Kernel principal component analysis

In the field of multivariate statistics, kernel principal component analysis (kernel PCA) is an extension of principal component analysis (PCA) using techniques of kernel methods. Using a kernel, the originally linear operations of PCA are performed in a reproducing kernel Hilbert space. == Background: Linear PCA == Recall that conventional PCA operates on zero-centered data; that is, 1 N ∑ i = 1 N x i = 0 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\mathbf {x} _{i}=\mathbf {0} } , where x i {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{i}} is one of the N {\displaystyle N} multivariate observations. It operates by diagonalizing the covariance matrix, C = 1 N ∑ i = 1 N x i x i ⊤ {\displaystyle C={\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}\mathbf {x} _{i}\mathbf {x} _{i}^{\top }} in other words, it gives an eigendecomposition of the covariance matrix: λ v = C v {\displaystyle \lambda \mathbf {v} =C\mathbf {v} } which can be rewritten as λ x i ⊤ v = x i ⊤ C v for i = 1 , … , N {\displaystyle \lambda \mathbf {x} _{i}^{\top }\mathbf {v} =\mathbf {x} _{i}^{\top }C\mathbf {v} \quad {\textrm {for}}~i=1,\ldots ,N} . (See also: Covariance matrix as a linear operator) == Introduction of the Kernel to PCA == To understand the utility of kernel PCA, particularly for clustering, observe that, while N points cannot, in general, be linearly separated in d < N {\displaystyle d

Skipper (computer software)

Skipper is a visualization tool and code/schema generator for PHP ORM frameworks like Doctrine2, Doctrine, Propel, and CakePHP, which are used to create database abstraction layer. Skipper is developed by Czech company Inventic, s.r.o. based in Brno, and was known as ORM Designer prior to rebranding in 2014. == Overview == Generates visual model from the schema definition files Repetitive import/export of schema definitions in supported formats (XML, YML, PHP annotations) Schema definition files are automatically generated from the visual model Visual representation uses ER diagram extended by concepts of inheritance and many-to-many Supports customization using .xml configuration files and JavaScript Does not support direct connections to the database Crude and simplistic visual representation and menus == Architecture == Skipper was built on the Qt framework. Import/export of the schema definitions uses XSL transformations powered by LibXslt library. Imported source files are first converted to XML format: no conversion for XML, simple conversion for YML, creating the Abstract Syntax Tree and its subsequent conversion to XML for PHP annotations. The import/export scripts are configured in JavaScript and can be freely customized. == Supported ORM frameworks == Frameworks supported for visual model and schema files generation: Doctrine2 Doctrine CakePHP == History == Skipper was created as an internal tool for the web applications developed by Inventic. It was first published as a commercial tool under the name ORM Designer in 2009. Application was reworked and optimized in January 2013, and released as ORM Designer 2. In May 2013 ORM Designer became part of the South Moravian Innovation Center Incubator program (support program for innovative technological startups). In June 2014, ORM Designer version 3 was released and rebranded under the name of Skipper

Yooreeka

Yooreeka is a library for data mining, machine learning, soft computing, and mathematical analysis. The project started with the code of the book "Algorithms of the Intelligent Web". Although the term "Web" prevailed in the title, in essence, the algorithms are valuable in any software application. It covers all major algorithms and provides many examples. Yooreeka 2.x is licensed under the Apache License rather than the somewhat more restrictive LGPL (which was the license of v1.x). The library is written 100% in the Java language. == Algorithms == The following algorithms are covered: Clustering Hierarchical—Agglomerative (e.g. MST single link; ROCK) and Divisive Partitional (e.g. k-means) Classification Bayesian Decision trees Neural Networks Rule based (via Drools) Recommendations Collaborative filtering Content based Search PageRank DocRank Personalization

