Over the years, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has conducted numerous prize competitions to spur innovation. A prize competition allows DARPA to establish an ambitious goal, opening the door to novel approaches from the public that might otherwise appear too risky for experts in a particular field to pursue. == Statutory authorities == In 1999, Congress provided prize competition authority to DARPA in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (P.L. 106–65), 10 U.S.C. § 4025, formerly 10 U.S.C. §2374a. DARPA also conducts prize competitions under the America COMPETES Act, 15 U.S.C. § 3719. == Recent prize competitions == DARPA Grand Challenge (2004 and 2005) was a prize competition to spur the development of autonomous vehicle technologies. The $1 million prize went unclaimed as no vehicles could complete the challenging desert route from Barstow, CA, to Primm, NV, on March 13, 2004. A year later, on October 8, 2005, the Stanford Racing Team won the $2 million prize during the second competition of the Grand Challenge in the desert Southwest near the California/Nevada state line. DARPA Urban Challenge (2007) required the competitors to build an autonomous vehicle capable of driving in traffic and performing complex maneuvers such as merging, passing, parking, and negotiating intersections. On November 3, 2007, the Carnegie Mellon Team won the $2 million prize, and its vehicle became the first autonomous vehicle that interacted with both manned and unmanned vehicle traffic in an urban environment. DARPA Network Challenge (Red Balloon Challenge) (2009) explored the roles that the Internet and social networking play in solving broad-scope, time-critical problems. On December 5, 2009, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology team won $40,000 by locating the ten moored, eight-foot, red weather balloons at ten places in the United States within seven hours. DARPA Digital Manufacturing Analysis, Correlation and Estimation Challenge (DMACE) (2010) was a three-month contest to showcase the potential of digital manufacturing of advanced materials. The University of California at Santa Barbara team won a $50,000 prize for crushing 180 digitally manufactured (DM) titanium mesh spheres with the most accurate predictive model of the components’ properties. DARPA Shredder Challenge (2011) was to identify and assess potential capabilities and vulnerabilities to sensitive information in the national security community. Participating teams must download the images of the documents shredded into more than 10,000 pieces from the Challenge website, reconstruct the documents, and solve the five puzzles. Of almost 9,000 teams, the San Francisco-based All Your Shreds Are Belong to U.S team won the $50,000 prize. DARPA UAVForge Challenge (2011-2012) aimed to build and test a user-intuitive, backpack-portable unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that could quietly fly in and out of critical environments to conduct sustained surveillance for up to three hours. The $100,000 prize was not claimed because none of the 140 teams met the technical matrix. DARPA Cash for Locating & Identifying Quick Response Codes (CLIQR) Quest Challenge (2012) explored the role the Internet and social media played in the timely communication, wide-area team-building, and urgent mobilization required to solve broad scope, time-critical problems. The challenge offered $40,000 to the first individual or team that could locate seven posters appearing in U.S. cities bearing the DARPA logo and a quick response code (QR) within 15 days. No team found and submitted all seven codes. DARPA Fast Adaptable Next-Generation Ground Vehicle (FANG) Challenge (2012-2013) was to use three competitions for the design of an infantry fighting vehicle, culminating in prototypes. In April 2013, DARPA awarded US$1 million to a three-man team during the first competition. DARPA decided not to proceed with the second and third competitions as originally planned and transitioned the technologies to the defense and commercial industry through the Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute (DMDII). DARPA Spectrum Challenge (2013-2014) sought to demonstrate how a software-defined radio can use a given communication channel in the presence of other users and interfering signals. Three teams emerged as the overall winners, winning a total of $150,000 in prizes. DARPA Chikungunya (CHIKV) Challenge (2014-2015) was a health-related effort to develop the most accurate predictions of CHIKV cases for all Western Hemisphere countries and territories between September 2014 and March 2015. On May 12, 2015, DARPA awarded $500,000 in prizes to the 11 winners of the competition during a scientific review DARPA Robotics Challenge (DRC) (2013-2015) aimed to develop semi-autonomous ground robots that could do "complex tasks in dangerous, degraded, human-engineered