The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) was an independent commission of the United States of America from 2018 to 2021. Its mission was to make recommendations to the President and Congress to "advance the development of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and associated technologies to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States". The commission's 15 members were nominated by the United States Congress. The NSCAI was dissolved on 1 October 2021. == History and reporting == The NSCAI began working in March 2019 and by November 2019 it had received more than 200 classified and unclassified briefings to help with the creation of its final report due in 2021.On 4 November 2019, the NSCAI shared its interim report with Congress, where it explained the 27 initial judgements to base its ongoing work. In the interim report the commission also agreed on seven principles: Global leadership in AI technology is a national security priority AI adoption is an urgent imperative for national security A shared sense of responsibility for the American peoples security must be created from government officials and private sector leaders. It needs to find local AI talent and use it to attract the world’s best minds Actions used for the protection of America’s AI leadership against foreign threats needs to follow the principles of free enterprise, free inquiry and free flow of ideas. The technical limitations of AI are universally known, however, a strong desire remains for powerful, dependable, and secure AI systems. United States used AI must follow American values including the rule of law Fundamental areas of effort for the preservation of U.S. advantages were also agreed upon in the interim report of 2019. The NSCAI released its first report of recommendations in March 2020, most of which were included in the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. In July 2020, the commission published the second report to Congress. It identified 35 actions for both Executive and Legislative branches, which were focused on six fundamental areas. This report was available to the public. In January 2021, a draft of the final report was presented at a panel led by Schmidt. The report recommended the US to use AI technology for military use and development. It issued its final report in March 2021, saying that the U.S. is not sufficiently prepared to defend or compete against China in the AI era. It was broken up into two parts, the first titled “Defending America in the AI Era”, and the second “Winning the Technology Competition”. The report spoke about China’s efforts and investments into integration and that it could very well take the lead in AI in the next few years. Additional suggestions were made to concentrate on AI in everything we do and to implement it into US national security on multiple levels, as well as focus on bringing in new talent to develop AI and to introduce it to the working force on both civilian and military levels. Another recommendation of the NSCAI report was to develop and provide China and Russia with alternative models that are based on norms and democratic values. The final report also included a proposed $40 billion budget for government spending. On 14 April 2021, NSCAI executive director Ylli Bajraktari and director of Research and Analysis Justin Lynch participated in an event held by the Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) to discuss the final report findings. In October 2021, NSCAI chair Eric Schmidt founded the bipartisan, non-profit Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP) through his family led non-profit Eric & Wendy Schmidt Fund for Strategic Innovation in order to carry on the NSCAI’s efforts and expand beyond national security. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies held an event in June 2023, called “Thinking Forward After the NSCAI and CSC: A Discussion on AI and Cyber Policy”, with former members of NSCAI on the moderation panel, including Eric Schmidt and Ylli Bajraktari. == Members == Members of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence: Eric Schmidt (chair), former CEO of Google Robert Work (Vice Chair), former Deputy Secretary of Defense Mignon Clyburn, former Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission Chris Darby, CEO of In-Q-Tel Kenneth M. Ford, CEO of the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition Jose-Marie Griffiths, President of Dakota State University Eric Horvitz, Technical Fellow at Microsoft Katrina G. McFarland, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Jason Matheny, Director of the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University Gilman Louie, partner at Alsop Louie Partners William Mark, vice president at SRI International Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazon Web Services (AWS) Safra Catz, CEO of Oracle Steve Chien, Technical Fellow at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Andrew Moore, Google/Alphabet == Recommendations == The report's recommendations include: Dramatically increasing non-defense federal spending on AI research and development, doubling every year from $2 billion in 2022, to $32 billion in 2026. That would bring it up to a level similar to spending on biomedical research A dramatic increase in undergraduate scholarship and graduate studies fellowships in AI Creation of a Digital Corps to bring skilled tech workers into government Founding of a Digital Service Academy: an accredited university providing subsidized education in exchange for a commitment to work for a time in government Include civil rights and civil liberty reports for new AI systems or major updates to existing systems Expanding allocations of employment-based green cards, and giving them to every AI PhD graduate from an accredited U.S. university Reforming the acquisition management system Department of Defense to make it faster and easier to introduce new technologies == Transparency == In December 2019, a ruling was made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that the NSCAI must also provide historical documents upon request. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed the lawsuit against the NSCAI in September 2019 after being refused information about the upcoming meetings and prepared records of the commission under FOIA and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in June 2020 that the NSCAI must comply with FACA and therefore hold open meetings and provide records to the public. The lawsuit was also filed by EPIC.
