NationBuilder is a Los Angeles-based technology start-up that develops content management and customer relationship management (CRM) software. Although the company initially targeted political campaigns and nonprofit organizations, it later expanded its marketing efforts to include other people and organizations trying to build an online following, such as artists, musicians and restaurants. The software uses voter data such as names, addresses and other information, such as previous voting records in the case of political campaigns, to allow users to centralize, build and manage campaigns by integrating various communication tools like websites, newsletters, text messaging and social media channels under one platform. Among other features, the software enables users to quickly create websites, build databases through registrations, send targeted newsletters, analyse data from multiple sources and leverage micro-donations. The software's appeal towards political campaigns comes from the combination of a number of previously separate campaigning services, channels and data sources into a single platform that was presented as a facile solution for non-technical users and which enabled political campaigners to quickly deploy campaigns by convincing numerous people to donate. == History == NationBuilder was founded in 2009 in Los Angeles by Jim Gilliam and launched in 2011. In 2012 Joe Green joined NationBuilder as co-founder and president. He left that role 11 months later in February 2013. Gilliam was previously a movie-maker who co-founded Brave New Films with Robert Greenwald and had sought funding for his films through crowd-sourcing. Green, who studied organizing at Harvard and was Mark Zuckerberg's roommate, is also the co-founder of the Causes Facebook app; he left NationBuilder in 2013. Since its founding, the company has helped campaigns raise $1.2 billion. In 2012, NationBuilder announced that 1,000 subscribers have used its software to amass 2.5 million supporters and raise $12 million in campaign donations. In 2015 it has helped raise $264 million, recruit over one million volunteers and coordinate some 129,000 events. By 2016, the company said its software was used by about 40 percent of all contested elections at the state and national level in the U.S., which included 3,000 political campaigns. Using such software is easier in the U.S. than Europe, where comprehensive data protection and privacy laws are in effect since 2018. The Scottish National Party was the first political party to use NationBuilder, harvesting vast amounts of data pertaining to voter activity via websites such as Facebook and Twitter. This revelation prompted outrage over privacy concerns. Guy Herbert of the No2ID campaign called the use of such data harvesting tools by the SNP "utterly hypocritical". == Funding == Investors in NationBuilder include Chris Hughes - the Facebook co-founder, Sean Parker - first president of Facebook and co-founder of Napster and Causes, Dan Senor - the former Republican foreign-policy adviser and Ben Horowitz, co-founder of Andreessen Horowitz. In 2012, it has raised $6.3 million in funding from a number of investors. == Notable implementations == The software is reported to have played a role in some public elections in Europe, the US and New Zealand, as well as non-profit initiatives, and political parties in Australia. Notable users include Bernie Sanders, Mitch McConnell, Andrew Yang, Theresa May, Amnesty International, the NAACP and Donald Trump. === France === La République En Marche used NationBuilder in their campaign for the 2017 National Assembly. === New Zealand === NationBuilder's services are used by New Zealand political parties, including in the campaigns of both the National and Labour parties in the 2017 general election. === United Kingdom === Despite stricter data protection and privacy laws in the UK and EU, NationBuilder was used to significant impact in a number of UK elections, most notably in the 2016 campaign for withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. The company later made a public announcement that both sides in that campaign had used its software. === United States === NationBuilder was used in the Donald Trump presidential campaign to advance his election efforts and eventually win the 2016 presidential race. Jill Stein of the Green Party, Republican Rick Santorum, and independent supporters of various candidates all used NationBuilder during their 2016 runs for president. During the 2018 US election cycle, political entities paid more than $1 million for the use of NationBuilder. Among the entities paying the most were Donald J. Trump for President, Prosperity Action and the Republican Party of Tennessee.
