The cross-entropy (CE) method is a Monte Carlo method for importance sampling and optimization. It is applicable to both combinatorial and continuous problems, with either a static or noisy objective. The method approximates the optimal importance sampling estimator by repeating two phases: Draw a sample from a probability distribution. Minimize the cross-entropy between this distribution and a target distribution to produce a better sample in the next iteration. Reuven Rubinstein developed the method in the context of rare-event simulation, where tiny probabilities must be estimated, for example in network reliability analysis, queueing models, or performance analysis of telecommunication systems. The method has also been applied to the traveling salesman, quadratic assignment, DNA sequence alignment, max-cut and buffer allocation problems. == Estimation via importance sampling == Consider the general problem of estimating the quantity ℓ = E u [ H ( X ) ] = ∫ H ( x ) f ( x ; u ) d x {\displaystyle \ell =\mathbb {E} _{\mathbf {u} }[H(\mathbf {X} )]=\int H(\mathbf {x} )\,f(\mathbf {x} ;\mathbf {u} )\,{\textrm {d}}\mathbf {x} } , where H {\displaystyle H} is some performance function and f ( x ; u ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {x} ;\mathbf {u} )} is a member of some parametric family of distributions. Using importance sampling this quantity can be estimated as ℓ ^ = 1 N ∑ i = 1 N H ( X i ) f ( X i ; u ) g ( X i ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\ell }}={\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}H(\mathbf {X} _{i}){\frac {f(\mathbf {X} _{i};\mathbf {u} )}{g(\mathbf {X} _{i})}}} , where X 1 , … , X N {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} _{1},\dots ,\mathbf {X} _{N}} is a random sample from g {\displaystyle g\,} . For positive H {\displaystyle H} , the theoretically optimal importance sampling density (PDF) is given by g ∗ ( x ) = H ( x ) f ( x ; u ) / ℓ {\displaystyle g^{}(\mathbf {x} )=H(\mathbf {x} )f(\mathbf {x} ;\mathbf {u} )/\ell } . This, however, depends on the unknown ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } . The CE method aims to approximate the optimal PDF by adaptively selecting members of the parametric family that are closest (in the Kullback–Leibler sense) to the optimal PDF g ∗ {\displaystyle g^{}} . == Generic CE algorithm == Choose initial parameter vector v ( 0 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} ^{(0)}} ; set t = 1. Generate a random sample X 1 , … , X N {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} _{1},\dots ,\mathbf {X} _{N}} from f ( ⋅ ; v ( t − 1 ) ) {\displaystyle f(\cdot ;\mathbf {v} ^{(t-1)})} Solve for v ( t ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} ^{(t)}} , where v ( t ) = argmax v 1 N ∑ i = 1 N H ( X i ) f ( X i ; u ) f ( X i ; v ( t − 1 ) ) log f ( X i ; v ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} ^{(t)}=\mathop {\textrm {argmax}} _{\mathbf {v} }{\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{i=1}^{N}H(\mathbf {X} _{i}){\frac {f(\mathbf {X} _{i};\mathbf {u} )}{f(\mathbf {X} _{i};\mathbf {v} ^{(t-1)})}}\log f(\mathbf {X} _{i};\mathbf {v} )} If convergence is reached then stop; otherwise, increase t by 1 and reiterate from step 2. In several cases, the solution to step 3 can be found analytically. Situations in which this occurs are When f {\displaystyle f\,} belongs to the natural exponential family When f {\displaystyle f\,} is discrete with finite support When H ( X ) = I { x ∈ A } {\displaystyle H(\mathbf {X} )=\mathrm {I} _{\{\mathbf {x} \in A\}}} and f ( X i ; u ) = f ( X i ; v ( t − 1 ) ) {\displaystyle f(\mathbf {X} _{i};\mathbf {u} )=f(\mathbf {X} _{i};\mathbf {v} ^{(t-1)})} , then v ( t ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {v} ^{(t)}} corresponds to the maximum likelihood estimator based on those X k ∈ A {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} _{k}\in A} . == Continuous optimization—example == The same CE algorithm can be used for optimization, rather than estimation. Suppose the problem is to maximize some function S {\displaystyle S} , for example, S ( x ) = e − ( x − 2 ) 2 + 0.8 e − ( x + 2 ) 2 {\displaystyle S(x)={\textrm {e}}^{-(x-2)^{2}}+0.8\,{\textrm {e}}^{-(x+2)^{2}}} . To apply CE, one considers first the associated stochastic problem of estimating P θ ( S ( X ) ≥ γ ) {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} _{\boldsymbol {\theta }}(S(X)\geq \gamma )} for a given level γ {\displaystyle \gamma \,} , and parametric family { f ( ⋅ ; θ ) } {\displaystyle \left\{f(\cdot ;{\boldsymbol {\theta }})\right\}} , for example the 1-dimensional Gaussian distribution, parameterized by its mean μ t {\displaystyle \mu _{t}\,} and variance σ t 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{t}^{2}} (so θ = ( μ , σ 2 ) {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}=(\mu ,\sigma ^{2})} here). Hence, for a given γ {\displaystyle \gamma \,} , the goal is to find θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} so that D K L ( I { S ( x ) ≥ γ } ‖ f θ ) {\displaystyle D_{\mathrm {KL} }({\textrm {I}}_{\{S(x)\geq \gamma \}}\|f_{\boldsymbol {\theta }})} is minimized. This is done by solving the sample version (stochastic counterpart) of the KL divergence minimization problem, as in step 3 above. It turns out that parameters that minimize the stochastic counterpart for this choice of target distribution and parametric family are the sample mean and sample variance corresponding to the elite samples, which are those samples that have objective function value ≥ γ {\displaystyle \geq \gamma } . The worst of the elite samples is then used as the level parameter for the next iteration. This yields the following randomized algorithm that happens to coincide with the so-called Estimation of Multivariate Normal Algorithm (EMNA), an estimation of distribution algorithm. === Pseudocode === // Initialize parameters μ := −6 σ2 := 100 t := 0 maxits := 100 N := 100 Ne := 10 // While maxits not exceeded and not converged while t < maxits and σ2 > ε do // Obtain N samples from current sampling distribution X := SampleGaussian(μ, σ2, N) // Evaluate objective function at sampled points S := exp(−(X − 2) ^ 2) + 0.8 exp(−(X + 2) ^ 2) // Sort X by objective function values in descending order X := sort(X, S) // Update parameters of sampling distribution via elite samples μ := mean(X(1:Ne)) σ2 := var(X(1:Ne)) t := t + 1 // Return mean of final sampling distribution as solution return μ == Related methods == Simulated annealing Genetic algorithms Harmony search Estimation of distribution algorithm Tabu search Natural Evolution Strategy Ant colony optimization algorithms
Articulatory speech recognition
Articulatory speech recognition means the recovery of speech (in forms of phonemes, syllables or words) from acoustic signals with the help of articulatory modeling or an extra input of articulatory movement data. Speech recognition (or automatic speech recognition, acoustic speech recognition) means the recovery of speech from acoustics (sound wave) only. Articulatory information is extremely helpful when the acoustic input is in low quality, perhaps because of noise or missing data. Measurable information from the articulatory system (e.g. tongue, jaw movements) can supplement acoustic signals to improve phone recognition accuracy by 2%. However, attempts to estimate articulatory data from acoustic signals alone have not significantly enhanced recognition performance.