Steerable filter
In image processing, a steerable filter is an orientation-selective filter that can be computationally rotated to any direction. Rather than designing a new filter for each orientation, a steerable filter is synthesized from a linear combination of a small, fixed set of "basis filters". This approach is efficient and is widely used for tasks that involve directionality, such as edge detection, texture analysis, and shape-from-shading. The principle of steerability has been generalized in deep learning to create equivariant neural networks, which can recognize features in data regardless of their orientation or position. == Example == A common example of a steerable filter is the first derivative of a two-dimensional Gaussian function. This filter responds strongly to oriented image features like edges. It is constructed from two basis filters: the partial derivative of the Gaussian with respect to the horizontal direction ( x {\displaystyle x} ) and the vertical direction ( y {\displaystyle y} ). If G ( x , y ) {\displaystyle G(x,y)} is the Gaussian function, and G x {\displaystyle G_{x}} and G y {\displaystyle G_{y}} are its partial derivatives (which measure the rate of change in the x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} directions, respectively), a new filter G θ {\displaystyle G_{\theta }} oriented at an angle θ {\displaystyle \theta } can be synthesized with the formula: G θ = cos ( θ ) G x + sin ( θ ) G y {\displaystyle G_{\theta }=\cos(\theta )G_{x}+\sin(\theta )G_{y}} Here, the basis filters G x {\displaystyle G_{x}} and G y {\displaystyle G_{y}} are weighted by cos ( θ ) {\displaystyle \cos(\theta )} and sin ( θ ) {\displaystyle \sin(\theta )} to "steer" the filter's sensitivity to the desired orientation. This is equivalent to taking the dot product of the direction vector ( cos θ , sin θ ) {\displaystyle (\cos \theta ,\sin \theta )} with the filter's gradient, ( G x , G y ) {\displaystyle (G_{x},G_{y})} . == Generalization in deep learning: Equivariant neural networks == The concept of steerability is foundational to equivariant neural networks, a class of models in deep learning designed to understand symmetries in data. A network is considered equivariant to a transformation (like a rotation) if transforming the input and then passing it through the network produces the same result as passing the input through the network first and then transforming the output. Formally, for a transformation T {\displaystyle T} and a network f {\displaystyle f} , this property is defined as f ( T ( input ) ) = T ( f ( input ) ) {\displaystyle f(T({\text{input}}))=T(f({\text{input}}))} . This built-in understanding of geometry makes models more data-efficient. For example, a network equivariant to rotation does not need to be shown an object in multiple orientations to learn to recognize it; it inherently understands that a rotated object is still the same object. This leads to better generalization and performance, particularly in scientific applications. === Mathematical foundation === Equivariant neural networks use principles from group theory to create operations that respect geometric symmetries, such as the SO(3) group for 3D rotations or the E(3) group for rotations and translations. Instead of learning standard filter kernels, these networks learn how to combine a fixed set of basis kernels. These basis functions are chosen so that they have well-defined behaviors under transformation groups. Spherical harmonics are frequently used as basis functions because they form a complete set of functions that behave predictably under rotation, making them ideal for creating steerable 3D kernels. Features within the network are treated as geometric tensors, which are mathematical objects (like scalars or vectors) that are "typed" by their behavior under transformations. These types correspond to the irreducible representations (irreps) of the group. The tensor product is the fundamental operation used to combine these typed features in a way that preserves equivariance, guaranteeing that the network as a whole respects the desired symmetry. Frameworks like e3nn simplify the construction of these networks by automating the complex mathematics of irreducible representations and tensor products. === Applications === Steerable and equivariant models are highly effective for problems with inherent geometric symmetries. Examples include: Protein structure analysis: SE(3)-equivariant networks can process 3D molecular structures while respecting their rotational and translational symmetries. 3D Point cloud processing: Rotation-equivariant filters built from steerable spherical functions can perform tasks like 3D shape classification. Computational chemistry: E(3)-equivariant graph neural networks are used to model interatomic potentials for molecular dynamics simulations, creating highly accurate and data-efficient models of physical systems.