environments." A South Korean team won the first prize of $2 million, and two U.S. teams won $1 million and $500,000 as second and third winners. DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge (CGC) (2014 - 2016) was to “create automatic defensive systems capable of reasoning about flaws, formulating patches and deploying them on a network in real time.” The top three winners were awarded prizes of $2 million, $1 million, and $750,000, respectively. DARPA Spectrum Collaboration Challenge (SC2) (2016-2019) aimed to encourage the development of AI-enabled wireless networks to “ensure that the exponentially growing number of military and civilian wireless devices would have full access to the increasingly crowded electromagnetic spectrum.” A team from the University of Florida won the overall top prize of US$2 million at the final SC2 competition. DARPA Subterranean (SubT) Challenge (2017-2021) was to develop robotic technologies to map, navigate, search and exploit complex underground environments. The first-place winners of the system final competition and of the virtual final competition were awarded $2 million and $750,000, respectively, with multiple prizes awarded to the second and third-place winners. DARPA Launch Challenge (2018-2020) was a $12 million satellite launch challenge to demonstrate responsive and flexible space launch capabilities from the small launch providers and was to culminate in two separate launch competitions where the competitors must launch a satellite to low Earth orbit (LEO) within days of each other at different locations in the United States. The competition ended without a winner. DARPA Forecasting Floats in Turbulence (FFT) Challenge (2021) was to spur technologies that could predict the location of sea drifters or floats within 10 days. DARPA awarded $25,000 for first place, with prizes of $15,000 and $10,000 for second place and third place. DARPA Artificial Intelligence Cyber Challenge (AIxCC) (2023–2025) was a two-year challenge and asks competitors to design novel AI systems to secure critical software code on which Americans rely. The total prize money is $29.5 million. In March 2024, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) partnered with DARPA, contributing an additional $20 million to the competition's prize pool to address software vulnerabilities in medical devices, hospital IT, and biotech equipment. AIxCC collaborates with Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic, Linux Foundation, Open Source Security Foundation, Black Hat USA, and DEF CON, all of which provide AIxCC with access to large language models. In August 2024, AIxCC held the semifinal at DEF CON in Las Vegas. DARPA and ARPA-H tested all 42 submissions by running them through various open-source coding projects with deliberately injected vulnerabilities and scored the tools based on their effectiveness in identifying and fixing security flaws. Seven teams, each winning $2 million in the semifinals, competed in the final round of the AIxCC at the August 2025 DEF CON conference. Team Atlanta won first place with a $4 million prize for its cyber reasoning systems, which identified and patched vulnerabilities across 54 million lines of code. DARPA Triage Challenge (2023 – 2026) aims to spur the development of novel physiological features for medical triage, with a total prize money of $7 million. In October 2024, Challenge Event 1 was held in Perry, Georgia, featuring to-scale replicas of disaster sites such as an airplane crash and Hurricane Katrina, and teams competed based on how closely their data aligned with the agency’s official data and how quickly and accurately their autonomous systems could identify individuals most urgently in need of medical care. DARPA concluded the second year of competitions and, in November 2025, named the top performers in systems and data categories, which will advance to the final 2026 competition. The DARPA Lift Challenge (2025-2026) is for participants to design unmanned aerial systems capable of carrying up to four times their own weight, with a minimum payload of 110 pounds. Acco
Site-specific browser
A site-specific browser (SSB) is a software application dedicated to accessing pages from a single source (site) on a computer network such as the Internet or a private intranet. SSBs typically simplify the more complex functions of a web browser by excluding the menus, toolbars and browser graphical user interface associated with functions that are external to the workings of a single site. Modern site-specific browsers range from simple browser windows without navigation controls to sophisticated desktop applications built with frameworks like Electron that bundle entire browser engines. This evolution has enabled many popular desktop applications to be built using web technologies, effectively making them advanced site-specific browsers. == History == === Early development === One