CloudSim is a framework for modeling and simulation of cloud computing infrastructures and services. Originally built primarily at the Cloud Computing and Distributed Systems (CLOUDS) Laboratory, the University of Melbourne, Australia, CloudSim has become one of the most popular open source cloud simulators in the research and academia. CloudSim is completely written in Java. The latest version of CloudSim is CloudSim v6.0.0-beta on GitHub. Cloudsim is suitable for implementing simulations scenarios based on Infrastructure as a service as well as with latest version Platform as a service, so get started here == CloudSim extensions == Initially developed as a stand-alone cloud simulator, CloudSim has further been extended by independent researchers. GPUCloudSim is an enhanced CloudSim tool for modeling GPU-based cloud infrastructures and data centers. It offers simulations for multi-GPU setups, customizable GPU policies, GPU remoting, etc. It also examines performance impacts and interactions within virtualized GPU environments. CloudSim Plus is a totally re-engineered CloudSim fork providing general-purpose cloud computing simulation and exclusive features such as: multi-cloud simulations, vertical and horizontal VM scaling, host fault injection and recovery, joint power- and network-aware simulations and more. Though CloudSim itself does not have a graphical user interface, extensions such as CloudReports offer a GUI for CloudSim simulations. CloudSimEx extends CloudSim by adding MapReduce simulation capabilities and parallel simulations. Cloud2Sim extends CloudSim to execute on multiple distributed servers, by leveraging Hazelcast distributed execution framework. RECAP DES extends the CloudSim Plus framework to model synchronous hierarchical architectures (such as ElasticSearch). ThermoSim extends CloudSim toolkit by incorporating thermal characteristics, and uses Deep learning-based temperature predictor for cloud nodes.
Action model learning
Action model learning (sometimes abbreviated action learning) is an area of machine learning concerned with the creation and modification of a software agent's knowledge about the effects and preconditions of the actions that can be executed within its environment. This knowledge is usually represented in a logic-based action description language and used as input for automated planners. Learning action models is important when goals change. When an agent acted for a while, it can use its accumulated knowledge about actions in the domain to make better decisions. Thus, learning action models differs from reinforcement learning. It enables reasoning about actions instead of expensive trials in the world. Action model learning is a form of inductive reasoning, where new knowledge is generated based on the agent's observations. The usual motivation for action model learning is the fact that manual specification of action models for planners is often a difficult, time-consuming, and error-prone task (especially in complex environments). == Action models == Given a training set E {\displaystyle E} consisting of examples e = ( s , a , s ′ ) {\displaystyle e=(s,a,s')} , where s , s ′ {\displaystyle s,s'} are observations of a world state from two consecutive time steps t , t ′ {\displaystyle t,t'} and a {\displaystyle a} is an action instance observed in time step t {\displaystyle t} , the goal of action model learning in general is to construct an action model ⟨ D , P ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle D,P\rangle } , where D {\displaystyle D} is a description of domain dynamics in action description formalism like STRIPS, ADL or PDDL and P {\displaystyle P} is a probability function defined over the elements of D {\displaystyle D} . However, many state of the art action learning methods assume determinism and do not induce P {\displaystyle P} . In addition to determinism, individual methods differ in how they deal with other attributes of domain (e.g. partial observability or sensoric noise). == Action learning methods == === State of the art === Recent action learning methods take various approaches and employ a wide variety of tools from different areas of artificial intelligence and computational logic. As an example of a method based on propositional logic, we can mention SLAF (Simultaneous Learning and Filtering) algorithm, which uses agent's observations to construct a long propositional formula over time and subsequently interprets it using a satisfiability (SAT) solver. Another technique, in which learning is converted into a satisfiability problem (weighted MAX-SAT in this case) and SAT solvers are used, is implemented in ARMS (Action-Relation Modeling System). Two mutually similar, fully declarative approaches to action learning were based on logic programming paradigm Answer Set Programming (ASP) and its extension, Reactive ASP. In another example, bottom-up inductive logic programming approach was employed. Several different solutions are not directly logic-based. For example, the action model learning using a perceptron algorithm or the multi level greedy search over the space of possible action models. In the older paper from 1992, the action model learning was studied as an extension of reinforcement learning. Nonetheless, further algorithms can be found that operate under different assumptions: FAMA can work even when some observations are missing, and it produces a general (lifted) planning model. It treats learning an action model like a planning problem, making sure the learned model matches the observations given. NOLAM can learn general action models even from noisy or imperfect data. LOCM focuses only on the order of actions in the data, ignoring any details about the states between those actions. The family of safe action model (SAM) learning methods create models that guarantee any plans made with them will actually work in the real world. There's also an extension called N-SAM that can learn action models with numeric conditions and effects. Additionally, numeric action models like N-SAM can be used to improve reinforcement learning (RL) performance through the RAMP algorithm. === Literature === Most action learning research papers are published in journals and conferences focused on artificial intelligence in general (e.g. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), Artificial Intelligence, Applied Artificial Intelligence (AAI) or AAAI conferences). Despite mutual relevance of the topics, action model learning is usually not addressed in planning conferences like the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS).