Dendrogram
A dendrogram is a diagram representing a tree graph. This diagrammatic representation is frequently used in different contexts: in hierarchical clustering, it illustrates the arrangement of the clusters produced by the corresponding analyses. in computational biology, it shows the clustering of genes or samples, sometimes in the margins of heatmaps. in phylogenetics, it displays the evolutionary relationships among various biological taxa. In this case, the dendrogram is also called a phylogenetic tree. The name dendrogram derives from the two ancient greek words δένδρον (déndron), meaning "tree", and γράμμα (grámma), meaning "drawing, mathematical figure". == Clustering example == For a clustering example, suppose that five taxa ( a {\displaystyle a} to e {\displaystyle e} ) have been clustered by UPGMA based on a matrix of genetic distances. The hierarchical clustering dendrogram would show a column of five nodes representing the initial data (here individual taxa), and the remaining nodes represent the clusters to which the data belong, with the arrows representing the distance (dissimilarity). The distance between merged clusters is monotone, increasing with the level of the merger: the height of each node in the plot is proportional to the value of the intergroup dissimilarity between its two daughters (the nodes on the right representing individual observations all plotted at zero height).
FastICA
FastICA is an efficient and popular algorithm for independent component analysis invented by Aapo Hyvärinen at Helsinki University of Technology. Like most ICA algorithms, FastICA seeks an orthogonal rotation of prewhitened data, through a fixed-point iteration scheme, that maximizes a measure of non-Gaussianity of the rotated components. Non-gaussianity serves as a proxy for statistical independence, which is a very strong condition and requires infinite data to verify. FastICA can also be alternatively derived as an approximative Newton iteration. == Algorithm == === Prewhitening the data === Let the X := ( x i j ) ∈ R N × M {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} :=(x_{ij})\in \mathbb {R} ^{N\times M}} denote the input data matrix, M {\displaystyle M} the number of columns corresponding with the number of samples of mixed signals and N {\displaystyle N} the number of rows corresponding with the number of independent source signals. The input data matrix X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } must be prewhitened, or centered and whitened, before applying the FastICA algorithm to it. Centering the data entails demeaning each component of the input data X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } , that is, for each i = 1 , … , N {\displaystyle i=1,\ldots ,N} and j = 1 , … , M {\displaystyle j=1,\ldots ,M} . After centering, each row of X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } has an expected value of 0 {\displaystyle 0} . Whitening the data requires a linear transformation L : R N × M → R N × M {\displaystyle \mathbf {L} :\mathbb {R} ^{N\times M}\to \mathbb {R} ^{N\times M}} of the centered data so that the components of L ( X ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {L} (\mathbf {X} )} are uncorrelated and have variance one. More precisely, if X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } is a centered data matrix, the covariance of L x := L ( X ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {L} _{\mathbf {x} }:=\mathbf {L} (\mathbf {X} )} is the ( N × N ) {\displaystyle (N\times N)} -dimensional identity matrix, that is, A common method for whitening is by performing an eigenvalue decomposition on the covariance matrix of the centered data X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } , E { X X T } = E D E T {\displaystyle E\left\{\mathbf {X} \mathbf {X} ^{T}\right\}=\mathbf {E} \mathbf {D} \mathbf {E} ^{T}} , where E {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} } is the matrix of eigenvectors and D {\displaystyle \mathbf {D} } is the diagonal matrix of eigenvalues. The whitened data matrix is defined thus by === Single component extraction === The iterative algorithm finds the direction for the weight vector w ∈ R N {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} \in \mathbb {R} ^{N}} that maximizes a measure of non-Gaussianity of the projection w T X {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} ^{T}\mathbf {X} } , with X ∈ R N × M {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} \in \mathbb {R} ^{N\times M}} denoting a prewhitened data matrix as described above. Note that w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } is a column vector. To measure non-Gaussianity, FastICA relies on a nonquadratic nonlinear function f ( u ) {\displaystyle f(u)} , its first derivative g ( u ) {\displaystyle g(u)} , and its second derivative g ′ ( u ) {\displaystyle g^{\prime }(u)} . Hyvärinen states that the functions are useful for general purposes, while may be highly robust. The steps for extracting the weight vector w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } for single component in FastICA are the following: Randomize the initial weight vector w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} } Let w + ← E { X g ( w T X ) T } − E { g ′ ( w T X ) } w {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} ^{+}\leftarrow E\left\{\mathbf {X} g(\mathbf {w} ^{T}\mathbf {X} )^{T}\right\}-E\left\{g'(\mathbf {w} ^{T}\mathbf {X} )\right\}\mathbf {w} } , where E { . . . } {\displaystyle E\left\{...