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

VoxForge

VoxForge is a free speech corpus and acoustic model repository for open source speech recognition engines. VoxForge was set up to collect transcribed speech to create a free GPL speech corpus in order to be uses with open source speech recognition engines. The speech audio files will be 'compiled' into acoustic models for use with open source speech recognition engines such as Julius, ISIP, and Sphinx and HTK (note: HTK has distribution restrictions). VoxForge has used LibriVox as a source of audio data since 2007.

Semidefinite embedding

Maximum Variance Unfolding (MVU), also known as Semidefinite Embedding (SDE), is an algorithm in computer science that uses semidefinite programming to perform non-linear dimensionality reduction of high-dimensional vectorial input data. It is motivated by the observation that kernel Principal Component Analysis (kPCA) does not reduce the data dimensionality, as it leverages the Kernel trick to non-linearly map the original data into an inner-product space. == Algorithm == MVU creates a mapping from the high dimensional input vectors to some low dimensional Euclidean vector space in the following steps: A neighbourhood graph is created. Each input is connected with its k-nearest input vectors (according to Euclidean distance metric) and all k-nearest neighbors are connected with each other. If the data is sampled well enough, the resulting graph is a discrete approximation of the underlying manifold. The neighbourhood graph is "unfolded" with the help of semidefinite programming. Instead of learning the output vectors directly, the semidefinite programming aims to find an inner product matrix that maximizes the pairwise distances between any two inputs that are not connected in the neighbourhood graph while preserving the nearest neighbors distances. The low-dimensional embedding is finally obtained by application of multidimensional scaling on the learned inner product matrix. The steps of applying semidefinite programming followed by a linear dimensionality reduction step to recover a low-dimensional embedding into a Euclidean space were first proposed by Linial, London, and Rabinovich. == Optimization formulation == Let X {\displaystyle X\,\!} be the original input and Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} be the embedding. If i , j {\displaystyle i,j\,\!} are two neighbors, then the local isometry constraint that needs to be satisfied is: | X i − X j | 2 = | Y i − Y j | 2 {\displaystyle |X_{i}-X_{j}|^{2}=|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\,\!} Let G , K {\displaystyle G,K\,\!} be the Gram matrices of X {\displaystyle X\,\!} and Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} (i.e.: G i j = X i ⋅ X j , K i j = Y i ⋅ Y j {\displaystyle G_{ij}=X_{i}\cdot X_{j},K_{ij}=Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}\,\!} ). We can express the above constraint for every neighbor points i , j {\displaystyle i,j\,\!} in term of G , K {\displaystyle G,K\,\!} : G i i + G j j − G i j − G j i = K i i + K j j − K i j − K j i {\displaystyle G_{ii}+G_{jj}-G_{ij}-G_{ji}=K_{ii}+K_{jj}-K_{ij}-K_{ji}\,\!} In addition, we also want to constrain the embedding Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} to center at the origin: 0 = | ∑ i Y i | 2 ⇔ ( ∑ i Y i ) ⋅ ( ∑ i Y i ) ⇔ ∑ i , j Y i ⋅ Y j ⇔ ∑ i , j K i j {\displaystyle 0=|\sum _{i}Y_{i}|^{2}\Leftrightarrow (\sum _{i}Y_{i})\cdot (\sum _{i}Y_{i})\Leftrightarrow \sum _{i,j}Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}\Leftrightarrow \sum _{i,j}K_{ij}} As described above, except the distances of neighbor points are preserved, the algorithm aims to maximize the pairwise distance of every pair of points. The objective function to be maximized is: T ( Y ) = 1 2 N ∑ i , j | Y i − Y j | 2 {\displaystyle T(Y)={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}} Intuitively, maximizing the function above is equivalent to pulling the points as far away from each other as possible and therefore "unfold" the manifold. The local isometry constraint Let τ = m a x { η i j | Y i − Y j | 2 } {\displaystyle \tau =max\{\eta _{ij}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\}\,\!} where η i j := { 1 if i is a neighbour of j 0 otherwise . {\displaystyle \eta _{ij}:={\begin{cases}1&{\mbox{if}}\ i{\mbox{ is a neighbour of }}j\\0&{\mbox{otherwise}}.\end{cases}}} prevents the objective function from diverging (going to infinity). Since the graph has N points, the distance between any two points | Y i − Y j | 2 ≤ N τ {\displaystyle |Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\leq N\tau \,\!} . We can then bound the objective function as follows: T ( Y ) = 1 2 N ∑ i , j | Y i − Y j | 2 ≤ 1 2 N ∑ i , j ( N τ ) 2 = N 3 τ 2 2 {\displaystyle T(Y)={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\leq {\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}(N\tau )^{2}={\dfrac {N^{3}\tau ^{2}}{2}}\,\!} The objective function can be rewritten purely in the form of the Gram matrix: T ( Y ) = 1 2 N ∑ i , j | Y i − Y j | 2 = 1 2 N ∑ i , j ( Y i 2 + Y j 2 − Y i ⋅ Y j − Y j ⋅ Y i ) = 1 2 N ( ∑ i , j Y i 2 + ∑ i , j Y j 2 − ∑ i , j Y i ⋅ Y j − ∑ i , j Y j ⋅ Y i ) = 1 2 N ( ∑ i , j Y i 2 + ∑ i , j Y j 2 − 0 − 0 ) = 1 N ( ∑ i Y i 2 ) = 1 N ( T r ( K ) ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}T(Y)&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}(Y_{i}^{2}+Y_{j}^{2}-Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}-Y_{j}\cdot Y_{i})\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}(\sum _{i,j}Y_{i}^{2}+\sum _{i,j}Y_{j}^{2}-\sum _{i,j}Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}-\sum _{i,j}Y_{j}\cdot Y_{i})\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}(\sum _{i,j}Y_{i}^{2}+\sum _{i,j}Y_{j}^{2}-0-0)\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{N}}(\sum _{i}Y_{i}^{2})={\dfrac {1}{N}}(Tr(K))\\\end{aligned}}\,\!} Finally, the optimization can be formulated as: Maximize T r ( K ) subject to K ⪰ 0 , ∑ i j K i j = 0 and G i i + G j j − G i j − G j i = K i i + K j j − K i j − K j i , ∀ i , j where η i j = 1 , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\text{Maximize}}&&Tr(\mathbf {K} )\\&{\text{subject to}}&&\mathbf {K} \succeq 0,\sum _{ij}\mathbf {K} _{ij}=0\\&{\text{and}}&&G_{ii}+G_{jj}-G_{ij}-G_{ji}=K_{ii}+K_{jj}-K_{ij}-K_{ji},\forall i,j{\mbox{ where }}\eta _{ij}=1,\end{aligned}}} After the Gram matrix K {\displaystyle K\,\!} is learned by semidefinite programming, the output Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} can be obtained via Cholesky decomposition. In particular, the Gram matrix can be written as K i j = ∑ α = 1 N ( λ α V α i V α j ) {\displaystyle K_{ij}=\sum _{\alpha =1}^{N}(\lambda _{\alpha }V_{\alpha i}V_{\alpha j})\,\!} where V α i {\displaystyle V_{\alpha i}\,\!} is the i-th element of eigenvector V α {\displaystyle V_{\alpha }\,\!} of the eigenvalue λ α {\displaystyle \lambda _{\alpha }\,\!} . It follows that the α {\displaystyle \alpha \,\!} -th element of the output Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}\,\!} is λ α V α i {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\lambda _{\alpha }}}V_{\alpha i}\,\!} .