Time Warp Edit Distance
In the data analysis of time series, Time Warp Edit Distance (TWED) is a measure of similarity (or dissimilarity) between pairs of discrete time series, controlling the relative distortion of the time units of the two series using the physical notion of elasticity. In comparison to other distance measures, (e.g. DTW (dynamic time warping) or LCS (longest common subsequence problem)), TWED is a metric. Its computational time complexity is O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} , but can be drastically reduced in some specific situations by using a corridor to reduce the search space. Its memory space complexity can be reduced to O ( n ) {\displaystyle O(n)} . It was first proposed in 2009 by P.-F. Marteau. == Definition == δ λ , ν ( A 1 p , B 1 q ) = M i n { δ λ , ν ( A 1 p − 1 , B 1 q ) + Γ ( a p ′ → Λ ) d e l e t e i n A δ λ , ν ( A 1 p − 1 , B 1 q − 1 ) + Γ ( a p ′ → b q ′ ) m a t c h o r s u b s t i t u t i o n δ λ , ν ( A 1 p , B 1 q − 1 ) + Γ ( Λ → b q ′ ) d e l e t e i n B {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{p},B_{1}^{q})=Min{\begin{cases}\delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{p-1},B_{1}^{q})+\Gamma (a_{p}^{'}\to \Lambda )&{\rm {delete\ in\ A}}\\\delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{p-1},B_{1}^{q-1})+\Gamma (a_{p}^{'}\to b_{q}^{'})&{\rm {match\ or\ substitution}}\\\delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{p},B_{1}^{q-1})+\Gamma (\Lambda \to b_{q}^{'})&{\rm {delete\ in\ B}}\end{cases}}} whereas Γ ( α p ′ → Λ ) = d L P ( a p ′ , a p − 1 ′ ) + ν ⋅ ( t a p − t a p − 1 ) + λ {\displaystyle \Gamma (\alpha _{p}^{'}\to \Lambda )=d_{LP}(a_{p}^{'},a_{p-1}^{'})+\nu \cdot (t_{a_{p}}-t_{a_{p-1}})+\lambda } Γ ( α p ′ → b q ′ ) = d L P ( a p ′ , b q ′ ) + d L P ( a p − 1 ′ , b q − 1 ′ ) + ν ⋅ ( | t a p − t b q | + | t a p − 1 − t b q − 1 | ) {\displaystyle \Gamma (\alpha _{p}^{'}\to b_{q}^{'})=d_{LP}(a_{p}^{'},b_{q}^{'})+d_{LP}(a_{p-1}^{'},b_{q-1}^{'})+\nu \cdot (|t_{a_{p}}-t_{b_{q}}|+|t_{a_{p-1}}-t_{b_{q-1}}|)} Γ ( Λ → b q ′ ) = d L P ( b p ′ , b p − 1 ′ ) + ν ⋅ ( t b q − t b q − 1 ) + λ {\displaystyle \Gamma (\Lambda \to b_{q}^{'})=d_{LP}(b_{p}^{'},b_{p-1}^{'})+\nu \cdot (t_{b_{q}}-t_{b_{q-1}})+\lambda } Whereas the recursion δ λ , ν {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }} is initialized as: δ λ , ν ( A 1 0 , B 1 0 ) = 0 , {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{0},B_{1}^{0})=0,} δ λ , ν ( A 1 0 , B 1 j ) = ∞ f o r j ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{0},B_{1}^{j})=\infty \ {\rm {{for\ }j\geq 1}}} δ λ , ν ( A 1 i , B 1 0 ) = ∞ f o r i ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \delta _{\lambda ,\nu }(A_{1}^{i},B_{1}^{0})=\infty \ {\rm {{for\ }i\geq 1}}} with a 0 ′ = b 0 ′ = 0 {\displaystyle a'_{0}=b'_{0}=0} === Implementations === An implementation of the TWED algorithm in C with a Python wrapper is available at TWED is also implemented into the Time Series Subsequence Search Python package (TSSEARCH for short) available at [1]. An R implementation of TWED has been integrated into the TraMineR, a R package for mining, describing and visualizing sequences of states or events, and more generally discrete sequence data. Additionally, cuTWED is a CUDA- accelerated implementation of TWED which uses an improved algorithm due to G. Wright (2020). This method is linear in memory and massively parallelized. cuTWED is written in CUDA C/C++, comes with Python bindings, and also includes Python bindings for Marteau's reference C implementation. ==== Python ==== Backtracking, to find the most cost-efficient path: ==== MATLAB ==== Backtracking, to find the most cost-efficient path:
Proof of authority
Proof of authority (PoA) is a category of consensus protocols used with blockchains based on reputation and identity as a stake that delivers comparatively fast and efficient transactions (compared to proof-of-work and proof-of-stake). The most notable platforms using PoA are VeChain, Bitgert, Palm Network and Xodex. == Description == Proof-of-authority is a category of consensus protocols for networks and blockchains where transactions and blocks are built and validated by approved entities known as validators. Their permissions are often granted through a centralized authority, but they can also be granted through a council or decentralized organization. The term "proof-of-authority" was coined by Gavin Wood, co-founder of Ethereum and Parity Technologies. With PoA, validators are incentivized to maintain good behavior and honesty when validating blocks to avoid developing a negative reputation. PoA can have higher security than PoW and even PoS due to validators wanting to avoid damaging their reputation. Because PoA is permissioned, it is not fully trustless. Validators without good reputation may risk having their validator permissions removed. PoA is generally more efficient than PoW and PoS because it operates with fewer nodes and validators, thus requiring fewer duplicated resources.
Kleene's algorithm
In theoretical computer science, in particular in formal language theory, Kleene's algorithm transforms a given nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA) into a regular expression. Together with other conversion algorithms, it establishes the equivalence of several description formats for regular languages. Alternative presentations of the same method include the "elimination method" attributed to Brzozowski and McCluskey, the algorithm of McNaughton and Yamada, and the use of Arden's lemma. == Algorithm description == According to Gross and Yellen (2004), the algorithm can be traced back to Kleene (1956). A presentation of the algorithm in the case of deterministic finite automata (DFAs) is given in Hopcroft and Ullman (1979). The presentation of the algorithm for NFAs below follows Gross and Yellen (2004). Given a nondeterministic finite automaton M = (Q, Σ, δ, q0, F), with Q = { q0,...,qn } its set of states, the algorithm computes the sets Rkij of all strings that take M from state qi to qj without going through any state numbered higher than k. Here, "going through a state" means entering and leaving it, so both i and j may be higher than k, but no intermediate state may. Each set Rkij is represented by a regular expression; the algorithm computes them step by step for k = -1, 0, ..., n. Since there is no state numbered higher than n, the regular expression Rn0j represents the set of all strings that take M from its start state q0 to qj. If F = { q1,...,qf } is the set of accept states, the regular expression Rn01 | ... | Rn0f represents the language accepted by M. The initial regular expressions, for k = -1, are computed as follows for i≠j: R−1ij = a1 | ... | am where qj ∈ δ(qi,a1), ..., qj ∈ δ(qi,am) and as follows for i=j: R−1ii = a1 | ... | am | ε where qi ∈ δ(qi,a1), ..., qi ∈ δ(qi,am) In other words, R−1ij mentions all letters that label a transition from i to j, and we also include ε in the case where i=j. After that, in each step the expressions Rkij are computed from the previous ones by Rkij = Rk-1ik (Rk-1kk) Rk-1kj | Rk-1ij Another way to understand the operation of the algorithm is as an "elimination method", where