\right\}} means averaging over all column-vectors of matrix X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } Let w ← w + / ‖ w + ‖ {\displaystyle \mathbf {w} \leftarrow \mathbf {w} ^{+}/\|\mathbf {w} ^{+}\|} If not converged, go back to 2 === Multiple component extraction === The single unit iterative algorithm estimates only one weight vector which extracts a single component. Estimating additional components that are mutually "independent" requires repeating the algorithm to obtain linearly independent projection vectors - note that the notion of independence here refers to maximizing non-Gaussianity in the estimated components. Hyvärinen provides several ways of extracting multiple components with the simplest being the following. Here, 1 M {\displaystyle \mathbf {1_{M}} } is a column vector of 1's of dimension M {\displaystyle M} . Algorithm FastICA Input: C {\displaystyle C} Number of desired components Input: X ∈ R N × M {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} \in \mathbb {R} ^{N\times M}} Prewhitened matrix, where each column represents an N {\displaystyle N} -dimensional sample, where C <= N {\displaystyle C<=N} Output: W ∈ R N × C {\displaystyle \mathbf {W} \in \mathbb {R} ^{N\times C}} Un-mixing matrix where each column projects X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } onto independent component. Output: S ∈ R C × M {\displaystyle \mathbf {S} \in \mathbb {R} ^{C\times M}} Independent components matrix, with M {\displaystyle M} columns representing a sample with C {\displaystyle C} dimensions. for p in 1 to C: w p ← {\displaystyle \mathbf {w_{p}} \leftarrow } Random vector of length N while w p {\displaystyle \mathbf {w_{p}} } changes w p ← 1 M X g ( w p T X ) T − 1 M g ′ ( w p T X ) 1 M w p {\displaystyle \mathbf {w_{p}} \leftarrow {\frac {1}{M}}\mathbf {X} g(\mathbf {w_{p}} ^{T}\mathbf {X} )^{T}-{\frac {1}{M}}g'(\mathbf {w_{p}} ^{T}\mathbf {X} )\mathbf {1_{M}} \mathbf {w_{p}} } w p ← w p − ∑ j = 1 p − 1 ( w p T w j ) w j {\displaystyle \mathbf {w_{p}} \leftarrow \mathbf {w_{p}} -\sum _{j=1}^{p-1}(\mathbf {w_{p}} ^{T}\mathbf {w_{j}} )\mathbf {w_{j}} } w p ← w p ‖ w p ‖ {\displaystyle \mathbf {w_{p}} \leftarrow {\frac {\mathbf {w_{p}} }{\|\mathbf {w_{p}} \|}}} output W ← [ w 1 , … , w C ] {\displaystyle \mathbf {W} \leftarrow {\begin{bmatrix}\mathbf {w_{1}} ,\dots ,\mathbf {w_{C}} \end{bmatrix}}} output S ← W T X {\displaystyle \mathbf {S} \leftarrow \mathbf {W^{T}} \mathbf {X} }
Non-negative matrix factorization
Non-negative matrix factorization (NMF or NNMF), also non-negative matrix approximation is a group of algorithms in multivariate analysis and linear algebra where a matrix V is factorized into (usually) two matrices W and H, with the property that all three matrices have no negative elements. This non-negativity makes the resulting matrices easier to inspect. Also, in applications such as processing of audio spectrograms or muscular activity, non-negativity is inherent to the data being considered. Since the problem is not exactly solvable in general, it is commonly approximated numerically. NMF finds applications in such fields as astronomy, computer vision, document clustering, missing data imputation, chemometrics, audio signal processing, recommender systems, and bioinformatics. == History == In chemometrics non-negative matrix factorization has a long history under the name "self modeling curve resolution". In this framework the vectors in the right matrix are continuous curves rather than discrete vectors. Also early work on non-negative matrix factorizations was performed by a Finnish group of researchers in the 1990s under the name positive matrix factorization. It became more widely known as non-negative matrix factorization after Lee and Seung investigated the properties of the algorithm and published some simple and useful algorithms for two types of factorizations. == Background == Let matrix V be the product of the matrices W and H, V = W H . {\displaystyle \mathbf {V} =\mathbf {W} \mathbf {H} \,.