Visual servoing
Visual servoing, also known as vision-based robot control and abbreviated VS, is a technique which uses feedback information extracted from a vision sensor (visual feedback) to control the motion of a robot. One of the earliest papers that talks about visual servoing was from the SRI International Labs in 1979. == Visual servoing taxonomy == There are two fundamental configurations of the robot end-effector (hand) and the camera: Eye-in-hand, or end-point open-loop control, where the camera is attached to the moving hand and observing the relative position of the target. Eye-to-hand, or end-point closed-loop control, where the camera is fixed in the world and observing the target and the motion of the hand. Visual Servoing control techniques are broadly classified into the following types: Image-based (IBVS) Position/pose-based (PBVS) Hybrid approach IBVS was proposed by Weiss and Sanderson. The control law is based on the error between current and desired features on the image plane, and does not involve any estimate of the pose of the target. The features may be the coordinates of visual features, lines or moments of regions. IBVS has difficulties with motions very large rotations, which has come to be called camera retreat. PBVS is a model-based technique (with a single camera). This is because the pose of the object of interest is estimated with respect to the camera and then a command is issued to the robot controller, which in turn controls the robot. In this case the image features are extracted as well, but are additionally used to estimate 3D information (pose of the object in Cartesian space), hence it is servoing in 3D. Hybrid approaches use some combination of the 2D and 3D servoing. There have been a few different approaches to hybrid servoing 2-1/2-D Servoing Motion partition-based Partitioned DOF Based == Survey == The following description of the prior work is divided into 3 parts Survey of existing visual servoing methods. Various features used and their impacts on visual servoing. Error and stability analysis of visual servoing schemes. === Survey of existing visual servoing methods === Visual servo systems, also called servoing, have been around since the early 1980s , although the term visual servo itself was only coined in 1987. Visual Servoing is, in essence, a method for robot control where the sensor used is a camera (visual sensor). Servoing consists primarily of two techniques, one involves using information from the image to directly control the degrees of freedom (DOF) of the robot, thus referred to as Image Based Visual Servoing (IBVS). While the other involves the geometric interpretation of the information extracted from the camera, such as estimating the pose of the target and parameters of the camera (assuming some basic model of the target is known). Other servoing classifications exist based on the variations in each component of a servoing system , e.g. the location of the camera, the two kinds are eye-in-hand and hand–eye configurations. Based on the control loop, the two kinds are end-point-open-loop and end-point-closed-loop. Based on whether the control is applied to the joints (or DOF) directly or as a position command to a robot controller the two types are direct servoing and dynamic look-and-move. Being one of the earliest works the authors proposed a hierarchical visual servo scheme applied to image-based servoing. The technique relies on the assumption that a good set of features can be extracted from the object of interest (e.g. edges, corners and centroids) and used as a partial model along with global models of the scene and robot. The control strategy is applied to a simulation of a two and three DOF robot arm. Feddema et al. introduced the idea of generating task trajectory with respect to the feature velocity. This is to ensure that the sensors are not rendered ineffective (stopping the feedback) for any the robot motions. The authors assume that the objects are known a priori (e.g. CAD model) and all the features can be extracted from the object. The work by Espiau et al. discusses some of the basic questions in visual servoing. The discussions concentrate on modeling of the interaction matrix, camera, visual features (points, lines, etc..). In an adaptive servoing system was proposed with a look-and-move servoing architecture. The method used optical flow along with SSD to provide a confidence metric and a stochastic controller with Kalman filtering for the control scheme. The system assumes (in the examples) that the plane of the camera and the plane of the features are parallel., discusses an approach of velocity control using the Jacobian relationship s˙ = Jv˙ . In addition the author uses Kalman filtering, assuming that the