the states from 0 to n are successively removed: when state k is removed, the regular expression Rk-1ij, which describes the words that label a path from state i>k to state j>k, is rewritten into Rkij so as to take into account the possibility of going via the "eliminated" state k. By induction on k, it can be shown that the length of each expression Rkij is at most 1/3(4k+1(6s+7) - 4) symbols, where s denotes the number of characters in Σ. Therefore, the length of the regular expression representing the language accepted by M is at most 1/3(4n+1(6s+7)f - f - 3) symbols, where f denotes the number of final states. This exponential blowup is inevitable, because there exist families of DFAs for which any equivalent regular expression must be of exponential size. In practice, the size of the regular expression obtained by running the algorithm can be very different depending on the order in which the states are considered by the procedure, i.e., the order in which they are numbered from 0 to n. == Example == The automaton shown in the picture can be described as M = (Q, Σ, δ, q0, F) with the set of states Q = { q0, q1, q2 }, the input alphabet Σ = { a, b }, the transition function δ with δ(q0,a)=q0, δ(q0,b)=q1, δ(q1,a)=q2, δ(q1,b)=q1, δ(q2,a)=q1, and δ(q2,b)=q1, the start state q0, and set of accept states F = { q1 }. Kleene's algorithm computes the initial regular expressions as After that, the Rkij are computed from the Rk-1ij step by step for k = 0, 1, 2. Kleene algebra equalities are used to simplify the regular expressions as much as possible. Step 0 Step 1 Step 2 Since q0 is the start state and q1 is the only accept state, the regular expression R201 denotes the set of all strings accepted by the automaton.
Shape context
Shape context is a feature descriptor used in object recognition. Serge Belongie and Jitendra Malik proposed the term in their paper "Matching with Shape Contexts" in 2000. == Theory == The shape context is intended to be a way of describing shapes that allows for measuring shape similarity and the recovering of point correspondences. The basic idea is to pick n points on the contours of a shape. For each point pi on the shape, consider the n − 1 vectors obtained by connecting pi to all other points. The set of all these vectors is a rich description of the shape localized at that point but is far too detailed. The key idea is that the distribution over relative positions is a robust, compact, and highly discriminative descriptor. So, for the point pi, the coarse histogram of the relative coordinates of the remaining n − 1 points, h i ( k ) = # { q ≠ p i : ( q − p i ) ∈ bin ( k ) } {\displaystyle h_{i}(k)=\#\{q\neq p_{i}:(q-p_{i})\in {\mbox{bin}}(k)\}} is defined to be the shape context of p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} . The bins are normally taken to be uniform in log-polar space. The fact that the shape context is a rich and discriminative descriptor can be seen in the figure below, in which the shape contexts of two different versions of the letter "A" are shown. (a) and (b) are the sampled edge points of the two shapes. (c) is the diagram of the log-polar bins used to compute the shape context. (d) is the shape context for the point marked with a circle in (a), (e) is that for the point marked as a diamond in (b), and (f) is that for the triangle. As can be seen, since (d) and (e) are the shape contexts for two closely related points, they are quite similar, while the shape context in (f) is very different. For a feature descriptor to be useful, it needs to have certain invariances. In particular it needs