} Matrix multiplication can be implemented as computing the column vectors of V as linear combinations of the column vectors in W using coefficients supplied by columns of H. That is, each column of V can be computed as follows: v i = W h i , {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} _{i}=\mathbf {W} \mathbf {h} _{i}\,,} where vi is the i-th column vector of the product matrix V and hi is the i-th column vector of the matrix H. When multiplying matrices, the dimensions of the factor matrices may be significantly lower than those of the product matrix and it is this property that forms the basis of NMF. NMF generates factors with significantly reduced dimensions compared to the original matrix. For example, if V is an m × n matrix, W is an m × p matrix, and H is a p × n matrix then p can be significantly less than both m and n. Here is an example based on a text-mining application: Let the input matrix (the matrix to be factored) be V with 10000 rows and 500 columns where words are in rows and documents are in columns. That is, we have 500 documents indexed by 10000 words. It follows that a column vector v in V represents a document. Assume we ask the algorithm to find 10 features in order to generate a features matrix W with 10000 rows and 10 columns and a coefficients matrix H with 10 rows and 500 columns. The product of W and H is a matrix with 10000 rows and 500 columns, the same shape as the input matrix V and, if the factorization worked, it is a reasonable approximation to the input matrix V. From the treatment of matrix multiplication above it follows that each column in the product matrix WH is a linear combination of the 10 column vectors in the features matrix W with coefficients supplied by the coefficients matrix H. This last point is the basis of NMF because we can consider each original document in our example as being built from a small set of hidden features. NMF generates these features. It is useful to think of each feature (column vector) in the features matrix W as a document archetype comprising a set of words where each word's cell value defines the word's rank in the feature: The higher a word's cell value the higher the word's rank in the feature. A column in the coefficients matrix H represents an original document with a cell value defining the document's rank for a feature. We can now reconstruct a document (column vector) from our input matrix by a linear combination of our features (column vectors in W) where each feature is weighted by the feature's cell value from the document's column in H. == Clustering property == NMF has an inherent clustering property, i.e., it automatically clusters the columns of input data V = ( v 1 , … , v n ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {V} =(v_{1},\dots ,v_{n})} . More specifically, the approximation of V {\displaystyle \mathbf {V} } by V ≃ W H {\displaystyle \mathbf {V} \simeq \mathbf {W} \mathbf {H} } is achieved by finding W {\displaystyle W} and H {\displaystyle H} that minimize the error function (using the Frobenius norm) ‖ V − W H ‖ F , {\displaystyle \left\|V-WH\right\|_{F},} subject to W ≥ 0 , H ≥ 0. {\displaystyle W\geq 0,H\geq 0.} , If we furthermore impose an orthogonality constraint on H {\displaystyle \mathbf {H} } , i.e. H H T = I {\displaystyle \mathbf {H} \mathbf {H} ^{T}=I} , then the above minimization is mathematically equivalent to the minimization of K-means clustering. Furthermore, the computed H {\displaystyle H} gives the cluster membership, i.e., if H k j > H i j {\displaystyle \mathbf {H} _{kj}>\mathbf {H} _{ij}} for all i ≠ k, this suggests that the input data v j {\displaystyle v_{j}} belongs to k {\displaystyle k} -th cluster. The computed W {\displaystyle W} gives the cluster centroids, i.e., the k {\displaystyle k} -th column gives the cluster centroid of k {\displaystyle k} -th cluster. This centroid's representation can be significantly enhanced by convex NMF. When the orthogonality constraint H H T = I {\displaystyle \mathbf {H} \mathbf {H} ^{T}=I} is not explicitly imposed, the orthogonality holds to a large extent, and the clustering property holds too. When the error function to be used is Kullback–Leibler divergence, NMF is identical to the probabilistic latent semantic analysis (PLSA), a popular document clustering method. == Types == === Approximate non-negative matrix factorization === Usually the number of columns of W and the number of rows of H in NMF are selected so the product WH will become an approximation to V. The full decomposition of V then amounts to the two non-negative matrices W and H as well as a residual U, such that: V = WH + U. The elements of the residual matrix can either be negative or positive. When W and H are smaller than V they become easier to store and manipulate. Another reason for factorizing V into smaller matrices W and H, is that if one's goal is to approximately represent the elements of V by significantly less data, then one has to infer some latent structure in the data. === Convex non-negative matrix factorization === In standard NMF, matrix factor W ∈ R+m × k， i.e., W can be anything in that space. Convex NMF restricts the columns