Variational autoencoder

In machine learning, a variational autoencoder (VAE) is an artificial neural network architecture introduced by Diederik P. Kingma and Max Welling in 2013. It is part of the families of probabilistic graphical models and variational Bayesian methods. In addition to being seen as an autoencoder neural network architecture, variational autoencoders can also be studied within the mathematical formulation of variational Bayesian methods, connecting a neural encoder network to its decoder through a probabilistic latent space (for example, as a multivariate Gaussian distribution) that corresponds to the parameters of a variational distribution. Thus, the encoder maps each point (such as an image) from a large complex dataset into a distribution within the latent space, rather than to a single point in that space. The decoder has the opposite function, which is to map from the latent space to the input space, again according to a distribution (although in practice, noise is rarely added during the decoding stage). By mapping a point to a distribution instead of a single point, the network can avoid overfitting the training data. Both networks are typically trained together with the usage of the reparameterization trick, although the variance of the noise model can be learned separately. Although this type of model was initially designed for unsupervised learning, its effectiveness has been proven for semi-supervised learning and supervised learning. == Overview of architecture and operation == A variational autoencoder is a generative model with a prior and noise distribution respectively. Usually such models are trained using the expectation-maximization meta-algorithm (e.g. probabilistic PCA, (spike & slab) sparse coding). Such a scheme optimizes a lower bound of the data likelihood, which is usually computationally intractable, and in doing so requires the discovery of q-distributions, or variational posteriors. These q-distributions are normally parameterized for each individual data point in a separate optimization process. However, variational autoencoders use a neural network as an amortized approach to jointly optimize across data points. In that way, the same parameters are reused for multiple data points, which can result in massive memory savings. The first neural network takes as input the data points themselves, and outputs parameters for the variational distribution. As it maps from a known input space to the low-dimensional latent space, it is called the encoder. The decoder is the second neural network of this model. It is a function that maps from the latent space to the input space, e.g. as the means of the noise distribution. It is possible to use another neural network that maps to the variance, however this can be omitted for simplicity. In such a case, the variance can be optimized with gradient descent. To optimize this model, one needs to know two terms: the "reconstruction error", and the Kullback–Leibler divergence (KL-D). Both terms are derived from the free energy expression of the probabilistic model, and therefore differ depending on the noise distribution and the assumed prior of the data, here referred to as p-distribution. For example, a standard VAE task such as IMAGENET is typically assumed to have a gaussianly distributed noise; however, tasks such as binarized MNIST require a Bernoulli noise. The KL-D from the free energy expression maximizes the probability mass of the q-distribution that overlaps with the p-distribution, which unfortunately can result in mode-seeking behaviour. The "reconstruction" term is the remainder of the free energy expression, and requires a sampling approximation to compute its expectation value. More recent approaches replace Kullback–Leibler divergence (KL-D) with various statistical distances, see "Statistical distance VAE variants" below. == Formulation == From the point of view of probabilistic modeling, one wants to maximize the likelihood of the data x {\displaystyle x} by their chosen parameterized probability distribution p θ ( x ) = p ( x | θ ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)=p(x|\theta )} . This distribution is usually chosen to be a Gaussian N ( x | μ , σ ) {\displaystyle N(x|\mu ,\sigma )} which is parameterized by μ {\displaystyle \mu } and σ {\displaystyle \sigma } respectively, and as a member of the exponential family it is easy to work with as a noise distribution. Simple distributions are easy enough to maximize, however distributions where a prior is assumed over the latents z {\displaystyle z} results in intractable integrals. Let us find p θ ( x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)} via marginalizing over z {\displaystyle z} . p θ ( x ) = ∫ z p θ ( x , z ) d z , {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)=\int _{z}p_{\theta }({x,z})\,dz,} where p θ ( x , z ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }({x,z})} represents the joint distribution under p θ {\displaystyle p_{\theta }} of the observable data x {\displaystyle x} and its latent representation or encoding z {\displaystyle z} . According to the chain rule, the equation can be rewritten as p θ ( x ) = ∫ z p θ ( x | z ) p θ ( z ) d z {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)=\int _{z}p_{\theta }({x|z})p_{\theta }(z)\,dz} In the vanilla variational autoencoder, z {\displaystyle z} is usually taken to be a finite-dimensional vector of real numbers, and p θ ( x | z ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }({x|z})} to be a Gaussian distribution. Then p θ ( x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)} is a mixture of Gaussian distributions. It is now possible to define the set of the relationships between the input data and its latent representation as Prior p θ ( z ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(z)} Likelihood p θ ( x | z ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x|z)} Posterior p θ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(z|x)} Unfortunately, the computation of p θ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(z|x)} is expensive and in most cases intractable. To speed up the calculus to make it feasible, it is necessary to introduce a further function to approximate the posterior distribution as q ϕ ( z | x ) ≈ p θ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle q_{\phi }({z|x})\approx p_{\theta }({z|x})} with ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } defined as the set of real values that parametrize q {\displaystyle q} . This is sometimes called amortized inference, since by "investing" in finding a good q ϕ {\displaystyle q_{\phi }} , one can later infer z {\displaystyle z} from x {\displaystyle x} quickly without doing any integrals. In this way, the problem is to find a good probabilistic autoencoder, in which the conditional likelihood distribution p θ ( x | z ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x|z)} is computed by the probabilistic decoder, and the approximated posterior distribution q ϕ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle q_{\phi }(z|x)} is computed by the probabilistic encoder. Parametrize the encoder as E ϕ {\displaystyle E_{\phi }} , and the decoder as D θ {\displaystyle D_{\theta }} . == Evidence lower bound (ELBO) == Like many deep learning approaches that use gradient-based optimization, VAEs require a differentiable loss function to update the network weights through backpropagation. For variational autoencoders, the idea is to jointly optimize the generative model parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } to reduce the reconstruction error between the input and the output, and ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } to make q ϕ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle q_{\phi }({z|x})} as close as possible to p θ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(z|x)} . As reconstruction loss, mean squared error and cross entropy are often used. The Kullback–Leibler divergence D K L ( q ϕ ( z | x ) ∥ p θ ( z | x ) ) {\displaystyle D_{KL}(q_{\phi }({z|x})\parallel p_{\theta }({z|x}))} can be used as a loss function to squeeze q ϕ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle q_{\phi }({z|x})} under p θ ( z | x ) {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(z|x)} . This divergence loss expands to D K L ( q ϕ ( z | x ) ∥ p θ ( z | x ) ) = E z ∼ q ϕ ( ⋅ | x ) [ ln ⁡ q ϕ ( z | x ) p θ ( z | x ) ] = E z ∼ q ϕ ( ⋅ | x ) [ ln ⁡ q ϕ ( z | x ) p θ ( x ) p θ ( x , z ) ] = ln ⁡ p θ ( x ) + E z ∼ q ϕ ( ⋅ | x ) [ ln ⁡ q ϕ ( z | x ) p θ ( x , z ) ] . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}D_{KL}(q_{\phi }({z|x})\parallel p_{\theta }({z|x}))&=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(\cdot |x)}\left[\ln {\frac {q_{\phi }(z|x)}{p_{\theta }(z|x)}}\right]\\&=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(\cdot |x)}\left[\ln {\frac {q_{\phi }({z|x})p_{\theta }(x)}{p_{\theta }(x,z)}}\right]\\&=\ln p_{\theta }(x)+\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(\cdot |x)}\left[\ln {\frac {q_{\phi }({z|x})}{p_{\theta }(x,z)}}\right].\end{aligned}}} Now, define the evidence lower bound (ELBO): L θ , ϕ ( x ) := E z ∼ q ϕ ( ⋅ | x ) [ ln ⁡ p θ ( x , z ) q ϕ ( z | x ) ] = ln ⁡ p θ ( x ) − D K L ( q ϕ ( ⋅ | x ) ∥ p θ ( ⋅ | x ) ) {\displaystyle L_{\theta ,\phi }(x):=\mathbb {E} _{z\sim q_{\phi }(\cdot |x)}\left[\ln {\frac {p_{\theta }(x,z)}{q_{\phi }({z|x})}}\right]=\ln p_{\theta }(x)-D_{KL}(q_{\phi }({\cdot |x})\parallel p_{\theta }({\cdot |x}))} Maximizing the ELBO θ ∗ , ϕ ∗ = argmax θ , ϕ L θ , ϕ ( x ) {\dis