to be invariant to translation, scaling, small perturbations, and, depending on the application, rotation. Translational invariance comes naturally to shape context. Scale invariance is obtained by normalizing all radial distances by the mean distance α {\displaystyle \alpha } between all the point pairs in the shape although the median distance can also be used. Shape contexts are empirically demonstrated to be robust to deformations, noise, and outliers using synthetic point set matching experiments. One can provide complete rotational invariance in shape contexts. One way is to measure angles at each point relative to the direction of the tangent at that point (since the points are chosen on edges). This results in a completely rotationally invariant descriptor. But of course this is not always desired since some local features lose their discriminative power if not measured relative to the same frame. Many applications in fact forbid rotational invariance e.g. distinguishing a "6" from a "9". == Use in shape matching == A complete system that uses shape contexts for shape matching consists of the following steps (which will be covered in more detail in the Details of Implementation section): Randomly select a set of points that lie on the edges of a known shape and another set of points on an unknown shape. Compute the shape context of each point found in step 1. Match each point from the known shape to a point on an unknown shape. To minimize the cost of matching, first choose a transformation (e.g. affine, thin plate spline, etc.) that warps the edges of the known shape to the unknown (essentially aligning the two shapes). Then select the point on the unknown shape that most closely corresponds to each warped point on the known shape. Calculate the "shape distance" between each pair of points on the two shapes. Use a weighted sum of the shape context distance, the image appearance distance, and the bending energy (a measure of how much transformation is required to bring the two shapes into alignment). To identify the unknown shape, use a nearest-neighbor classifier to compare its shape distance to shape distances of known objects. == Details of implementation == === Step 1: Finding a list of points on shape edges === The approach assumes that the shape of an object is essentially captured by a finite subset of the points on the internal or external contours on the object. These can be simply obtained using the Canny edge detector and picking a random set of points from the edges. Note that these points need not and in general do not correspond to key-points such as maxima of curvature or inflection points. It is preferable to sample the shape with roughly uniform spacing, though it is not critical. === Step 2: Computing the shape context === This step is described in detail in the Theory section. === Step 3: Computing the cost matrix === Consider two points p and q that have normalized K-bin histograms (i.e. shape contexts) g(k) and h(k). As shape contexts are distributions represented as histograms, it is natural to use the χ2 test statistic as the "shape context cost" of matching the two points: C S = 1 2 ∑ k = 1 K [ g ( k ) − h ( k ) ] 2 g ( k ) + h ( k ) {\displaystyle C_{S}={\frac {1}{2}}\sum _{k=1}^{K}{\frac {[g(k)-h(k)]^{2}}{g(k)+h(k)}}} The values of this range from 0 to 1. In addition to the shape context cost, an extra cost based on the appearance can be added. For instance, it could be a measure of tangent angle dissimilarity (particularly useful in digit recognition): C A = 1 2 ‖ ( cos ( θ 1 ) sin ( θ 1 ) ) − ( cos ( θ 2 ) sin ( θ 2 ) ) ‖ {\displaystyle C_{A}={\frac {1}{2}}{\begin{Vmatrix}{\dbinom {\cos(\theta _{1})}{\sin(\theta _{1})}}-{\dbinom {\cos(\theta _{2})}{\sin(\theta _{2})}}\end{Vmatrix}}} This is half the length of the chord in unit circle between the unit vectors with angles θ 1 {\displaystyle \theta _{1}} and θ 2 {\displaystyle \theta _{2}} . Its values also range from 0 to 1. Now the total cost of matching the two points could be a weighted-sum of the two costs: C = ( 1 − β ) C S + β C A {\displaystyle C=(1-\beta )C_{S}+\beta C_{A}\!