Bioz

Bioz is a search engine for life science experimentation. == History == Bioz was founded by Karin Lachmi and Daniel Levitt. Lachmi is a scientist who completed her postdoc in molecular and cellular biology at the Stanford University School of Medicine. During her lab work she found little available data regarding preferable lab tools, reagents and related products for experimentation. There are 50,000 vendors selling 300 million scientific products. She decided to start the company in order to provide researchers with adequate information for that purpose. Co-founder Daniel Levitt is an entrepreneur who sold his company WebAppoint to Microsoft in the year 2000. He also co-founded the company StemRad. At Bioz, Lachmi serves as the Chief Scientific Officer and Levitt serves as the chief executive officer. Bioz claims to have over a million researcher-users from 196 countries. Among the investors are Esther Dyson and the Stanford-StartX Fund. The company's advisory board includes Nobel Laureates in Chemistry Michael Levitt, Roger Kornberg, and Ada Yonath. == Technology == The company uses artificial intelligence, machine learning and natural language processing in order to extract experimentation data from scientific articles, such as the products that researchers used, the companies that supply the products, the protocol conditions that researchers selected, and the types of experiments and techniques. The algorithm ranks products based on how frequently they were used by researchers in their experiments, how recently a product was used, and the impact factor of the journal. The algorithm's output is a Bioz stars score for each product that was mentioned in an article. Bioz is a data-driven platform for product recommendations, which is contrary to platforms such as TripAdvisor and OpenTable that are based on user-generated reviews and ratings. The recommendations and scoring system that the company has developed are meant to assist researchers with the process of developing future medications and finding cures for diseases. They are guided towards products and techniques that were previously used by other researchers when planning and performing experiments. The company's revenue is based on selling SaaS subscriptions to researchers in biopharma companies. They also charge product suppliers for content syndication.