Effective fitness

In natural evolution and artificial evolution (e.g. artificial life and evolutionary computation) the fitness (or performance or objective measure) of a schema is rescaled to give its effective fitness which takes into account crossover and mutation. Effective fitness is used in Evolutionary Computation to understand population dynamics. While a biological fitness function only looks at reproductive success, an effective fitness function tries to encompass things that are needed to be fulfilled for survival on population level. In homogeneous populations, reproductive fitness and effective fitness are equal. When a population moves away from homogeneity a higher effective fitness is reached for the recessive genotype. This advantage will decrease while the population moves toward an equilibrium. The deviation from this equilibrium displays how close the population is to achieving a steady state. When this equilibrium is reached, the maximum effective fitness of the population is achieved. Problem solving with evolutionary computation is realized with a cost function. If cost functions are applied to swarm optimization they are called a fitness function. Strategies like reinforcement learning and NEAT neuroevolution are creating a fitness landscape which describes the reproductive success of cellular automata. The effective fitness function models the number of fit offspring and is used in calculations that include evolutionary processes, such as mutation and crossover, important on the population level. The effective fitness model is superior to its predecessor, the standard reproductive fitness model. It advances in the qualitatively and quantitatively understanding of evolutionary concepts like bloat, self-adaptation, and evolutionary robustness. While reproductive fitness only looks at pure selection, effective fitness describes the flow of a population and natural selection by taking genetic operators into account. A normal fitness function fits to a problem, while an effective fitness function is an assumption if the objective was reached. The difference is important for designing fitness functions with algorithms like novelty search in which the objective of the agents is unknown. In the case of bacteria effective fitness could include production of toxins and rate of mutation of different plasmids, which are mostly stochastically determined == Applications == When evolutionary equations of the studied population dynamics are available, one can algorithmically compute the effective fitness of a given population. Though the perfect effective fitness model is yet to be found, it is already known to be a good framework to the better understanding of the moving of the genotype-phenotype map, population dynamics, and the flow on fitness landscapes. Models using a combination of Darwinian fitness functions and effective functions are better at predicting population trends. Effective models could be used to determine therapeutic outcomes of disease treatment. Other models could determine effective protein engineering and works towards finding novel or heightened biochemistry.

Contextual AI

Contextual AI is an enterprise software company based in Mountain View, California. It develops a platform for building specialized Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) agents for enterprise use. The company was founded in 2023 by Douwe Kiela and Amanpreet Singh, both former AI researchers at Facebook AI Research (FAIR) and Hugging Face. Douwe Kiela previously led the Meta research team that introduced the Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) approach in 2020. Contextual AI focuses on enterprise generative AI applications using RAG 2.0 technology, with deployments primarily in the technology, banking, finance and media sectors. == History == In June 2023, Contextual AI announced it had raised $20 million in a seed funding round led by Bain Capital Ventures (BCV), with participation from Lightspeed Venture Partners, Greycroft, SV Angel, and several angel investors. In August 2024, the company raised $80 million in a Series A funding round led by Greycroft, with participation from previous investors including Bain Capital Ventures, Lightspeed, and Conviction Partners. The round also included new backers such as Bezos Expeditions, NVentures (Nvidia), HSBC Ventures, and Snowflake Ventures. == Features == Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is an artificial intelligence framework that integrates information retrieval with text generation to improve the performance of large language models (LLMs) on complex, knowledge-intensive tasks. It was introduced in 2020 by researchers at Meta AI, including Douwe Kiela, Patrick Lewis and others, in their paper Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. RAG enables language models to access and incorporate external information, such as proprietary databases or real-time web content, at query time, instead of relying solely on pre-trained, internal, static knowledge. This architecture addresses common limitations of standard LLMs, including hallucination, outdated information, and lack of attribution to source materials. RAG systems retrieve relevant context through a variety of techniques - including vector search, keyword search, text-to-SQL - and feeds this context into the language model to generate responses. The approach improves factual accuracy, supports domain-specific customization, enables citation of sources, and allows for more updated information without retraining the model itself. General Availability. In January 2025, Contextual AI announced the general availability of its enterprise platform for building specialized RAG agents. Early adopters included Qualcomm, which used the platform for their Customer Engineering team needs. Grounded Language Model. In March 2025, the company introduced a Grounded Language Model (GLM) for factual accuracy in enterprise AI applications. Reranker. In March 2025, Contextual AI released an instruction-following reranker that allows users to influence the ranking of retrieved documents through natural language instructions, such as prioritizing recent files, specific formats, or content from designated sources. == Applications == Contextual AI's platform has been adopted across a range of industries, including finance, technology, media and professional services. Clients include Fortune 500 companies such as Qualcomm and HSBC.