\,} Now for each point pi on the first shape and a point qj on the second shape, calculate the cost as described and call it Ci,j. This is the cost matrix. === Step 4: Finding the matching that minimizes total cost === Now, a one-to-one matching π ( i ) {\displaystyle \pi (i)} that matches each point pi on shape 1 and qj on shape 2 that minimizes the total cost of matching, H ( π ) = ∑ i C ( p i , q π ( i ) ) {\displaystyle H(\pi )=\sum _{i}C\left(p_{i},q_{\pi (i)}\right)} is needed. This can be done in O ( N 3 ) {\displaystyle O(N^{3})} time using the Hungarian method, although there are more efficient algorithms. To have robust handling of outliers, one can add "dummy" nodes that have a constant but reasonably large cost of matching to the cost matrix. This would cause the matching algorithm to match outliers to a "dummy" if there is no real match. === Step 5: Modeling transformation === Given the set of correspondences between a finite set of points on the two shapes, a transformation T : R 2 → R 2 {\displaystyle T:\mathbb {R} ^{2}\to \mathbb {R} ^{2}} can be estimated to map any point from one shape to the other. There are several choices for this transformation, described below. ==== Affine ==== The affine model is a standard choice: T ( p ) = A p + o {\displaystyle T(p)=Ap+o\!} . The least squares solution for the matrix A {\displaystyle A} and the translational offset vector o is obtained by: o = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( p i − q π ( i ) ) , A = ( Q + P ) t {\displaystyle o={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(p_{i}-q_{\pi (i)}\right),A=(Q^{+}P)^{t}} Where P = ( 1 p 11 p 12 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 1 p n 1 p n 2 ) {\displaystyle P={\begin{pmatrix}1&p_{11}&p_{12}\\\vdots &\vdots &\vdots \\1&p_{n1}&p_{n2}\end{pmatrix}}} with a similar expression for Q {\displaystyle Q\!} . Q + {\displaystyle Q^{+}\!} is the pseudoinverse of Q {\displaystyle Q\!} . ==== Thin plate spline ==== The thin plate spline (TPS) model is the most widely used model for transformations when working with shape contexts. A 2D transformation can be separated into two TPS function to model a coordinate transform: T ( x , y ) = ( f x ( x , y ) , f y ( x , y ) ) {\displaystyle T(x,y)=\left(f_{x}(x,y),f_{y}(x,y)\right)} where each of the ƒx and ƒy have the form: f ( x , y ) = a 1 + a x x + a y y + ∑ i = 1 n ω i U ( ‖ ( x i , y i ) − ( x , y ) ‖ ) , {\displaystyle f(x,y)=a_{1}+a_{x}x+a_{y}y+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\omega _{i}U\left({\begin{Vmatrix}(x_{i},y_{i})-(x,y)\end{Vmatrix}}\right),} and the kernel function U ( r ) {\displaystyle U(r)\!} is defined by U ( r ) = r 2 log r 2 {\displaystyle U(r)=r^{2}\log r^{2}\!} . The exact details of how to solve for the parameters can be found elsewhere but it essentially involves solving a linear system of equations. The bending energy (a measure of how much transformation is needed to align the points) will also be easily obtained. ==== Regularized TPS ==== The TPS formulation above has exact matching requirement for the pairs of points on the two shapes. For noisy data, it is best to