Military communications
Military communications or military signals involve all aspects of communications, or conveyance of information, by armed forces. Examples from Jane's Military Communications include text, audio, facsimile, tactical ground-based communications, naval signalling, terrestrial microwave, tropospheric scatter, satellite communications systems and equipment, surveillance and signal analysis, security, direction finding and jamming. The most urgent purposes are to communicate information to commanders and orders from them. Military communications span from pre-history to the present. The earliest military communications were delivered by runners. Later, communications progressed to visual signals. For example, Naval ships would use flag signaling to communicate from ship to ship. These flags are a uniform set of easily identifiable nautical codes that would convey visual messages and codes between ships and from ship to shore. Then militaries discovered methods to use audible signaling to communicate with each other. This way of communicating was possible because of telegraphs. They are an electronic device that is used by a sender and when the sender presses on the telegraph key, they interrupt the current creating an audible pulse that is heard at the receiving station. The receiver then decodes the pulses to decode the messages. Since then, military communication has evolved and advanced much further. Today, there are many perspectives used to examine how troops around the world communicate. Anthony King states how Military sociologists have attempted to explain how military institutions develop and maintain high levels of social cohesion. == History == In past centuries communicating a message usually required someone to go to the destination, bringing the message. Thus, the term communication often implied the ability to transport people and supplies. A place under siege was one that lost communication in both senses. The association between transport and messaging declined in recent centuries. The first military communications involved the use of runners or the sending and receiving of simple signals (sometimes encoded to be unrecognizable). The first distinctive uses of military communications were called semaphore. Modern units specializing in these tactics are usually designated as signal corps. The Roman system of military communication (cursus publicus or cursus vehicularis) is an early example of this. Later, the terms signals and signaller became words referring to a highly-distinct military occupation dealing with general communications methods (similar to those in civil use) rather than with weapons. Present-day military forces of an informational society conduct intense and complicated communicating activities on a daily basis, using modern telecommunications and computing methods. Only a small portion of these activities are directly related to combat actions. Modern concepts of network-centric warfare (NCW) rely on network-oriented methods of communications and control to make existing forces more effective. == Military communications equipment == Drums, horns, flags, and riders on horseback were some of the early methods the military used to send messages over distances. The advent of distinctive signals led to the formation of the signal corps, a group specialized in the tactics of military communications. The signal corps evolved into a distinctive occupation where the signaller became a highly technical job dealing with all available communications methods including civil ones. In the middle 20th century radio equipment came to dominate the field. Many modern pieces of military communications equipment are built to both encrypt and decode transmissions and survive rough treatment in hostile climates. They use different frequencies to send signals to other radio stations to communicate. Radios have played a major role in military communication. Since they are capable of sending radio waves to transmit voice signals over long distances. This can be helpful for communication on the battlefield since it is a good way to send messages undetected over long distances. Radios are also very reliable because even in harsh weather conditions they are still able to help communicate among the soldiers. Militaries still use radios and continue to improve the technology because of their durability and reliability for military communication. Spelling alphabets such as the NATO phonetic alphabet are used to aid radio communications by reducing ambiguity between letters. Military communications – or "comms" – are activities, equipment, techniques, and tactics used by the military in some of the most hostile areas of the earth and in challenging environments such as battlefields, on land (compare radio in a box), underwater and also in air. Military comms include command, control and communications and intelligence and were known as the C3I model before computers were fully integrated. The U.S. Army expanded the model to C4I when it recognized the vital role played by automated computer equipment to send and receive large, bulky amounts of data. In the modern world, most nations attempt to minimize the risk of war caused by miscommunication or inadequate communication. As a result, military communication is intense and complicated and often motivates the development of advanced technology for remote systems such as satellites. Satellites have been improving and are being used more and more for communication. They are being made to have higher transmission capacity to help with their communication abilities. The military is upgrading satellites to be immune to interference during combat operations. This advancement will establish stable, high-quality information highways for long distance communication. Aircraft are also beneficial for communication, both crewed and uncrewed, as well as computers. Computers and their varied applications have revolutionized military comms. Although military communication is designed for warfare, it also supports intelligence-gathering and communication between adversaries, and thus sometimes prevents war. The six categories of military comms are: alert measurement systems cryptography military radio systems command and control signal corps network-centric warfare The alert measurement systems are various states of alertness or readiness for the armed forces used around the world during a state of war, act of terrorism or a military attack against a state. They are known by different acronyms, such as DEFCON, or defense readiness condition, used by the U.S. Armed Forces. Cryptography is the study of methods of converting messages to a form unreadable except to one who knows how to decrypt them. This ancient military comms art gained new importance with the rise of radio systems whose signals traveled far and were easily intercepted. Cryptographic software is also widely used in civilian commerce. == Commercial refile == In United States military communications systems, commercial refile refers to sending a military message via a commercial communications network. The message may come from a military network, such as a tape relay network, a point-to-point telegraph network, a radio-telegraph network, or the Defense Switched Network. Commercial refiling of a message will usually require a reformatting of the message, particularly the heading.