Large margin nearest neighbor

Large margin nearest neighbor (LMNN) classification is a statistical machine learning algorithm for metric learning. It learns a pseudometric designed for k-nearest neighbor classification. The algorithm is based on semidefinite programming, a sub-class of convex optimization. The goal of supervised learning (more specifically classification) is to learn a decision rule that can categorize data instances into pre-defined classes. The k-nearest neighbor rule assumes a training data set of labeled instances (i.e. the classes are known). It classifies a new data instance with the class obtained from the majority vote of the k closest (labeled) training instances. Closeness is measured with a pre-defined metric. Large margin nearest neighbors is an algorithm that learns this global (pseudo-)metric in a supervised fashion to improve the classification accuracy of the k-nearest neighbor rule. == Setup == The main intuition behind LMNN is to learn a pseudometric under which all data instances in the training set are surrounded by at least k instances that share the same class label. If this is achieved, the leave-one-out error (a special case of cross validation) is minimized. Let the training data consist of a data set D = { ( x → 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x → n , y n ) } ⊂ R d × C {\displaystyle D=\{({\vec {x}}_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,({\vec {x}}_{n},y_{n})\}\subset R^{d}\times C} , where the set of possible class categories is C = { 1 , … , c } {\displaystyle C=\{1,\dots ,c\}} . The algorithm learns a pseudometric of the type d ( x → i , x → j ) = ( x → i − x → j ) ⊤ M ( x → i − x → j ) {\displaystyle d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})=({\vec {x}}_{i}-{\vec {x}}_{j})^{\top }\mathbf {M} ({\vec {x}}_{i}-{\vec {x}}_{j})} . For d ( ⋅ , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle d(\cdot ,\cdot )} to be well defined, the matrix M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } needs to be positive semi-definite. The Euclidean metric is a special case, where M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } is the identity matrix. This generalization is often (falsely) referred to as Mahalanobis metric. Figure 1 illustrates the effect of the metric under varying M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } . The two circles show the set of points with equal distance to the center x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} . In the Euclidean case this set is a circle, whereas under the modified (Mahalanobis) metric it becomes an ellipsoid. The algorithm distinguishes between two types of special data points: target neighbors and impostors. === Target neighbors === Target neighbors are selected before learning. Each instance x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} has exactly k {\displaystyle k} different target neighbors within D {\displaystyle D} , which all share the same class label y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} . The target neighbors are the data points that should become nearest neighbors under the learned metric. Let us denote the set of target neighbors for a data point x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} as N i {\displaystyle N_{i}} . === Impostors === An impostor of a data point x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} is another data point x → j {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{j}} with a different class label (i.e. y i ≠ y j {\displaystyle y_{i}\neq y_{j}} ) which is one of the nearest neighbors of x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} . During learning the algorithm tries to minimize the number of impostors for all data instances in the training set. == Algorithm == Large margin nearest neighbors optimizes the matrix M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } with the help of semidefinite programming. The objective is twofold: For every data point x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} , the target neighbors should be close and the impostors should be far away. Figure 1 shows the effect of such an optimization on