinear mapping from each of two distinct sets of hidden units in the same layer to predictions, via a third-order tensor. While parallelization and scalability are not considered seriously in conventional DNNs, all learning for DSNs and TDSNs is done in batch mode, to allow parallelization. Parallelization allows scaling the design to larger (deeper) architectures and data sets. The basic architecture is suitable for diverse tasks such as classification and regression. == Physics-informed == Such a neural network is designed for the numerical solution of mathematical equations, such as differential, integral, delay, fractional and others. As input parameters, PINN accepts variables (spatial, temporal, and others), transmits them through the network block. At the output, it produces an approximate solution and substitutes it into the mathematical model, considering the initial and boundary conditions. If the solution does not satisfy the required accuracy, one uses the backpropagation and rectify the solution. Besides PINN, other architectures have been developed to produce surrogate models for scientific comput

Representer theorem

For computer science, in statistical learning theory, a representer theorem is any of several related results stating that a minimizer f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} of a regularized empirical risk functional defined over a reproducing kernel Hilbert space can be represented as a finite linear combination of kernel products evaluated on the input points in the training set data. == Formal statement == The following Representer Theorem and its proof are due to Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola: Theorem: Consider a positive-definite real-valued kernel k : X × X → R {\displaystyle k:{\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } on a non-empty set X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} with a corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} . Let there be given a training sample ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ∈ X × R {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\dotsc ,(x_{n},y_{n})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} } , a strictly increasing real-valued function g : [ 0 , ∞ ) → R {\displaystyle g\colon [0,\infty )\to \mathbb {R} } , and an arbitrary error function E : ( X × R 2 ) n → R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle E\colon ({\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} ^{2})^{n}\to \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace \infty \rbrace } , which together define the following regularized empirical risk functional on H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} : f ↦ E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) . {\displaystyle f\mapsto E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right).} Then, any minimizer of the empirical risk f ∗ = argmin f ∈ H k { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) } , ( ∗ ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f\in H_{k}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)\right\rbrace ,\quad ()} admits a representation of the form: f ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) , {\displaystyle f^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i}),} where α i ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}\in \mathbb {R} } for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n {\displaystyle 1\leq i\leq n} . Proof: Define a mapping φ : X → H k φ ( x ) = k ( ⋅ , x ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\varphi \colon {\mathcal {X}}&\to H_{k}\\\varphi (x)&=k(\cdot ,x)\end{aligned}}} (so that φ ( x ) = k ( ⋅ , x ) {\displaystyle \varphi (x)=k(\cdot ,x)} is itself a map X → R {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } ). Since k {\displaystyle k} is a reproducing kernel, then φ ( x ) ( x ′ ) = k ( x ′ , x ) = ⟨ φ ( x ′ ) , φ ( x ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle \varphi (x)(x')=k(x',x)=\langle \varphi (x'),\varphi (x)\rangle ,} where ⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle } is the inner product on H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} . Given any x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} , one can use orthogonal projection to decompose any f ∈ H k {\displaystyle f\in H_{k}} into a sum of two functions, one lying in span ⁡ { φ ( x 1 ) , … , φ ( x n ) } {\displaystyle \operatorname {span} \left\lbrace \varphi (x_{1}),\ldots ,\varphi (x_{n})\right\rbrace } , and the other lying in the orthogonal complement: f = ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v , {\displaystyle f=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v,} where ⟨ v , φ ( x i ) ⟩ = 0 {\displaystyle \langle v,\varphi (x_{i})\rangle =0} for all i {\displaystyle i} . The above orthogonal decomposition and the reproducing property together show that applying f {\displaystyle f} to any training point x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} produces f ( x j ) = ⟨ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v , φ ( x j ) ⟩ = ∑ i = 1 n α i ⟨ φ ( x i ) , φ ( x j ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle f(x_{j})=\left\langle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v,\varphi (x_{j})\right\rangle =\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\langle \varphi (x_{i}),\varphi (x_{j})\rangle ,} which we observe is independent of v {\displaystyle v} . Consequently, the value of the error function E {\displaystyle E} in () is likewise independent of v {\displaystyle v} . For the second term (the regularization term), since v {\displaystyle v} is orthogonal to ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})} and g {\displaystyle g} is strictly monotonic, we have g ( ‖ f ‖ ) = g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v ‖ ) = g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) ‖ 2 + ‖ v ‖ 2 ) ≥ g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) ‖ ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)&=g\left(\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v\rVert \right)\\&=g\left({\sqrt {\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})\rVert ^{2}+\lVert v\rVert ^{2}}}\right)\\&\geq g\left(\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})\rVert \right).\end{aligned}}} Therefore, setting v = 0 {\displaystyle v=0} does not affect the first term of (), while it strictly decreases the second term. Consequently, any minimizer f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} in () must have v = 0 {\displaystyle v=0} , i.e., it must be of the form f ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) , {\displaystyle f^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i}),} which is the desired result. == Generalizations == The Theorem stated above is a particular example of a family of results that are collectively referred to as "representer theorems"; here we describe several such. The first statement of a representer theorem was due to Kimeldorf and Wahba for the special case in which E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( f ( x i ) − y i ) 2 , g ( ‖ f ‖ ) = λ ‖ f ‖ 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(f(x_{i})-y_{i})^{2},\\g(\lVert f\rVert )&=\lambda \lVert f\rVert ^{2}\end{aligned}}} for λ > 0 {\displaystyle \lambda >0} . Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola generalized this result by relaxing the assumption of the squared-loss cost and allowing the regularizer to be any strictly monotonically increasing function g ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle g(\cdot )} of the Hilbert space norm. It is possible to generalize further by augmenting the regularized empirical risk functional through the addition of unpenalized offset terms. For example, Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola also consider the minimization f ~ ∗ = argmin ⁡ { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ~ ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ~ ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) ∣ f ~ = f + h ∈ H k ⊕ span ⁡ { ψ p ∣ 1 ≤ p ≤ M } } , ( † ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}=\operatorname {argmin} \left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},{\tilde {f}}(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},{\tilde {f}}(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)\mid {\tilde {f}}=f+h\in H_{k}\oplus \operatorname {span} \lbrace \psi _{p}\mid 1\leq p\leq M\rbrace \right\rbrace ,\quad (\dagger )} i.e., we consider functions of the form f ~ = f + h {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}=f+h} , where f ∈ H k {\displaystyle f\in H_{k}} and h {\displaystyle h} is an unpenalized function lying in the span of a finite set of real-valued functions { ψ p : X → R ∣ 1 ≤ p ≤ M } {\displaystyle \lbrace \psi _{p}\colon {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} \mid 1\leq p\leq M\rbrace } . Under the assumption that the n × M {\displaystyle n\times M} matrix ( ψ p ( x i ) ) i p {\displaystyle \left(\psi _{p}(x_{i})\right)_{ip}} has rank M {\displaystyle M} , they show that the minimizer f ~ ∗ {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}} in ( † ) {\displaystyle (\dagger )} admits a representation of the form f ~ ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) + ∑ p = 1 M β p ψ p ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i})+\sum _{p=1}^{M}\beta _{p}\psi _{p}(\cdot )} where α i , β p ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i},\beta _{p}\in \mathbb {R} } and the β p {\displaystyle \beta _{p}} are all uniquely determined. The conditions under which a representer theorem exists were investigated by Argyriou, Micchelli, and Pontil, who proved the following: Theorem: Let X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} be a nonempty set, k {\displaystyle k} a positive-definite real-valued kernel on X × X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}} with corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} , and let R : H k → R {\displaystyle R\colon H_{k}\to \mathbb {R} } be a differentiable regularization function. Then given a training sample ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ∈ X × R {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} } and an arbitrary error function E : ( X × R 2 ) m → R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle E\colon ({\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} ^{2})^{m}\to \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace \infty \rbrace } , a minimizer f ∗ = argmin f ∈ H k { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + R ( f ) } ( ‡ ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f\in H_{k}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+R(f)\right\rbrace \quad (\ddagger )} of the regularized empirical risk admits a repr

Quadratic unconstrained binary optimization

Quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO), also known as unconstrained binary quadratic programming (UBQP), is a combinatorial optimization problem with a wide range of applications from finance and economics to machine learning. QUBO is an NP hard problem, and for many classical problems from theoretical computer science, like maximum cut, graph coloring and the partition problem, embeddings into QUBO have been formulated. Embeddings for machine learning models include support-vector machines, clustering and probabilistic graphical models. Moreover, due to its close connection to Ising models, QUBO constitutes a central problem class for adiabatic quantum computation, where it is solved through a physical process called quantum annealing. == Definition == Let B = { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \mathbb {B} =\lbrace 0,1\rbrace } the set of binary digits (or bits), then B n {\displaystyle \mathbb {B} ^{n}} is the set of binary vectors of fixed length n ∈ N {\displaystyle n\in \mathbb {N} } . Given a symmetric or upper triangular matrix Q ∈ R n × n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times n}} , whose entries Q i j {\displaystyle Q_{ij}} define a weight for each pair of indices i , j ∈ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle i,j\in \lbrace 1,\dots ,n\rbrace } , we can define the function f Q : B n → R {\displaystyle f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}:\mathbb {B} ^{n}\rightarrow \mathbb {R} } that assigns a value to each binary vector x {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}} through f Q ( x ) = x ⊺ Q x = ∑ i = 1 n ∑ j = 1 n Q i j x i x j . {\displaystyle f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}({\boldsymbol {x}})={\boldsymbol {x}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {Qx}}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\sum _{j=1}^{n}Q_{ij}x_{i}x_{j}.} Alternatively, the linear and quadratic parts can be separated as f Q ′ , q ( x ) = x ⊺ Q ′ x + q ⊺ x , {\displaystyle f_{{\boldsymbol {Q}}',{\boldsymbol {q}}}({\boldsymbol {x}})={\boldsymbol {x}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {Q}}'{\boldsymbol {x}}+{\boldsymbol {q}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {x}},} where Q ′ ∈ R n × n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}'\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times n}} and q ∈ R n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {q}}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . This is equivalent to the previous definition through Q = Q ′ + diag ⁡ [ q ] {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}={\boldsymbol {Q}}'+\operatorname {diag} [{\boldsymbol {q}}]} using the diag operator, exploiting that x = x ⋅ x {\displaystyle x=x\cdot x} for all binary values x {\displaystyle x} . Intuitively, the weight Q i j {\displaystyle Q_{ij}} is added if both x i = 1 {\displaystyle x_{i}=1} and x j = 1 {\displaystyle x_{j}=1} . The QUBO problem consists of finding a binary vector x ∗ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}^{}} that minimizes f Q {\displaystyle f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}} , i.e., ∀ x ∈ B n : f Q ( x ∗ ) ≤ f Q ( x ) {\displaystyle \forall {\boldsymbol {x}}\in \mathbb {B} ^{n}:~f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}({\boldsymbol {x}}^{})\leq f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}({\boldsymbol {x}})} . In general, x ∗ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}^{}} is not unique, meaning there may be a set of minimizing vectors with equal value w.r.t. f Q {\displaystyle f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}} . The complexity of QUBO arises from the number of candidate binary vectors to be evaluated, as | B n | = 2 n {\displaystyle \left|\mathbb {B} ^{n}\right|=2^{n}} grows exponentially in n {\displaystyle n} . Sometimes, QUBO is defined as the problem of maximizing f Q {\displaystyle f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}} , which is equivalent to minimizing f − Q = − f Q {\displaystyle f_{-{\boldsymbol {Q}}}=-f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}} . == Properties == QUBO is scale invariant for positive factors α > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha >0} , which leave the optimum x ∗ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}^{}} unchanged: f α Q ( x ) = x ⊺ ( α Q ) x = α ( x ⊺ Q x ) = α f Q ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{\alpha {\boldsymbol {Q}}}({\boldsymbol {x}})={\boldsymbol {x}}^{\intercal }(\alpha {\boldsymbol {Q}}){\boldsymbol {x}}=\alpha ({\boldsymbol {x}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {Qx}})=\alpha f_{\boldsymbol {Q}}({\boldsymbol {x}})} . In its general form, QUBO is NP-hard and cannot be solved efficiently by any known polynomial-time algorithm. However, there are polynomially-solvable special cases, where Q {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}} has certain properties, for example: If all coefficients are positive, the optimum is trivially x ∗ = ( 0 , … , 0 ) ⊺ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}^{}=(0,\dots ,0)^{\intercal }} . Similarly, if all coefficients are negative, the optimum is x ∗ = ( 1 , … , 1 ) ⊺ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}^{}=(1,\dots ,1)^{\intercal }} . If Q {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}} is diagonal, the bits can be optimized independently, and the problem is solvable in O ( n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n)} . The optimal variable assignments are simply x i ∗ = 1 {\displaystyle x_{i}^{}=1} if Q i i < 0 {\displaystyle Q_{ii}<0} , and x i ∗ = 0 {\displaystyle x_{i}^{}=0} otherwise. If all off-diagonal elements of Q {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}} are non-positive, the corresponding QUBO problem is solvable in polynomial time. QUBO can be solved using integer linear programming solvers like CPLEX or Gurobi Optimizer. This is possible since QUBO can be reformulated as a linear constrained binary optimization problem. To achieve this, substitute the product x i x j {\displaystyle x_{i}x_{j}} by an additional binary variable z i j ∈ B {\displaystyle z_{ij}\in \mathbb {B} } and add the constraints x i ≥ z i j {\displaystyle x_{i}\geq z_{ij}} , x j ≥ z i j {\displaystyle x_{j}\geq z_{ij}} and x i + x j − 1 ≤ z i j {\displaystyle x_{i}+x_{j}-1\leq z_{ij}} . Note that z i j {\displaystyle z_{ij}} can also be relaxed to continuous variables within the bounds zero and one. == Applications == QUBO is a structurally simple, yet computationally hard optimization problem. It can be used to encode a wide range of optimization problems from various scientific areas. === Maximum Cut === Given a graph G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} with vertex set V = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle V=\lbrace 1,\dots ,n\rbrace } and edges E ⊆ V × V {\displaystyle E\subseteq V\times V} , the maximum cut (max-cut) problem consists of finding two subsets S , T ⊆ V {\displaystyle S,T\subseteq V} with T = V ∖ S {\displaystyle T=V\setminus S} , such that the number of edges between S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} is maximized. The more general weighted max-cut problem assumes edge weights w i j ≥ 0 ∀ i , j ∈ V {\displaystyle w_{ij}\geq 0~\forall i,j\in V} , with ( i , j ) ∉ E ⇒ w i j = 0 {\displaystyle (i,j)\notin E\Rightarrow w_{ij}=0} , and asks for a partition S , T ⊆ V {\displaystyle S,T\subseteq V} that maximizes the sum of edge weights between S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} , i.e., max S ⊆ V ∑ i ∈ S , j ∉ S w i j . {\displaystyle \max _{S\subseteq V}\sum _{i\in S,j\notin S}w_{ij}.