Greedy embedding
In distributed computing and geometric graph theory, greedy embedding is a process of assigning coordinates to the nodes of a telecommunications network in order to allow greedy geographic routing to be used to route messages within the network. Although greedy embedding has been proposed for use in wireless sensor networks, in which the nodes already have positions in physical space, these existing positions may differ from the positions given to them by greedy embedding, which may in some cases be points in a virtual space of a higher dimension, or in a non-Euclidean geometry. In this sense, greedy embedding may be viewed as a form of graph drawing, in which an abstract graph (the communications network) is embedded into a geometric space. The idea of performing geographic routing using coordinates in a virtual space, instead of using physical coordinates, is due to Rao et al. Subsequent developments have shown that every network has a greedy embedding with succinct vertex coordinates in the hyperbolic plane, that certain graphs including the polyhedral graphs have greedy embeddings in the Euclidean plane, and that unit disk graphs have greedy embeddings in Euclidean spaces of moderate dimensions with low stretch factors. == Definitions == In greedy routing, a message from a source node s to a destination node t travels to its destination by a sequence of steps through intermediate nodes, each of which passes the message on to a neighboring node that is closer to t. If the message reaches an intermediate node x that does not have a neighbor closer to t, then it cannot make progress and the greedy routing process fails. A greedy embedding is an embedding of the given graph with the property that a failure of this type is impossible. Thus, it can be characterized as an embedding of the graph with the property that for every two nodes x and t, there exists a neighbor y of x such that d(x,t) > d(y,t), where d denotes the distance in the embedded space. == Graphs with no greedy embedding == Not every graph has a greedy embedding into the Euclidean plane; a simple counterexample is given by the star K1,6, a tree with one internal node and six leaves. Whenever this graph is embedded into the plane, some two of its leaves must form an angle of 60 degrees or less, from which it follows that at least one of these two leaves does not have a neighbor that is closer to the other leaf. In Euclidean spaces of higher dimensions, more graphs may have greedy embeddings; for instance, K1,6 has a greedy embedding into three-dimensional Euclidean space, in which the internal node of the star is at the origin and the leaves are a unit distance away along each coordinate axis. However, for every Euclidean space of fixed dimension, there are graphs that cannot be embedded greedily: whenever the number n is greater than the kissing number of the space, the graph K1,n has no greedy embedding. == Hyperbolic and succinct embeddings == Unlike the case for the Euclidean plane, every network has a greedy embedding into the hyperbolic plane. The original proof of this result, by Robert Kleinberg, required the node positions to be specified with high precision, but subsequently it was shown that, by using a heavy path decomposition of a spanning tree of the network, it is possible to represent each node succinctly, using only a logarithmic number of bits per point. In contrast, there exist graphs that have greedy embeddings in the Euclidean plane, but for which any such embedding requires a polynomial number of bits for the Cartesian coordinates of each point. == Special classes of graphs == === Trees === The class of trees that admit greedy embeddings into the Euclidean plane has been completely characterized, and a greedy embedding of a tree can be found in linear time when it exists. For more general graphs, some greedy embedding algorithms such as the one by Kleinberg start by finding a spanning tree of the given graph, and then construct a greedy embedding of the spanning tree. The result is necessarily also a greedy embedding of the whole graph. However, there exist graphs that have a greedy embedding in the Euclidean plane but for which no spanning tree has a greedy embedding. === Planar graphs === Papadimitriou & Ratajczak (2005) conjectured that every polyhedral graph (a 3-vertex-connected planar graph, or equivalently by Steinitz's theorem the graph of a convex polyhedron) has a greedy embedding into the Euclidean plane. By exploiting the properties of cactus graphs, Leighton & Moitra (2010) proved the conjecture; the greedy embeddings of these graphs can be defined succinctly, with logarithmically many bits per coordinate. However, the greedy embeddings constructed according to this proof are not necessarily planar embeddings, as they may include crossings between pairs of edges. For maximal planar graphs, in which every face is a triangle, a greedy planar embedding can be found by applying the Knaster–Kuratowski–Mazurkiewicz lemma to a weighted version of a straight-line embedding algorithm of Schnyder. The strong Papadimitriou–Ratajczak conjecture, that every polyhedral graph has a planar greedy embedding in which all faces are convex, remains unproven. === Unit disk graphs === The wireless sensor networks that are the target of greedy embedding algorithms are frequently modeled as unit disk graphs, graphs in which each node is represented as a unit disk and each edge corresponds to a pair of disks with nonempty intersection. For this special class of graphs, it is possible to find succinct greedy embeddings into a Euclidean space of polylogarithmic dimension, with the additional property that distances in the graph are accurately approximated by distances in the embedding, so that the paths followed by greedy routing are short.