extracted position of the target have inherent errors (sensor errors). A model of the target velocity is developed and used as a feed-forward input in the control loop. Also, mentions the importance of looking into kinematic discrepancy, dynamic effects, repeatability, settling time oscillations and lag in response. Corke poses a set of very critical questions on visual servoing and tries to elaborate on their implications. The paper primarily focuses the dynamics of visual servoing. The author tries to address problems like lag and stability, while also talking about feed-forward paths in the control loop. The paper also, tries to seek justification for trajectory generation, methodology of axis control and development of performance metrics. Chaumette in provides good insight into the two major problems with IBVS. One, servoing to a local minima and second, reaching a Jacobian singularity. The author show that image points alone do not make good features due to the occurrence of singularities. The paper continues, by discussing the possible additional checks to prevent singularities namely, condition numbers of J_s and Jˆ+_s, to check the null space of ˆ J_s and J^T_s . One main point that the author highlights is the relation between local minima and unrealizable image feature motions. Over the years many hybrid techniques have been developed. These involve computing partial/complete pose from Epipolar Geometry using multiple views or multiple cameras. The values are obtained by direct estimation or through a learning or a statistical scheme. While others have used a switching approach that changes between image-based and position-based on a Lyapnov function. The early hybrid techniques that used a combination of image-based and pose-based (2D and 3D information) approaches for servoing required either a full or partial model of the object in order to extract the pose information and used a variety of techniques to extract the motion information from the image. used an affine motion model from the image motion in addition to a rough polyhedral CAD model to extract the object pose with respect to the camera to be able to servo onto the object (on the lines of PBVS). 2-1/2-D visual servoing developed by Malis et al. is a well known technique that breaks down the information required for servoing into an organized fashion which decouples rotations and translations. The papers assume that the desired pose is known a priori. The rotational information is obtained from partial pose estimation, a homography, (essentially 3D information) giving an axis of rotation and the angle (by computing the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the homography). The translational information is obtained from the image directly by tracking a set of feature points. The only conditions being that the feature points being tracked never leave the field of view and that a depth estimate be predetermined by some off-line technique. 2-1/2-D servoing has been shown to be more stable than the techniques that preceded it. Another interesting observation with this formulation is that the authors claim that the visual Jacobian will have no singularities during the motions. The hybrid technique developed by Corke and Hutchinson, popularly called portioned approach partitions the visual (or image) Jacobian into motions (both rotations and translations) relating X and Y axes and motions related to the Z axis. outlines the technique, to break out columns of the visual Jacobian that correspond to the Z axis translation and rotation (namely, the third and sixth columns). The partitioned approach is shown to handle the Chaumette Conundrum discussed in. This technique requires a good depth estimate in order to function properly. outlines a hybrid approach where the servoing task is split into two, namely main and secondary. The main task is keep the features of interest within the field of view. While the secondary task is to mark a fixation point and use it as a reference to bring the camera to the desired pose. The technique does need a depth estimate from an off-line procedure. The paper discusses two examples for which depth estimates are obtained from robot odometry and by assuming that all
Mating pool