Zassenhaus algorithm
In mathematics, the Zassenhaus algorithm is a method to calculate a basis for the intersection and sum of two subspaces of a vector space. It is named after Hans Zassenhaus, but no publication of this algorithm by him is known. It is used in computer algebra systems. == Algorithm == === Input === Let V be a vector space and U, W two finite-dimensional subspaces of V with the following spanning sets: U = ⟨ u 1 , … , u n ⟩ {\displaystyle U=\langle u_{1},\ldots ,u_{n}\rangle } and W = ⟨ w 1 , … , w k ⟩ . {\displaystyle W=\langle w_{1},\ldots ,w_{k}\rangle .} Finally, let B 1 , … , B m {\displaystyle B_{1},\ldots ,B_{m}} be linearly independent vectors so that u i {\displaystyle u_{i}} and w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} can be written as u i = ∑ j = 1 m a i , j B j {\displaystyle u_{i}=\sum _{j=1}^{m}a_{i,j}B_{j}} and w i = ∑ j = 1 m b i , j B j . {\displaystyle w_{i}=\sum _{j=1}^{m}b_{i,j}B_{j}.} === Output === The algorithm computes the base of the sum U + W {\displaystyle U+W} and a base of the intersection U ∩ W {\displaystyle U\cap W} . === Algorithm === The algorithm creates the following block matrix of size ( ( n + k ) × ( 2 m ) ) {\displaystyle ((n+k)\times (2m))} : ( a 1 , 1 a 1 , 2 ⋯ a 1 , m a 1 , 1 a 1 , 2 ⋯ a 1 , m ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ a n , 1 a n , 2 ⋯ a n , m a n , 1 a n , 2 ⋯ a n , m b 1 , 1 b 1 , 2 ⋯ b 1 , m 0 0 ⋯ 0 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ b k , 1 b k , 2 ⋯ b k , m 0 0 ⋯ 0 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}a_{1,1}&a_{1,2}&\cdots &a_{1,m}&a_{1,1}&a_{1,2}&\cdots &a_{1,m}\\\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots \\a_{n,1}&a_{n,2}&\cdots &a_{n,m}&a_{n,1}&a_{n,2}&\cdots &a_{n,m}\\b_{1,1}&b_{1,2}&\cdots &b_{1,m}&0&0&\cdots &0\\\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots \\b_{k,1}&b_{k,2}&\cdots &b_{k,m}&0&0&\cdots &0\end{pmatrix}}} Using elementary row operations, this matrix is transformed to the row echelon form. Then, it has the following shape: ( c 1 , 1 c 1 , 2 ⋯ c 1 , m ∙ ∙ ⋯ ∙ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ c q , 1 c q , 2 ⋯ c q , m ∙ ∙ ⋯ ∙ 0 0 ⋯ 0 d 1 , 1 d 1 , 2 ⋯ d 1 , m ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 0 0 ⋯ 0 d ℓ , 1 d ℓ , 2 ⋯ d ℓ , m 0 0 ⋯ 0 0 0 ⋯ 0 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 0 0 ⋯ 0 0 0 ⋯ 0 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}c_{1,1}&c_{1,2}&\cdots &c_{1,m}&\bullet &\bullet &\cdots &\bullet \\\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots \\c_{q,1}&c_{q,2}&\cdots &c_{q,m}&\bullet &\bullet &\cdots &\bullet \\0&0&\cdots &0&d_{1,1}&d_{1,2}&\cdots &d_{1,m}\\\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots \\0&0&\cdots &0&d_{\ell ,1}&d_{\ell ,2}&\cdots &d_{\ell ,m}\\0&0&\cdots &0&0&0&\cdots &0\\\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &&\vdots \\0&0&\cdots &0&0&0&\cdots &0\end{pmatrix}}} Here, ∙ {\displaystyle \bullet } stands for arbitrary numbers, and the vectors ( c p , 1 , c p , 2 , … , c p , m ) {\displaystyle (c_{p,1},c_{p,2},\ldots ,c_{p,m})} for every p ∈ { 1 , … , q } {\displaystyle p\in \{1,\ldots ,q\}} and ( d p , 1 , … , d p , m ) {\displaystyle (d_{p,1},\ldots ,d_{p,m})} for every p ∈ { 1 , … , ℓ } {\displaystyle p\in \{1,\ldots ,\ell \}} are nonzero. Then ( y 1 , … , y q ) {\displaystyle (y_{1},\ldots ,y_{q})} with y i := ∑ j = 1 m c i , j B j {\displaystyle y_{i}:=\sum _{j=1}^{m}c_{i,j}B_{j}} is a basis of U + W {\displaystyle U+W} and ( z 1 , … , z ℓ ) {\displaystyle (z_{1},\ldots ,z_{\ell })} with z i := ∑ j = 1 m d i , j B j {\displaystyle z_{i}:=\sum _{j=1}^{m}d_{i,j}B_{j}} is a basis of U ∩ W {\displaystyle U\cap W} . === Proof of correctness === First, we define π 1 : V × V → V , ( a , b ) ↦ a {\displaystyle \pi _{1}:V\times V\to V,(a,b)\mapsto a} to be the projection to the first component. Let H := { ( u , u ) ∣ u ∈ U } + { ( w , 0 ) ∣ w ∈ W } ⊆ V × V . {\displaystyle H:=\{(u,u)\mid u\in U\}+\{(w,0)\mid w\in W\}\subseteq V\times V.