} By setting w i j = 1 {\displaystyle w_{ij}=1} for all ( i , j ) ∈ E {\displaystyle (i,j)\in E} this becomes equivalent to the original max-cut problem above, which is why we focus on this more general form in the following. For every vertex in i ∈ V {\displaystyle i\in V} we introduce a binary variable x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} with the interpretation x i = 0 {\displaystyle x_{i}=0} if i ∈ S {\displaystyle i\in S} and x i = 1 {\displaystyle x_{i}=1} if i ∈ T {\displaystyle i\in T} . As T = V ∖ S {\displaystyle T=V\setminus S} , every i {\displaystyle i} is in exactly one set, meaning there is a 1:1 correspondence between binary vectors x ∈ B n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}\in \mathbb {B} ^{n}} and partitions of V {\displaystyle V} into two subsets. We observe that, for any i , j ∈ V {\displaystyle i,j\in V} , the expression x i ( 1 − x j ) + ( 1 − x i ) x j {\displaystyle x_{i}(1-x_{j})+(1-x_{i})x_{j}} evaluates to 1 if and only if i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} are in different subsets, equivalent to logical XOR. Let W ∈ R + n × n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {W}}\in \mathbb {R} _{+}^{n\times n}} with W i j = w i j ∀ i , j ∈ V {\displaystyle W_{ij}=w_{ij}~\forall i,j\in V} . By extending above expression to matrix-vector form we find that x ⊺ W ( 1 − x ) + ( 1 − x ) ⊺ W x = − 2 x ⊺ W x + ( W 1 + W ⊺ 1 ) ⊺ x {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {W}}({\boldsymbol {1}}-{\boldsymbol {x}})+({\boldsymbol {1}}-{\boldsymbol {x}})^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {Wx}}=-2{\boldsymbol {x}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {Wx}}+({\boldsymbol {W1}}+{\boldsymbol {W}}^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {1}})^{\intercal }{\boldsymbol {x}}} is the sum of weights of all edges between S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} , where 1 = ( 1 , 1 , … , 1 ) ⊺ ∈ R n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {1}}=(1,1,\dots ,1)^{\intercal }\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . As this is a quadratic function over x {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}} , it is a QUBO problem whose parameter matrix we can read from above expression as Q = 2 W − diag ⁡ [ W 1 + W ⊺ 1 ] , {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Q}}=2{\boldsymbol {W}}-\operatorname {diag} [{\boldsymbol {W1}}+{\boldsymbol {W}}^{\intercal }{\bol

Digital omnivore

A digital omnivore is a person who uses multiple modalities (devices) to access the Internet and other media content in their daily life. As people increasingly own mobile devices, cross-platform multimedia consumption has continued to shape the digital landscape, both in terms of the type of media content they consume and how they consume it. As of 2021, at least half of all global digital traffic is generated by mobile devices. == Connected devices and digital consumption == A 2015 study of digital media consumption showed that smartphones were primarily used for communication, and tablets were primarily used for entertainment – additionally, both were frequently used in conjuncture with other devices, like televisions. An earlier 2011 analysis of the way consumers in the U.S. viewed news content on their devices throughout the day demonstrated how people use different mobile devices for different functions. On a typical weekend morning, digital omnivores accessed their news using their tablet, favored their computer during the working day, and returned to tablet use in the evening, peaking between the hours of 9pm and midnight. Mobile phones were used for web-browsing throughout the day when users were away from their personal computer. Increased Wi-Fi availability and mobile broadband adoption have changed the way people are going online. In August 2011, more than a third (37.2%) of U.S. digital traffic coming from mobile phones occurred via a Wi-Fi connection while tablets, which traditionally required a Wi-Fi connection to access the Internet, are increasingly driving traffic using mobile broadband access. As of 2021, LTE, 5G, and other forms of mobile broadband access are available on the majority of mobile devices. Tablets contributed nearly 2% of all web browsing traffic in the United States in 2011. During this period, iPads also began to account for a higher share of Internet traffic than iPhones (46.8% vs. 42.6% of all iOS device traffic. == Implications for marketing, advertisers and publishers == As of 2021, the average amount of time spent daily consuming digital media was eight hours, an increase from 2020 and a further increase from 2019, partially as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok, as well as other online platforms like YouTube, incorporate advertisements into the in-app or online experience, with some offering the ability to shop for and sell items through the app or website.