of W to convex combinations of the input data vectors ( v 1 , … , v n ) {\displaystyle (v_{1},\dots ,v_{n})} . This greatly improves the quality of data representation of W. Furthermore, the resulting matrix factor H becomes more sparse and orthogonal. === Nonnegative rank factorization === In case the nonnegative rank of V is equal to its actual rank, V = WH is called a nonnegative rank factorization (NRF). The problem of finding the NRF of V, if it exists, is known to be NP-hard. === Different cost functions and regularizations === There are different types of non-negative matrix factorizations. The different types arise from using different cost functions for measuring the divergence between V and WH and possibly by regularization of the W and/or H matrices. Two simple divergence functions studied by Lee and Seung are the squared error (or Frobenius norm) and an extension of the Kullback–Leibler divergence to positive matrices (the original Kullback–Leibler divergence is defined on probability distributions). Each divergence leads to a different NMF algorithm, usually minimizing the divergence using iterative update rules. The factorization problem in the squared error version of NMF may be stated as: Given a matrix V {\displaystyle \mathbf {V} } find nonnegative matrices W and H that minimize the function F ( W , H ) = ‖ V − W H ‖ F 2 {\displaystyle F(\mathbf {W} ,\mathbf {H} )=\left\|\mathbf {V} -\mathbf {WH} \right\|_{F}^{2}} Another type of NMF for images is based on the total variation norm. When L1 regularization (akin to Lasso) is added to NMF with the mean squared error cost function, the resulting problem may be called non-negative sparse coding due to the similarity to the sparse coding problem, although it may also still be referred to as NMF. === Online NMF === Many standard NMF algorithms analyze all the data together; i.e., the whole matrix is available from the start. This may be unsatisfactory in applications where there are too many data to fit into memory or where the data are provided in streaming fashion. One such use is for collaborative filtering in recommendation systems, where there may be many users and many items to recommend, and it would be inefficient to recalculate everything when one user or one item is added to the system. The cost function for o
Lessac Technologies
Lessac Technologies, Inc. (LTI) is an American firm which develops voice synthesis software, licenses technology and sells synthesized novels as MP3 files. The firm currently has seven patents granted and three more pending for its automated methods of converting digital text into human-sounding speech, more accurately recognizing human speech and outputting the text representing the words and phrases of said speech, along with recognizing the speaker's emotional state. The LTI technology is partly based on the work of the late Arthur Lessac, a Professor of Theater at the State University of New York and the creator of Lessac Kinesensic Training, and LTI has licensed exclusive rights to exploit Arthur Lessac's copyrighted works in the fields of speech synthesis and speech recognition. Based on the view that music is speech and speech is music, Lessac's work and books focused on body and speech energies and how they go together. Arthur Lessac's textual annotation system, which was originally developed to assist actors, singers, and orators in marking up scripts to prepare for performance, is adapted in LTI's speech synthesis system as the basic representation of the speech to be synthesized (Lessemes), in contrast to many other systems which use a phonetic representation. LTI's software has two major components: (1) a linguistic front-end that converts plain text to a sequence of prosodic and phonosensory graphic symbols (Lessemes) based on Arthur Lessac's annotation system, which specify the speech units to be synthesized; (2) a signal-processing back-end that takes the Lessemes as acoustic data and produces human-sounding synthesized speech as output, using unit selection and concatenation. LTI's text-to-speech system came in second in the world-wide Blizzard Challenge 2011 and 2012. The first-place team in 2011 also employed LTI's "front-end" technology, but with its own back-end. The Blizzard Challenge, conducted by the Language Technologies Institute of Carnegie Mellon University, was devised as a way to evaluate speech synthesis techniques by having different research groups build voices from the same voice-actor recordings, and comparing the results through listening tests. LTI was founded in 2000 by H. Donald Wilson (chairman), a lawyer, LexisNexis entrepreneur and business associate of Arthur Lessac; and Gary A. Marple (chief inventor), after Marple suggested that Arthur Lessac's kinesensic voice training might be applicable to computational linguistics. After Wilson's death in 2006, his nephew John Reichenbach became the firm's CEO.