Content strategy
Content strategy guides the planning, development, and management of content. It is a recognized field in user experience design, and it also draws from adjacent disciplines such as information architecture, content management, business analysis, digital marketing, and technical communication. == Definitions == Content strategy has been described as planning for "the creation, publication, and governance of useful, usable content." It has also been called "a repeatable system that defines the entire editorial content development process for a website development project." In a 2007 article titled "Content Strategy: The Philosophy of Data," Rachel Lovinger describes the goal of content strategy as using "words and data to create unambiguous content that supports meaningful, interactive experiences." Here, she also provided the analogy that "content strategy is to copywriting as information architecture is to design." She encourages content strategists and collaborators to engage in early discussions about content meaning, models, and tools, to make sure strategy is integrated from the start rather than as an afterthought. The Content Strategy Alliance combines Kevin Nichols' definition with Kristina Halvorson's and defines content strategy as "getting the right content to the right user at the right time through strategic planning of content creation, delivery, and governance." == Practitioners == Content strategists are often familiar with a wide range of approaches, techniques, and tools. The perspectives that content strategists bring also depend heavily on their professional training and education. For instance, some specialize in "front-end strategy," which includes developing personas, journey mapping the user experience, aligning business strategy and user needs, developing a brand strategy, exploring different channels, and creating style guidelines and search engine optimization (SEO) guidelines. Others specialize in "back-end strategy," which includes creating content models, planning taxonomies and metadata, structuring content management systems, and building systems to support content reuse. Both roles involve addressing workflow and governance issues. Many organizations and individuals tend to confuse content strategists with editors. However, content strategy is "about more than just the written word," according to Washington State University associate professor Brett Atwood. For example, Atwood indicates that a practitioner needs to also "consider how content might be re-distributed and/or re-purposed in other channels of delivery." It has also been proposed that the content strategist performs the role of a curator. Just as a museum curator sifts through a collection of content and identifies key pieces that can be juxtaposed against each other to create meaning and spur excitement, a content strategist "must approach a business’s content as a medium that needs to be strategically selected and placed to engage the audience, convey a message, and inspire action."
Photometric stereo
Photometric stereo is a technique in computer vision for estimating the surface normals of objects by observing that object under different lighting conditions (photometry). It is based on the fact that the amount of light reflected by a surface is dependent on the orientation of the surface in relation to the light source and the observer. By measuring the amount of light reflected into a camera, the space of possible surface orientations is limited. Given enough light sources from different angles, the surface orientation may be constrained to a single orientation or even overconstrained. The technique was originally introduced by Woodham in 1980. The special case where the data is a single image is known as shape from shading, and was analyzed by B. K. P. Horn in 1989. Photometric stereo has since been generalized to many other situations, including extended light sources and non-Lambertian surface finishes. Current research aims to make the method work in the presence of projected shadows, highlights, and non-uniform lighting. Photometric stereo is widely used in various fields, including archaeology, cultural heritage conservation, and quality control. It is now integrated into widely used open-source software, such as Meshroom. == Basic method == Under Woodham's original assumptions — Lambertian reflectance, known point-like distant light sources, and uniform albedo — the problem can be solved by inverting the linear equation I = L ⋅ n {\displaystyle I=L\cdot n} , where I {\displaystyle I} is a (known) vector of m {\displaystyle m} observed intensities, n {\displaystyle n} is the (unknown) surface normal, and L {\displaystyle L} is a (known) 3 × m {\displaystyle 3\times m} matrix of normalized light directions. This model can easily be extended to surfaces with non-uniform albedo, while keeping the problem linear. Taking an albedo reflectivity of k {\displaystyle k} , the formula for the reflected light intensity becomes I = k ( L ⋅ n ) . {\displaystyle I=k(L\cdot n).} If L {\displaystyle L} is square (there are exactly 3 lights) and non-singular, it can be inverted, giving L − 1 I = k n . {\displaystyle L^{-1}I=kn.