Word2vec

Word2vec is a technique in natural language processing for obtaining vector representations of words. These vectors capture information about the meaning of the word based on the surrounding words. The word2vec algorithm estimates these representations by modeling text in a large corpus. Once trained, such a model can detect synonymous words or suggest additional words for a partial sentence. Word2vec was developed by Tomáš Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, Ilya Sutskever and Jeff Dean at Google, and published in 2013. Word2vec represents a word as a high-dimension vector of numbers which capture relationships between words. In particular, words which appear in similar contexts are mapped to vectors which are nearby as measured by cosine similarity. This indicates the level of semantic similarity between the words, so for example the vectors for walk and ran are nearby, as are those for "but" and "however", and "Berlin" and "Germany". == Approach == Word2vec is a group of related models that are used to produce word embeddings. These models are shallow, two-layer neural networks that are trained to reconstruct linguistic contexts of words. Word2vec takes as its input a large corpus of text and produces a mapping of the set of words to a vector space, typically of several hundred dimensions, with each unique word in the corpus being assigned a vector in the space. Word2vec can use either of two model architectures to produce these distributed representations of words: continuous bag of words (CBOW) or continuously sliding skip-gram. In both architectures, word2vec considers both individual words and a sliding context window as it iterates over the corpus. The CBOW can be viewed as a 'fill in the blank' task, where the word embedding represents the way the word influences the relative probabilities of other words in the context window. Words which are semantically similar should influence these probabilities in similar ways, because semantically similar words should be used in similar contexts. The order of context words does not influence prediction (bag of words assumption). In the continuous skip-gram architecture, the model uses the current word to predict the surrounding window of context words. The skip-gram architecture weighs nearby context words more heavily than more distant context words. According to the authors' note, CBOW is faster while skip-gram does a better job for infrequent words. After the model is trained, the learned word embeddings are positioned in the vector space such that words that share common contexts in the corpus — that is, words that are semantically and syntactically similar — are located close to one another in the space. More dissimilar words are located farther from one another in the space. == Mathematical details == This section is based on expositions. A corpus is a sequence of words. Both CBOW and skip-gram are methods to learn one vector per word appearing in the corpus. Let V {\displaystyle V} ("vocabulary") be the set of all words appearing in the corpus C {\displaystyle C} . Our goal is to learn one vector v w ∈ R d {\displaystyle v_{w}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} for each word w ∈ V {\displaystyle w\in V} . The idea of skip-gram is that the vector of a word should be close to the vector of each of its neighbors. The idea of CBOW is that the vector-sum of a word's neighbors should be close to the vector of the word. === Continuous bag-of-words (CBOW) === The idea of CBOW is to represent each word with a vector, such that it is possible to predict a word using the sum of the vectors of its neighbors. Specifically, for each word w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} in the corpus, the one-hot encoding of the word is used as the input to the neural network. The output of the neural network is a probability distribution over the dictionary, representing a prediction of individual words in the neighborhood of w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} . The objective of training is to maximize ∑ i ln ⁡ Pr ( w i ∣ w i + j : j ∈ N ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i}\ln \Pr(w_{i}\mid w_{i+j}\colon j\in N)} where N {\displaystyle N} is a set of (non-zero) indices representing the relative locations of nearby words considered to be in w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} 's neighborhood. For example, if we want each word in the corpus to be predicted by every other word in a small span of 4 words. The set of relative indexes of neighbor words will be: N = { − 2 , − 1 , + 1 , + 2 } {\displaystyle N=\{-2,-1,+1,+2\}} , and