Quadratic unconstrained binary optimization

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

PhyCV

PhyCV is the first computer vision library which utilizes algorithms directly derived from the equations of physics governing physical phenomena. The algorithms appearing in the first release emulate the propagation of light through a physical medium with natural and engineered diffractive properties followed by coherent detection. Unlike traditional algorithms that are a sequence of hand-crafted empirical rules, physics-inspired algorithms leverage physical laws of nature as blueprints. In addition, these algorithms can, in principle, be implemented in real physical devices for fast and efficient computation in the form of analog computing. Currently PhyCV has three algorithms, Phase-Stretch Transform (PST) and Phase-Stretch Adaptive Gradient-Field Extractor (PAGE), and Vision Enhancement via Virtual diffraction and coherent Detection (VEViD). All algorithms have CPU and GPU versions. PhyCV is now available on GitHub and can be installed from pip. == History == Algorithms in PhyCV are inspired by the physics of the photonic time stretch (a hardware technique for ultrafast and single-shot data acquisition). PST is an edge detection algorithm that was open-sourced in 2016 and has 800+ stars and 200+ forks on GitHub. PAGE is a directional edge detection algorithm that was open-sourced in February, 2022. PhyCV was originally developed and open-sourced by Jalali-Lab @ UCLA in May 2022. In the initial release of PhyCV, the original open-sourced code of PST and PAGE is significantly refactored and improved to be modular, more efficient, GPU-accelerated and object-oriented. VEViD is a low-light and color enhancement algorithm that was added to PhyCV in November 2022. == Background == === Phase-Stretch Transform (PST) === Phase-Stretch Transform (PST) is a computationally efficient edge and texture detection algorithm with exceptional performance in visually impaired images. The algorithm transforms the image by emulating propagation of light through a device with engineered diffractive property followed by coherent detection. It has been applied in improving the resolution of MRI image, extracting blood vessels in retina images, dolphin identification, and waste water treatment, single molecule biological imaging, and classification of UAV using micro Doppler imaging. === Phase-Stretch Adaptive Gradient-Field Extractor (PAGE) === Phase-Stretch Adaptive Gradient-Field Extractor (PAGE) is a physics-inspired algorithm for detecting edges and their orientations in digital images at various scales. The algorithm is based on the diffraction equations of optics. Metaphorically speaking, PAGE emulates the physics of birefringent (orientation-dependent) diffractive propagation through a physical device with a specific diffractive structure. The propagation converts a real-valued image into a complex function. Related information is contained in the real and imaginary components of the output. The output represents the phase of the complex function. === Vision Enhancement via Virtual diffraction and coherent Detection (VEViD) === Vision Enhancement via Virtual diffraction and coherent Detection (VEViD) an efficient and interpretable low-light and color enhancement algorithm that reimagines a digital image as a spatially varying metaphoric light field and then subjects the field to the physical processes akin to diffraction and coherent detection. The term “Virtual” captures the deviation from the physical world. The light field is pixelated and the propagation imparts a phase with an arbitrary dependence on frequency which can be different from the quadratic behavior of physical diffraction. VEViD can be further accelerated through mathematical approximations that reduce the computation time without appreciable sacrifice in image quality. A closed-form approximation for VEViD which we call VEViD-lite can achieve up to 200 FPS for 4K video enhancement. == PhyCV on the Edge == Featuring low-dimensionality and high-efficiency, PhyCV is ideal for edge computing applications. In this section, we demonstrate running PhyCV on NVIDIA Jetson Nano in real-time. === NVIDIA Jetson Nano Developer Kit === NVIDIA Jetson Nano Developer Kit is a small- sized and power-efficient platform for edge computing applications. It is equipped with an NVIDIA Maxwell architecture GPU with 128 CUDA cores, a quad-core ARM Cortex-A57 CPU, 4GB 64-bit LPDDR4 RAM, and supports video encoding and decoding up to 4K resolution. Jetson Nano also offers a variety of interfaces for connectivity and expansion, making it ideal for a wide range of AI and IoT applications. In our setup, we connect a USB camera to the Jetson Nano to acquire videos and demonstrate using PhyCV to process the videos in real-time. === Real-time PhyCV on Jetson Nano === We use the Jetson Nano (4GB) with NVIDIA JetPack SDK version 4.6.1, which comes with pre- installed Python 3.6, CUDA 10.2, and OpenCV 4.1.1. We further install PyTorch 1.10 to enable the GPU accelerated PhyCV. We demonstrate the results and metrics of running PhyCV on Jetson Nano in real-time for edge detection and low-light enhancement tasks. For 480p videos, both operations achieve beyond 38 FPS, which is sufficient for most cameras that capture videos at 30 FPS. For 720p videos, PhyCV low-light enhancement can operate at 24 FPS and PhyCV edge detection can operate at 17 FPS. == Highlights == === Modular Code Architecture === The code in PhyCV has a modular design which faithfully follows the physical process from which the algorithm was originated. Both PST and PAGE modules in the PhyCV library emulate the propagation of the input signal (original digital image) through a device with engineered diffractive property followed by coherent (phase) detection. The dispersive propagation applies a phase kernel to the frequency domain of the original image. This process has three steps in general, loading the image, initializing the kernel and applying the kernel. In the implementation of PhyCV, each algorithm is represented as a class in Python and each class has methods that simulate the steps described above. The modular code architecture follows the physics behind the algorithm. Please refer to the source code on GitHub for more details. === GPU Acceleration === PhyCV supports GPU acceleration. The GPU versions of PST and PAGE are built on PyTorch accelerated by the CUDA toolkit. The acceleration is beneficial for applying the algorithms in real-time image video processing and other deep learning tasks. The running time per frame of PhyCV algorithms on CPU (Intel i9-9900K) and GPU (NVIDIA TITAN RTX) for videos at different resolutions are shown below. Note that the PhyCV low-light enhancement operates in the HSV color space, so the running time also includes RGB to HSV conversion. However, for all running times using GPUs, we ignore the time of moving data from CPUs to GPUs and count the algorithm operation time only. == Installation and Examples == Please refer to the GitHub README file for a detailed technical documentation. == Current Limitations == === I/O (Input/Output) Bottleneck for Real-time Video Processing === When dealing with real-time video streams from cameras, the frames are captured and buffered in CPU and have to be moved to GPU to run the GPU-accelerated PhyCV algorithms. This process is time-consuming and it is a common bottleneck for real-time video-processing algorithms. === Lack of Parameter Adaptivity for Different Images === Currently, the parameters of PhyCV algorithms have to be manually tuned for different images. Although a set of pre-selected parameters work relatively well for a wide range of images, the lack of parameter adaptivity for different images remains a limitation for now.