Fitness function
A fitness function is a particular type of objective or cost function that is used to summarize, as a single figure of merit, how close a given candidate solution is to achieving the set aims. It is an important component of evolutionary algorithms (EA), such as genetic programming, evolution strategies or genetic algorithms. An EA is a metaheuristic that reproduces the basic principles of biological evolution as a computer algorithm in order to solve challenging optimization or planning tasks, at least approximately. For this purpose, many candidate solutions are generated, which are evaluated using a fitness function in order to guide the evolutionary development towards the desired goal. Similar quality functions are also used in other metaheuristics, such as ant colony optimization or particle swarm optimization. In the field of EAs, each candidate solution, also called an individual, is commonly represented as a string of numbers (referred to as a chromosome). After each round of testing or simulation the idea is to delete the n worst individuals, and to breed n new ones from the best solutions. Each individual must therefore to be assigned a quality number indicating how close it has come to the overall specification, and this is generated by applying the fitness function to the test or simulation results obtained from that candidate solution. Two main classes of fitness functions exist: one where the fitness function does not change, as in optimizing a fixed function or testing with a fixed set of test cases; and one where the fitness function is mutable, as in niche differentiation or co-evolving the set of test cases. Another way of looking at fitness functions is in terms of a fitness landscape, which shows the fitness for each possible chromosome. In the following, it is assumed that the fitness is determined based on an evaluation that remains unchanged during an optimization run. A fitness function does not necessarily have to be able to calculate an absolute value, as it is sometimes sufficient to compare candidates in order to select the better one. A relative indication of fitness (candidate a is better than b) is sufficient in some cases, such as tournament selection or Pareto optimization. == Requirements of evaluation and fitness function == The quality of the evaluation and calculation of a fitness function is fundamental to the success of an EA optimisation. It implements Darwin's principle of "survival of the fittest". Without fitness-based selection mechanisms for mate selection and offspring acceptance, EA search would be blind and hardly distinguishable from the Monte Carlo method. When setting up a fitness function, one must always be aware that it is about more than just describing the desired target state. Rather, the evolutionary search on the way to the optimum should also be supported as much as possible (see also section on auxiliary objectives), if and insofar as this is not already done by the fitness function alone. If the fitness function is designed badly, the algorithm will either converge on an inappropriate solution, or will have difficulty converging at all. Definition of the fitness function is not straightforward in many cases and often is performed iteratively if the fittest solutions produced by an EA is not what is desired. Interactive genetic algorithms address this difficulty by outsourcing evaluation to external agents which are normally humans. == Computational efficiency == The fitness function should not only closely align with the designer's goal, but also be computationally efficient. Execution speed is crucial, as a typical evolutionary algorithm must be iterated many times in order to produce a usable result for a non-trivial problem. Fitness approximation may be appropriate, especially in the following cases: Fitness computation time of a single solution is extremely high Precise model for fitness computation is missing The fitness function is uncertain or noisy. Alternatively or also in addition to the fitness approximation, the fitness calculations can also be distributed to a parallel computer in order to reduce the execution times. Depending on the population model of the EA used, both the EA itself and the fitness calculations of all offspring of one generation can be executed in parallel. == Multi-objective optimization == Practical applications usually aim at optimizing multiple and at least partially conflicting objectives. Two fundamentally different approaches are often used for this