Mating pool is a concept used in evolutionary algorithms and means a population of parents for the next population. The mating pool is formed by candidate solutions that the selection operators deem to have the highest fitness in the current population. Solutions that are included in the mating pool are referred to as parents. Individual solutions can be repeatedly included in the mating pool, with individuals of higher fitness values having a higher chance of being included multiple times. Crossover operators are then applied to the parents, resulting in recombination of genes recognized as superior. Lastly, random changes in the genes are introduced through mutation operators, increasing the genetic variation in the gene pool. Those two operators improve the chance of creating new, superior solutions. A new generation of solutions is thereby created, the children, who will constitute the next population. Depending on the selection method, the total number of parents in the mating pool can be different to the size of the initial population, resulting in a new population that’s smaller. To continue the algorithm with an equally sized population, random individuals from the old populations can be chosen and added to the new population. At this point, the fitness value of the new solutions is evaluated. If the termination conditions are fulfilled, processes come to an end. Otherwise, they are repeated. The repetition of the steps result in candidate solutions that evolve towards the most optimal solution over time. The genes will become increasingly uniform towards the most optimal gene, a process called convergence. If 95% of the population share the same version of a gene, the gene has converged. When all the individual fitness values have reached the value of the best individual, i.e. all the genes have converged, population convergence is achieved. == Mating pool creation == Several methods can be applied to create a mating pool. All of these processes involve the selective breeding of a particular number of individuals within a population. There are multiple criteria that can be employed to determine which individuals make it into the mating pool and which are left behind. The selection methods can be split into three general types: fitness proportionate selection, ordinal based selection and threshold based selection. === Fitness proportionate selection === In the case of fitness proportionate selection, random individuals are selected to enter the pool. However, the ones with a higher level of fitness are more likely to be picked and therefore have a greater chance of passing on their features to the next generation. One of the techniques used in this type of parental selection is the roulette wheel selection. This approach divides a hypothetical circular wheel into different slots, the size of which is equal to the fitness values of each potential candidate. Afterwards, the wheel is rotated and a fixed point determines which individual gets picked. The greater the fitness value of an individual, the higher the probability of being chosen as a parent by the random spin of the wheel. Alternatively, stochastic universal sampling can be implemented. This selection method is also based on the rotation of a spinning wheel. However, in this case there is more than one fixed point and as a result all of the mating pool members will be selected simultaneously. === Ordinal based selection === The ordinal based selection methods include the tournament and ranking selection. Tournament selection involves the random selection of individuals of a population and the subsequent comparison of their fitness levels. The winners of these “tournaments” are the ones with the highest values and will be put into the mating pool as parents. In ranking selection all the individuals are sorted based on their fitness values. Then, the selection of the parents is made according to the rank of the candidates. Every individual has a chance of being chosen, but higher ranked ones are favored === Threshold based selection === The last type of selection method is referred to as the threshold based method. This includes the truncation selection method, which sorts individuals based on their phenotypic values on a specific trait and later selects the proportion of them that are within a certain threshold as parents.
Polynomial kernel
In machine learning, the polynomial kernel is a kernel function commonly used with support vector machines (SVMs) and other kernelized models, that represents the similarity of vectors (training samples) in a feature space over polynomials of the original variables, allowing learning of non-linear models. Intuitively, the polynomial kernel looks not only at the given features of input samples to determine their similarity, but also combinations of these. In the context of regression analysis, such combinations are known as interaction features. The (implicit) feature space of a polynomial kernel is equivalent to that of polynomial regression, but without the combinatorial blowup in the number of parameters to be learned. When the input features are binary-valued (booleans), then the features correspond to logical conjunctions of input features. == Definition == For degree-d polynomials, the polynomial kernel