Quadratic classifier

In statistics, a quadratic classifier is a statistical classifier that uses a quadratic decision surface to separate measurements of two or more classes of objects or events. It is a more general version of the linear classifier. == The classification problem == Statistical classification considers a set of vectors of observations x of an object or event, each of which has a known type y. This set is referred to as the training set. The problem is then to determine, for a given new observation vector, what the best class should be. For a quadratic classifier, the correct solution is assumed to be quadratic in the measurements, so y will be decided based on x T A x + b T x + c {\displaystyle \mathbf {x^{T}Ax} +\mathbf {b^{T}x} +c} In the special case where each observation consists of two measurements, this means that the surfaces separating the classes will be conic sections (i.e., either a line, a circle or ellipse, a parabola or a hyperbola). In this sense, we can state that a quadratic model is a generalization of the linear model, and its use is justified by the desire to extend the classifier's ability to represent more complex separating surfaces. == Quadratic discriminant analysis == Quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA) is closely related to linear discriminant analysis (LDA), where it is assumed that the measurements from each class are normally distributed. Unlike LDA however, in QDA there is no assumption that the covariance of each of the classes is identical. When the normality assumption is true, the best possible test for the hypothesis that a given measurement is from a given class is the likelihood ratio test. Suppose there are only two groups, with means μ 0 , μ 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{0},\mu _{1}} and covariance matrices Σ 0 , Σ 1 {\displaystyle \Sigma _{0},\Sigma _{1}} corresponding to y = 0 {\displaystyle y=0} and y = 1 {\displaystyle y=1} respectively. Then the likelihood ratio is given by Likelihood ratio = | 2 π Σ 1 | − 1 exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ( x − μ 1 ) T Σ 1 − 1 ( x − μ 1 ) ) | 2 π Σ 0 | − 1 exp ⁡ ( − 1 2 ( x − μ 0 ) T Σ 0 − 1 ( x − μ 0 ) ) < t {\displaystyle {\text{Likelihood ratio}}={\frac {{\sqrt {|2\pi \Sigma _{1}|}}^{-1}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{1})^{T}\Sigma _{1}^{-1}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{1})\right)}{{\sqrt {|2\pi \Sigma _{0}|}}^{-1}\exp \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{0})^{T}\Sigma _{0}^{-1}(\mathbf {x} -{\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{0})\right)}}