purpose, Pareto optimization and optimization based on fitness calculated using the weighted sum. === Weighted sum and penalty functions === When optimizing with the weighted sum, the single values of the O {\displaystyle O} objectives are first normalized so that they can be compared. This can be done with the help of costs or by specifying target values and determining the current value as the degree of fulfillment. Costs or degrees of fulfillment can then be compared with each other and, if required, can also be mapped to a uniform fitness scale. Without loss of generality, fitness is assumed to represent a value to be maximized. Each objective o i {\displaystyle o_{i}} is assigned a weight w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} in the form of a percentage value so that the overall raw fitness f r a w {\displaystyle f_{raw}} can be calculated as a weighted sum: f r a w = ∑ i = 1 O o i ⋅ w i w i t h ∑ i = 1 O w i = 1 {\displaystyle f_{raw}=\sum _{i=1}^{O}{o_{i}\cdot w_{i}}\quad {\mathsf {with}}\quad \sum _{i=1}^{O}{w_{i}}=1} A violation of R {\displaystyle R} restrictions r j {\displaystyle r_{j}} can be included in the fitness determined in this way in the form of penalty functions. For this purpose, a function p f j ( r j ) {\displaystyle pf_{j}(r_{j})} can be defined for each restriction which returns a value between 0 {\displaystyle 0} and 1 {\displaystyle 1} depending on the degree of violation, with the result being 1 {\displaystyle 1} if there is no violation. The previously determined raw fitness is multiplied by the penalty function(s) and the result is then the final fitness f f i n a l {\displaystyle f_{final}} : f f i n a l = f r a w ⋅ ∏ j = 1 R p f j ( r j ) = ∑ i = 1 O ( o i ⋅ w i ) ⋅ ∏ j = 1 R p f j ( r j ) {\displaystyle f_{final}=f_{raw}\cdot \prod _{j=1}^{R}{pf_{j}(r_{j})}=\sum _{i=1}^{O}{(o_{i}\cdot w_{i})}\cdot \prod _{j=1}^{R}{pf_{j}(r_{j})}} This approach is simple and has the advantage of being able to combine any number of objectives and restrictions. The disadvantage is that different objectives can compensate each other and that the weights have to be defined before the optimization. This means that the compromise lines must be defined before optimization, which is why optimization with the weighted sum is also referred to as the a priori method. In addition, certain solutions may not be obtained, see the section on the comparison of both types of optimization. === Pareto optimization === A solution is called Pareto-optimal if the improvement of one objective is only possible with a deterioration of at least one other objective. The set of all Pareto-optimal solutions, also called Pareto set, represents the set of all optimal compromises between the objectives. The figure below on the right shows an example of the Pareto set of two objectives f 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}} and f 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}} to be maximized. The elements of the set form the Pareto front (green line). From this set, a human decision maker must subsequently select the desired compromise solution. Constraints are included in Pareto optimization in that solutions without constraint violations are per se better than those with violations. If two solutions to be compared each have constraint violations, the respective extent of the violations decides. It was recognized early on that EAs with their simultaneously considered solution set are well suited to finding solutions in one run that cover the Pareto front sufficiently well. They are therefore well suited as a-posteriori methods for multi-objective optimization, in which the final decision is made by a human decision maker after optimization and determination of the Pareto front. Besides the SPEA2, the NSGA-II and NSGA-III have established themselves as standard methods. The advantage of Pareto optimization is that, in contrast to the weighted sum, it provides all alternatives that are equivalent in terms of the objectives as an overall solution. The disadvantage is that a visualization of the alternatives becomes problematic or even impossible from four objectives on. Furthermore, the effort increases exponentially with the number of objectives. If there are more than three or four objectives, some have to be combined using the weighted sum or other aggregation methods. === Comparison of both types of assessment === With the help of the weighted sum, the total Pareto front can be obtained by a suitable choice of weights, provided that it is convex