} Then π 1 ( H ) = U + W {\displaystyle \pi _{1}(H)=U+W} and H ∩ ( 0 × V ) = 0 × ( U ∩ W ) {\displaystyle H\cap (0\times V)=0\times (U\cap W)} . Also, H ∩ ( 0 × V ) {\displaystyle H\cap (0\times V)} is the kernel of π 1 | H {\displaystyle {\pi _{1}|}_{H}} , the projection restricted to H. Therefore, dim ( H ) = dim ( U + W ) + dim ( U ∩ W ) {\displaystyle \dim(H)=\dim(U+W)+\dim(U\cap W)} . The Zassenhaus algorithm calculates a basis of H. In the first m columns of this matrix, there is a basis y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} of U + W {\displaystyle U+W} . The rows of the form ( 0 , z i ) {\displaystyle (0,z_{i})} (with z i ≠ 0 {\displaystyle z_{i}\neq 0} ) are obviously in H ∩ ( 0 × V ) {\displaystyle H\cap (0\times V)} . Because the matrix is in row echelon form, they are also linearly independent. All rows which are different from zero ( ( y i , ∙ ) {\displaystyle (y_{i},\bullet )} and ( 0 , z i ) {\displaystyle (0,z_{i})} ) are a basis of H, so there are dim ( U ∩ W ) {\displaystyle \dim(U\cap W)} such z i {\displaystyle z_{i}} s. Therefore, the z i {\displaystyle z_{i}} s form a basis of U ∩ W {\displaystyle U\cap W} . == Example == Consider the two subspaces U = ⟨ ( 1 − 1 0 1 ) , ( 0 0 1 − 1 ) ⟩ {\displaystyle U=\left\langle \left({\begin{array}{r}1\\-1\\0\\1\end{array}}\right),\left({\begin{array}{r}0\\0\\1\\-1\end{array}}\right)\right\rangle } and W = ⟨ ( 5 0 − 3 3 ) , ( 0 5 − 3 − 2 ) ⟩ {\displaystyle W=\left\langle \left({\begin{array}{r}5\\0\\-3\\3\end{array}}\right),\left({\begin{array}{r}0\\5\\-3\\-2\end{array}}\right)\right\rangle } of the vector space R 4 {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{4}} . Using the standard basis, we create the following matrix of dimension ( 2 + 2 ) × ( 2 ⋅ 4 ) {\displaystyle (2+2)\times (2\cdot 4)} : ( 1 − 1 0 1 1 − 1 0 1 0 0 1 − 1 0 0 1 − 1 5 0 − 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 − 3 − 2 0 0 0 0 ) . {\displaystyle \left({\begin{array}{rrrrrrrr}1&-1&0&1&&1&-1&0&1\\0&0&1&-1&&0&0&1&-1\\\\5&0&-3&3&&0&0&0&0\\0&5&-3&-2&&0&0&0&0\end{array}}\right).} Using elementary row operations, we transform this matrix into the following matrix: ( 1 0 0 0 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 0 1 0 − 1 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 0 0 1 − 1 ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ 0 0 0 0 1 − 1 0 1 ) {\displaystyle \left({\begin{array}{rrrrrrrrr}1&0&0&0&&\bullet &\bullet &\bullet &\bullet \\0&1&0&-1&&\bullet &\bullet &\bullet &\bullet \\0&0&1&-1&&\bullet &\bullet &\bullet &\bullet \\\\0&0&0&0&&1&-1&0&1\end{array}}\right)} (Some entries have been replaced by " ∙ {\displaystyle \bullet } " because they are irrelevant to the result.) Therefore ( ( 1 0 0 0 ) , ( 0 1 0 − 1 ) , ( 0 0 1 − 1 ) ) {\displaystyle \left(\left({\begin{array}{r}1\\0\\0\\0\end{array}}\right),\left({\begin{array}{r}0\\1\\0\\-1\end{array}}\right),\left({\begin{array}{r}0\\0\\1\\-1\end{array}}\right)\right)} is a basis of U + W {\displaystyle U+W} , and ( ( 1 − 1 0 1 ) ) {\displaystyle \left(\left({\begin{array}{r}1\\-1\\0\\1\end{array}}\right)\right)} is a basis of U ∩ W {\displaystyle U\cap W} .