} Since the normal vector is known to have length 1, k {\displaystyle k} must be the length of the vector k n {\displaystyle kn} , and n {\displaystyle n} is the normalised direction of that vector. If L {\displaystyle L} is not square (there are more than 3 lights), a generalisation of the inverse can be obtained using the Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse, by simply multiplying both sides with L T {\displaystyle L^{T}} , giving L T I = L T k ( L ⋅ n ) , {\displaystyle L^{T}I=L^{T}k(L\cdot n),} ( L T L ) − 1 L T I = k n , {\displaystyle (L^{T}L)^{-1}L^{T}I=kn,} after which the normal vector and albedo can be solved as described above. == Non-Lambertian surfaces == The classical photometric stereo problem concerns itself only with Lambertian surfaces, with perfectly diffuse reflection. This is unrealistic for many types of materials, especially metals, glass and smooth plastics, and will lead to aberrations in the resulting normal vectors. Many methods have been developed to lift this assumption. In this section, a few of these are listed. === Specular reflections === Historically, in computer graphics, the commonly used model to render surfaces started with Lambertian surfaces and progressed first to include simple specular reflections. Computer vision followed a similar course with photometric stereo. Specular reflections were among the first deviations from the Lambertian model. These are a few adaptations that have been developed. Many techniques ultimately rely on modelling the reflectance function of the surface, that is, how much light is reflected in each direction. This reflectance function has to be invertible. The reflected light intensities towards the camera is measured, and the inverse reflectance function is fit onto the measured intensities, resulting in a unique solution for the normal vector. === General BRDFs and beyond === According to the Bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) model, a surface may distribute the amount of light it receives in any outward direction. This is the most general known model for opaque surfaces. Some techniques have been developed to model (almost) general BRDFs. In practice, all of these require many light sources to obtain reliable data. These are methods in which surfaces with general BRDFs can be measured. Determine the explicit BRDF prior to scanning. To do this, a different surface is required that has the same or a very similar BRDF, of which the actual geometry (or at least the normal vectors for many points on the surface) is already known. The lights are then individually shone upon the known surface, and the amount of reflection into the camera is measured. Using this information, a look-up table can be created that maps reflected intensities for each light source to a list of possible normal vectors. This puts constraints on the possible normal vectors the surface may have, and reduces the photometric stereo problem to an interpolation between measurements. Typical known surfaces to calibrate the look-up table with are spheres for their wide variety of surface orientations. Restricting the BRDF to be symmetrical. If the BRDF is symmetrical, the direction of the light can be restricted to a cone about the direction to the camera. Which cone this is depends on the BRDF itself, the normal vector of the surface, and the measured intensity. Given enough measured intensities and the resulting light directions, these cones can be approximated and therefore the normal vectors of the surface. Some progress has been made towards modelling an even more general surfaces, such as Spatially Varying Bidirectional Distribution Functions (SVBRDF), Bidirectional surface scattering reflectance distribution functions (BSSRDF), and accounting for interreflections. However, such methods are still fairly restrictive in photometric stereo. Better results have been achieved with structured light. == Uncalibrated photometric stereo == Uncalibrated Photometric Stereo is an approach in photometric stereo that aims to reconstruct the 3D shape of an object from images captured under unknown lighting conditions. Unlike classical methods, which often assume controlled or known lighting setups, this approach removes these constraints, making it adaptable to diverse and real-world environments. The advent of deep learning has revolutionized universal PS by replacing handcrafted assumptions with data-driven models. Recent approaches leverage Transformer-based architectures and multi-scale encoder–decoder networks to directly estimate surface normals from input images. Uncalibrated Photometric Stereo is inherently an ill-posed problem, as it attempts to recover 3D shape and lighting conditions simultaneously from images alone. This leads to fundamental ambiguities in the reconstruction process, which manifest as systematic errors in the recovered geometry, including global distortions in the object's overall shape, and misinterpretation of surface orientation, where concave regions may appear convex and vice versa. To address the challenges of uncalibrated photometric stereo, hybrid methods have emerged that combine multi-view stereo and photometric stereo. These approaches leverage the strengths of both techniques, including geometric reliability and resolution.
Signal-to-crosstalk ratio
The signal-to-crosstalk ratio at a specified point in a circuit is the ratio of the power of the wanted signal to the power of the unwanted signal from another channel. The signals are adjusted in each channel so that they are of equal power at the zero transmission level point in their respective channels. The signal-to-crosstalk ratio is usually expressed in dB.