the objective is to maximize ∑ i ln ⁡ Pr ( w i ∣ w i − 2 , w i − 1 , w i + 1 , w i + 2 ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i}\ln \Pr(w_{i}\mid w_{i-2},w_{i-1},w_{i+1},w_{i+2})} . In standard bag-of-words, a word's context is represented by a word-count (aka a word histogram) of its neighboring words. For example, the "sat" in "the cat sat on the mat" is represented as {"the": 2, "cat": 1, "on": 1}. Note that the last word "mat" is not used to represent "sat", because it is outside the neighborhood N = { − 2 , − 1 , + 1 , + 2 } {\displaystyle N=\{-2,-1,+1,+2\}} . In continuous bag-of-words, the histogram is multiplied by a matrix V {\displaystyle V} to obtain a continuous representation of the word's context. The matrix V {\displaystyle V} is also called a dictionary. Its columns are the word vectors. It has D {\displaystyle D} columns, where D {\displaystyle D} is the size of the dictionary. Let d {\displaystyle d} be the length of each word vector. We have V ∈ R d × D {\displaystyle V\in \mathbb {R} ^{d\times D}} . For example, multiplying the word histogram {"the": 2, "cat": 1, "on": 1} with V {\displaystyle V} , we obtain 2 v the + v cat + v on {\displaystyle 2v_{\text{the}}+v_{\text{cat}}+v_{\text{on}}} . This is then multiplied with another matrix V ′ {\displaystyle V'} of shape R D × d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{D\times d}} . Each row of it is a word vector v ′ {\displaystyle v'} . This results in a vector of length D {\displaystyle D} , one entry per dictionary entry. Then, apply the softmax to obtain a probability distribution over the dictionary. This system can be visualized as a neural network, similar in spirit to an autoencoder, of architecture linear-linear-softmax, as depicted in the diagram. The system is trained by gradient descent to minimize the cross-entropy loss. In full formula, the cross-entropy loss is: − ∑ i ln ⁡ e v w i ′ ⋅ ( ∑ j ∈ N v w j + i ) ∑ w ′ e v w ′ ′ ⋅ ( ∑ j ∈ N v w j + i ) {\displaystyle -\sum _{i}\ln {\frac {e^{v_{w_{i}}'\cdot (\sum _{j\in N}v_{w_{j+i}})}}{\sum _{w'}e^{v_{w'}'\cdot (\sum _{j\in N}v_{w_{j+i}})}}}} where the outer summation ∑ i {\displaystyle \sum _{i}} is over the words in a corpus, the quantity ∑ j ∈ N v w j + i {\displaystyle \sum _{j\in N}v_{w_{j+i}}} is the sum of a word's neighbors' vectors, etc. Once such a system is trained, we have two trained matrices V , V ′ {\displaystyle V,V'} . Either the column vectors of V {\displaystyle V} or the row vectors of V ′ {\displaystyle V'} can serve as the dictionary. For example, the word "sat" can be represented as either the "sat"-th column of V {\displaystyle V} or the "sat"-th row of V ′ {\displaystyle V'} . It is also possible to simply define V ′ = V ⊤ {\displaystyle V'=V^{\top }} , in which case there would no longer be a choice. === Skip-gram === The idea of skip-gram is to represent each word with a vector, such that it is possible to predict the vectors of its neighbors using the vector of a word. The architecture is still linear-linear-softmax, the same as CBOW, but the input and the output are switched. Specifically, for each word w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} in the corpus, the one-hot encoding of the word is used as the input to the neural network. The output of the neural network is a probability distribution over the dictionary, representing a prediction of individual words in the neighborhood of w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} . The objective of training is to maximize ∑ i ∑ j ∈ N ln ⁡ Pr ( w j + i ∣ w i ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i}\sum _{j\in N}\ln \Pr(w_{j+i}\mid w_{i})} . In full formula, the loss function is − ∑ i ∑ j ∈ N ln ⁡ e v w j + i ′ ⋅ v w i ∑ w ′ e v w ′ ′ ⋅ v w i {\displaystyle -\sum _{i}\sum _{j\in N}\ln {\frac {e^{v_{w_{j+i}}'\cdot v_{w_{i}}}}{\sum _{w'}e^{v_{w'}'\cdot v_{w_{i}}}}}} Same as CBOW, once such a system is trained, we have two trained matrices V , V ′ {\displaystyle V,V'} . Either the column vectors of V {\displaystyle V} or the row vectors of V ′ {\displaystyle V'} can serve as the dictionary. It is also possible to simply define V ′ = V ⊤ {\displaystyle V'=V^{\top }} , in which case there would no longer be a choice. Essentially, skip-gram and CBOW are exactly the same in architecture. They only differ in the objective function during training. == History == During the 1980s, there were some early attempts at using neural networks to represent words and concepts as vectors. In 2010, Tomáš Mikolov (then at Brno University of Technology) with co-authors applied a simple recurrent neural network with a single hidden