is defined as K ( x , y ) = ( x T y + c ) d {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )=(\mathbf {x} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {y} +c)^{d}} where x and y are vectors of size n in the input space, i.e. vectors of features computed from training or test samples and c ≥ 0 is a free parameter trading off the influence of higher-order versus lower-order terms in the polynomial. When c = 0, the kernel is called homogeneous. (A further generalized polykernel divides xTy by a user-specified scalar parameter a.) As a kernel, K corresponds to an inner product in a feature space based on some mapping φ: K ( x , y ) = ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( y ) ⟩ {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )=\langle \varphi (\mathbf {x} ),\varphi (\mathbf {y} )\rangle } The nature of φ can be seen from an example. Let d = 2, so we get the special case of the quadratic kernel. After using the multinomial theorem (twice—the outermost application is the binomial theorem) and regrouping, K ( x , y ) = ( ∑ i = 1 n x i y i + c ) 2 = ∑ i = 1 n ( x i 2 ) ( y i 2 ) + ∑ i = 2 n ∑ j = 1 i − 1 ( 2 x i x j ) ( 2 y i y j ) + ∑ i = 1 n ( 2 c x i ) ( 2 c y i ) + c 2 {\displaystyle K(\mathbf {x} ,\mathbf {y} )=\left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}x_{i}y_{i}+c\right)^{2}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(x_{i}^{2}\right)\left(y_{i}^{2}\right)+\sum _{i=2}^{n}\sum _{j=1}^{i-1}\left({\sqrt {2}}x_{i}x_{j}\right)\left({\sqrt {2}}y_{i}y_{j}\right)+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\sqrt {2c}}x_{i}\right)\left({\sqrt {2c}}y_{i}\right)+c^{2}} From this it follows that the feature map is given by: φ ( x ) = ( x n 2 , … , x 1 2 , 2 x n x n − 1 , … , 2 x n x 1 , 2 x n − 1 x n − 2 , … , 2 x n − 1 x 1 , … , 2 x 2 x 1 , 2 c x n , … , 2 c x 1 , c ) {\displaystyle \varphi (x)=\left(x_{n}^{2},\ldots ,x_{1}^{2},{\sqrt {2}}x_{n}x_{n-1},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2}}x_{n}x_{1},{\sqrt {2}}x_{n-1}x_{n-2},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2}}x_{n-1}x_{1},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2}}x_{2}x_{1},{\sqrt {2c}}x_{n},\ldots ,{\sqrt {2c}}x_{1},c\right)} generalizing for ( x T y + c ) d {\displaystyle \left(\mathbf {x} ^{T}\mathbf {y} +c\right)^{d}} , where x ∈ R n {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} , y ∈ R n {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} \in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} and applying the multinomial theorem: ( x T y + c ) d = ∑ j 1 + j 2 + ⋯ + j n + 1 = d d ! j 1 ! ⋯ j n ! j n + 1 ! x 1 j 1 ⋯ x n j n c j n + 1 d ! j 1 ! ⋯ j n ! j n + 1 ! y 1 j 1 ⋯ y n j n c j n + 1 = φ ( x ) T φ ( y ) {\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{2}\left(\mathbf {x} ^{T}\mathbf {y} +c\right)^{d}&=\sum _{j_{1}+j_{2}+\dots +j_{n+1}=d}{\frac {\sqrt {d!}}{\sqrt {j_{1}!\cdots j_{n}!j_{n+1}!}}}x_{1}^{j_{1}}\cdots x_{n}^{j_{n}}{\sqrt {c}}^{j_{n+1}}{\frac {\sqrt {d!}}{\sqrt {j_{1}!\cdots j_{n}!j_{n+1}!}}}y_{1}^{j_{1}}\cdots y_{n}^{j_{n}}{\sqrt {c}}^{j_{n+1}}\\&=\varphi (\mathbf {x} )^{T}\varphi (\mathbf {y} )\end{alignedat}}} The last summation has l d = ( n + d d ) {\displaystyle l_{d}={\tbinom {n+d}{d}}} elements, so that: φ ( x ) = ( a 1 , … , a l , … , a l d ) {\displaystyle \varphi (\mathbf {x} )=\left(a_{1},\dots ,a_{l},\dots ,a_{l_{d}}\right)} where l = ( j 1 , j 2 , . . . , j n , j n + 1 ) {\displaystyle l=(j_{1},j_{2},...,j_{n},j_{n+1})} and a l = d ! j 1 ! ⋯ j n ! j n + 1 ! x 1 j 1 ⋯ x n j n c j n + 1 | j 1 + j 2 + ⋯ + j n + j n + 1 = d {\displaystyle a_{l}={\frac {\sqrt {d!}}{\sqrt {j_{1}!\cdots j_{n}!j_{n+1}!}}}x_{1}^{j_{1}}\cdots x_{n}^{j_{n}}{\sqrt {c}}^{j_{n+1}}\quad |\quad j_{1}+j_{2}+\dots +j_{n}+j_{n+1}=d} == Practical use == Although the RBF kernel is more popular in SVM classification than the polynomial kernel, the latter is quite popular in natural language processing (NLP). The most common degree is d = 2 (quadratic), since larger degrees tend to overfit on NLP problems. Various ways of computing the polynomial kernel (both exact and approximate) have been devised as alternatives to the usual non-linear SVM training algorithms, including: full expansion of the kernel prior to training/testing with a linear SVM, i.e. full computation of the mapping φ as in polynomial regression; basket mining (using a variant of the apriori algorithm) for the most commonly occurring feature conjunctions in a training set to produce an approximate expansion; inverted indexing of support vectors. One problem with the polynomial kernel is that it may suffer from numerical instability: when xTy + c < 1, K(x, y) = (xTy + c)d tends to zero with increasing d, whereas when xTy + c > 1, K(x, y) tends to infinity.