an illustrative example. The learned metric causes the input vector x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} to be surrounded by training instances of the same class. If it was a test point, it would be classified correctly under the k = 3 {\displaystyle k=3} nearest neighbor rule. The first optimization goal is achieved by minimizing the average distance between instances and their target neighbors ∑ i , j ∈ N i d ( x → i , x → j ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i,j\in N_{i}}d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})} . The second goal is achieved by penalizing distances to impostors x → l {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{l}} that are less than one unit further away than target neighbors x → j {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{j}} (and therefore pushing them out of the local neighborhood of x → i {\displaystyle {\vec {x}}_{i}} ). The resulting value to be minimized can be stated as: ∑ i , j ∈ N i , l , y l ≠ y i [ d ( x → i , x → j ) + 1 − d ( x → i , x → l ) ] + {\displaystyle \sum _{i,j\in N_{i},l,y_{l}\neq y_{i}}[d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})+1-d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{l})]_{+}} With a hinge loss function [ ⋅ ] + = max ( ⋅ , 0 ) {\textstyle [\cdot ]_{+}=\max(\cdot ,0)} , which ensures that impostor proximity is not penalized when outside the margin. The margin of exactly one unit fixes the scale of the matrix M {\displaystyle M} . Any alternative choice c > 0 {\displaystyle c>0} would result in a rescaling of M {\displaystyle M} by a factor of 1 / c {\displaystyle 1/c} . The final optimization problem becomes: min M ∑ i , j ∈ N i d ( x → i , x → j ) + λ ∑ i , j , l ξ i j l {\displaystyle \min _{\mathbf {M} }\sum _{i,j\in N_{i}}d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})+\lambda \sum _{i,j,l}\xi _{ijl}} ∀ i , j ∈ N i , l , y l ≠ y i {\displaystyle \forall _{i,j\in N_{i},l,y_{l}\neq y_{i}}} d ( x → i , x → j ) + 1 − d ( x → i , x → l ) ≤ ξ i j l {\displaystyle d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{j})+1-d({\vec {x}}_{i},{\vec {x}}_{l})\leq \xi _{ijl}} ξ i j l ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \xi _{ijl}\geq 0} M ⪰ 0 {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} \succeq 0} The hyperparameter λ > 0 {\textstyle \lambda >0} is some positive constant (typically set through cross-validation). Here the variables ξ i j l {\displaystyle \xi _{ijl}} (together with two types of constraints) replace the term in the cost function. They play a role similar to slack variables to absorb the extent of violations of the impostor constraints. The last constraint ensures that M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } is positive semi-definite. The optimization problem is an instance of semidefinite programming (SDP). Although SDPs tend to suffer from high computational complexity, this particular SDP instance can be solved very efficiently due to the underlying geometric properties of the problem. In particular, most impostor constraints are naturally satisfied and do not need to be enforced during runtime (i.e. the set of variables ξ i j l {\displaystyle \xi _{ijl}} is sparse). A particularly well suited solver technique is the working set method, which keeps a small set of constraints that are actively enforced and monitors the remaining (likely satisfied) constraints only occasionally to ensure correctness. == Extensions and efficient solvers == LMNN was extended to multiple local metrics in the 2008 paper. This extension significantly improves the classification error, but involves a more expensive optimization problem. In their 2009 publication in the Journal of Machine Learning Research, Weinberger and Saul derive an efficient solver for the semi-definite program. It can learn a metric for the MNIST handwritten digit data set in several hours, involving billions of pairwise constraints. An open source Matlab implementation is freely available at the authors web page. Kumal et al. extended the algorithm to incorporate local invariances to multivariate polynomial transformations and improved regularization.