Probably approximately correct learning
In computational learning theory, probably approximately correct (PAC) learning is a framework for mathematical analysis of machine learning. It was proposed in 1984 by Leslie Valiant. In this framework, the learner receives samples and must select a generalization function (called the hypothesis) from a certain class of possible functions. The goal is that, with high probability (the "probably" part), the selected function will have low generalization error (the "approximately correct" part). The learner must be able to learn the concept given any arbitrary approximation ratio, probability of success, or distribution of the samples. The model was later extended to treat noise (misclassified samples). An important innovation of the PAC framework is the introduction of computational complexity theory concepts to machine learning. In particular, the learner is expected to find efficient functions (time and space requirements bounded to a polynomial of the example size), and the learner itself must implement an efficient procedure (requiring an example count bounded to a polynomial of the concept size, modified by the approximation and likelihood bounds). == Definitions and terminology == In order to give the definition for something that is PAC-learnable, we first have to introduce some terminology. For the following definitions, two examples will be used. The first is the problem of character recognition given an array of n {\displaystyle n} bits encoding a binary-valued image. The other example is the problem of finding an interval that will correctly classify points within the interval as positive and the points outside of the range as negative. Let X {\displaystyle X} be a set called the instance space or the encoding of all the samples. In the character recognition problem, the instance space is X = { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle X=\{0,1\}^{n}} . In the interval problem the instance space, X {\displaystyle X} , is the set of all bounded intervals in R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } , where R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } denotes the set of all real numbers. A concept is a subset c ⊂ X {\displaystyle c\subset X} . One concept is the set of all patterns of bits in X = { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle X=\{0,1\}^{n}} that encode a picture of the letter "P". An example concept from the second example is the set of open intervals, { ( a , b ) ∣ 0 ≤ a ≤ π / 2 , π ≤ b ≤ 13 } {\displaystyle \{(a,b)\mid 0\leq a\leq \pi /2,\pi \leq b\leq {\sqrt {13}}\}} , each of which contains only the positive points. A concept class C {\displaystyle C} is a collection of concepts over X {\displaystyle X} . This could be the set of all subsets of the array of bits that are skeletonized 4-connected (width of the font is 1). Let EX ( c , D ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {EX} (c,D)} be a procedure that draws an example, x {\displaystyle x} , using a probability distribution D {\displaystyle D} and gives the correct label c ( x ) {\displaystyle c(x)} , that is 1 if x ∈ c {\displaystyle x\in c} and 0 otherwise. Now, given 0 < ϵ , δ < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\epsilon ,\delta <1} , assume there is an algorithm A {\displaystyle A} and a polynomial p {\displaystyle p} in 1 / ϵ , 1 / δ {\displaystyle 1/\epsilon ,1/\delta } (and other relevant parameters of the class C {\displaystyle C} ) such that, given a sample of size p {\displaystyle p} drawn according to EX ( c , D ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {EX} (c,D)} , then, with probability of at least 1 − δ {\displaystyle 1-\delta } , A {\displaystyle A} outputs a hypothesis h ∈ C {\displaystyle h\in C} that has an average error less than or equal to ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } on X {\displaystyle X} with the same distribution D {\displaystyle D} . Further if the above statement for algorithm A {\displaystyle A} is true for every concept c ∈ C {\displaystyle c\in C} and for every distribution D {\displaystyle D} over X {\displaystyle X} , and for all 0 < ϵ , δ < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\epsilon ,\delta <1} then C {\displaystyle C} is (efficiently) PAC learnable (or distribution-free PAC learnable). We can also say that A {\displaystyle A} is a PAC learning algorithm for C {\displaystyle C} . == Equivalence == Under some regularity conditions these conditions are equivalent: The concept class C is PAC learnable. The VC dimension of C is finite. C is a uniformly Glivenko-Cantelli class. C is compressible in the sense of Littlestone and Warmuth
Prosthesis
In medicine, a prosthesis (pl.: prostheses; from Ancient Greek: πρόσθεσις, romanized: prósthesis, lit. 'addition, application, attachment'), or a prosthetic implant, is an artificial device that replaces a missing body part, which may be lost through physical trauma, disease, or a condition present at birth (congenital disorder). Prostheses may restore the normal functions of the missing body part, or may perform a cosmetic function. A person who has undergone an amputation is sometimes referred to as an amputee, Rehabilitation for someone with an amputation is primarily coordinated by a physiatrist as part of an inter-disciplinary team consisting of physiatrists, prosthetists, nurses, physical therapists, and occupational therapists. Prostheses can be created by hand or with computer-aided design (CAD), a software interface that helps creators design and analyze the creation with computer-generated 2-D and 3-D graphics as well as analysis and optimization tools. == Types == A person's prosthetic device should be designed and assembled to meet their individual appearance and functional needs. Depending on personal circumstances, co-morbidities, budget or health insurance coverage, and access to medical care, decisions may need to balance aesthetics and function. In addition, for some individuals, a myoelectric device, a body-powered device, or an activity-specific device may be appropriate options. The person's future goals and vocational aspirations and potential capabilities may help them choose between one or more devices. Craniofacial prostheses include intra-oral and extra-oral prostheses. Extra-oral prostheses are further divided into hemifacial, auricular (ear), nasal, orbital and ocular. Intra-oral prostheses include dental prostheses, such as dentures, obturators, and dental implants. Prostheses of the neck include larynx substitutes, trachea and upper esophageal replacements, Some prostheses of the torso include breast prostheses which may be either single or bilateral, full breast devices or nipple prostheses. Penile prostheses are used to treat erectile dysfunction, perform phalloplasty procedures in men, and to build a new penis in female-to-male gender reassignment surgeries. === Limb prostheses === Limb prostheses include both upper- and lower-extremity prostheses. Upper-extremity prostheses are used at varying levels of amputation: forequarter, shoulder disarticulation, transhumeral prosthesis, elbow disarticulation, transradial prosthesis, wrist disarticulation, full hand, partial hand, finger, partial finger. A transradial prosthesis is an artificial limb that replaces an arm missing below the elbow. Upper limb prostheses can be categorized in three main categories: Passive devices, Body Powered devices, and Externally Powered (myoelectric) devices. Passive devices can either be passive hands, mainly used for cosmetic purposes, or passive tools, mainly used for specific activities (e.g. leisure or vocational). An extensive overview and classification of passive devices can be found in a literature review by Maat et.al. A passive device can be static, meaning the device has no movable parts, or it can be adjustable, meaning its configuration can be adjusted (e.g. adjustable hand opening). Despite the absence of active grasping, passive devices are very useful in bimanual tasks that require fixation or support of an object, or for gesticulation in social interaction. According to scientific data a third of the upper limb amputees worldwide use a passive prosthetic hand. Body Powered or cable-operated limbs work by attaching a harness and cable around the opposite shoulder of the damaged arm. A recent body-powered approach has explored the utilization of the user's breathing to power and control the prosthetic hand to help eliminate actuation cable and harness. The third category of available prosthetic devices comprises myoelectric arms. This particular class of devices distinguishes itself from the previous ones due to the inclusion of a battery system. This battery serves the dual purpose of providing energy for both actuation and sensing components. While actuation predominantly relies on motor or pneumatic systems, a variety of solutions have been explored for capturing muscle activity, including techniques such as Electromyography, Sonomyography, Myokinetic, and others. These methods function by detecting the minute electrical currents generated by contracted muscles during upper arm movement, typically employing electrodes or other suitable tools. Subsequently, these acquired signals are converted into gripping patterns or postures that the artificial hand will then execute. In the prosthetics industry, a trans-radial prosthetic arm is often referred to as a "BE" or below elbow prosthesis. Lower-extremity prostheses provide replacements at varying levels of amputation. These include hip disarticulation, transfemoral prosthesis, knee disarticulation, transtibial prosthesis, Syme's amputation, foot, partial foot, and toe. The two main subcategories of lower extremity prosthetic devices are trans-tibial (any amputation transecting the tibia bone or a congenital anomaly resulting in a tibial deficiency) and trans-femoral (any amputation transecting the femur bone or a congenital anomaly resulting in a femoral deficiency). A transfemoral prosthesis is an artificial limb that replaces a leg missing above the knee. Transfemoral amputees can have a very difficult time regaining normal movement. In general, a transfemoral amputee must use approximately 80% more energy to walk than a person with two whole legs. This is due to the complexities in movement associated with the knee. In newer and more improved designs, hydraulics, carbon fiber, mechanical linkages, motors, computer microprocessors, and innovative combinations of these technologies are employed to give more control to the user. In the prosthetics industry, a trans-femoral prosthetic leg is often referred to as an "AK" or above the knee prosthesis. A transtibial prosthesis is an artificial limb that replaces a leg missing below the knee. A transtibial amputee is usually able to regain normal movement more readily than someone with a transfemoral amputation, due in large part to retaining the knee, which allows for easier movement. Lower extremity prosthetics describe artificially replaced limbs located at the hip level or lower. In the prosthetics industry, a transtibial prosthetic leg is often referred to as a "BK" or below the knee prosthesis. Prostheses are manufactured and fit by clinical prosthetists. Prosthetists are healthcare professionals responsible for making, fitting, and adjusting prostheses and for lower limb prostheses will assess both gait and prosthetic alignment. Once a prosthesis has been fit and adjusted by a prosthetist, a rehabilitation physiotherapist (called physical therapist in America) will help teach a new prosthetic user to walk with a leg prosthesis. To do so, the physical therapist may provide verbal instructions and may also help guide the person using touch or tactile cues. This may be done in a clinic or home. There is some research suggesting that such training in the home may be more successful if the treatment includes the use of a treadmill. Using a treadmill, along with the physical therapy treatment, helps the person to experience many of the challenges of walking with a prosthesis. In the United Kingdom, 75% of lower limb amputations are performed due to inadequate circulation (dysvascularity). This condition is often associated with many other medical conditions (co-morbidities) including diabetes and heart disease that may make it a challenge to recover and use a prosthetic limb to regain mobility and independence. For people who have inadequate circulation and have lost a lower limb, there is insufficient evidence due to a lack of research, to inform them regarding their choice of prosthetic rehabilitation approaches. Lower extremity prostheses are often categorized by the level of amputation or after the name of a surgeon: Transfemoral (Above-knee) Transtibial (Below-knee) Ankle disarticulation (more commonly known as Syme's amputation) Knee disarticulation (also see knee replacement) Hip disarticulation, (also see hip replacement) Hemi-pelvictomy Partial foot amputations (Pirogoff, Talo-Navicular and Calcaneo-cuboid (Chopart), Tarso-metatarsal (Lisfranc), Trans-metatarsal, Metatarsal-phalangeal, Ray amputations, toe amputations). Van Nes rotationplasty ==== Prosthetic raw materials ==== Prosthetic are made lightweight for better convenience for the amputee. Some of these materials include: Plastics: Polyethylene Polypropylene Acrylics Polyurethane Wood (early prosthetics) Rubber (early prosthetics) Lightweight metals: Aluminum Composites: Carbon fiber reinforced polymers Wheeled prostheses have also been used extensively in the rehabilitation of injured domestic animals, including dogs, cats, pigs, rabbits, and
Constrained clustering
In computer science, constrained clustering is a class of semi-supervised learning algorithms. Typically, constrained clustering incorporates either a set of must-link constraints, cannot-link constraints, or both, with a data clustering algorithm. A cluster in which the members conform to all must-link and cannot-link constraints is called a chunklet. == Types of constraints == Both a must-link and a cannot-link constraint define a relationship between two data instances. Together, the sets of these constraints act as a guide for which a constrained clustering algorithm will attempt to find chunklets (clusters in the dataset which satisfy the specified constraints). A must-link constraint is used to specify that the two instances in the must-link relation should be associated with the same cluster. A cannot-link constraint is used to specify that the two instances in the cannot-link relation should not be associated with the same cluster. Some constrained clustering algorithms will abort if no such clustering exists which satisfies the specified constraints. Others will try to minimize the amount of constraint violation should it be impossible to find a clustering which satisfies the constraints. Constraints could also be used to guide the selection of a clustering model among several possible solutions. == Examples == Examples of constrained clustering algorithms include: COP K-means PCKmeans (Pairwise Constrained K-means) CMWK-Means (Constrained Minkowski Weighted K-Means)