of the earliest examples of an SSB was MacDICT, a Mac OS 9 application that accessed various websites to define, translate, or find synonyms for words typed into a text box. However, the first general-purpose SSB is considered to be Bubbles, which launched in late 2005 on the Windows platform. Bubbles introduced the term "Site Specific Extensions" for SSB userscripts and created the first SSB JavaScript API. In 2007, Mozilla announced Prism (originally called WebRunner), a project to integrate web applications with the desktop. That same year, Todd Ditchendorf, a former Apple Dashboard engineer, released Fluid for macOS. On 2 September 2008, Google Chrome was released with a built-in "Create application shortcut" feature, bringing SSB functionality to mainstream users. This feature allowed any website to be launched in a separate window without the browser interface. === Modern era === The landscape of site-specific browsers changed dramatically with the introduction of Electron in 2013 (originally called Atom Shell). Electron combined Chromium and Node.js into a single runtime, enabling developers to build desktop applications using web technologies. This framework has since powered applications used by hundreds of millions of users, including Visual Studio Code, Slack, Discord, and Microsoft Teams. In 2015, the concept of Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) was introduced by Google engineers Alex Russell and Frances Berriman, representing a parallel evolution in web-to-desktop technology. While PWAs share similar goals with SSBs, they follow web standards and can be installed directly from browsers. More recently, alternative frameworks like Tauri have emerged, offering significantly smaller application sizes by using the system's native web renderer instead of bundling Chromium. == Technical implementation == Site-specific browsers can be implemented through various approaches: === Browser-based SSBs === The simplest form of SSB is created through browser features that allow websites to run in separate windows without the standard browser interface. Modern Chromium-based browsers offer "Install as app" or "Create shortcut" functionality that creates a dedicated window for a specific website. These SSBs share the browser's underlying engine and resources but operate in isolated windows. === Framework-based SSBs === More sophisticated SSBs are built using application frameworks: Electron: Bundles a complete Chromium browser with Node.js, resulting in applications of 85MB or larger. Each Electron application runs its own browser instance, providing full access to system APIs but consuming significant resources. Tauri: Uses the operating system's native web rendering engine (WebView2 on Windows, WebKit on macOS, and WebKitGTK on Linux), resulting in applications typically 2.5-10MB in size. Other frameworks: Include Neutralino.js (ultra-lightweight using system browser), Wails (Go-based), and the Chromium Embedded Framework (CEF). == Comparison with Progressive Web Apps == While site-specific browsers and Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) share the goal of bringing web content to the desktop, they differ in several key aspects: == Applications == Site-specific browsers have become the foundation for many popular desktop applications: Communication and collaboration: Many modern communication tools are built as SSBs, including Slack, Discord, Microsoft Teams, and WhatsApp Desktop. These applications benefit from web-based development while providing desktop integration. Development tools: Visual Studio Code, used by 73.6% of developers according to Stack Overflow's 2024 survey, is built with Electron, as are Atom and GitHub Desktop. Productivity software: Applications like Notion, Obsidian, and various project management tools use SSB technology to provide consistent experiences across platforms. Security and Privacy: Web browsers can be modified to only have access to a single site, in order to protect the security and privacy of the user via compartmentalization == Security and performance == === Memory usage === Framework-based SSBs, particularly those using Electron, are known for high memory consumption. Studies show Electron applications typically use 120-300MB at baseline, with complex applications consuming significantly more. This is approximately 5-10 times more memory than equivalent native applications. === Security considerations === SSBs can provide security benefits through process isolation, where each application runs in its own sandboxed environment. However, bundling an entire browser engine also means each application must be updated independently to patch security vulnerabilities. Research presented at the Network and Distributed System Security (NDSS) Symposium has identified various security challenges specific to Electron applications. === Bundle sizes === The choice of framework significantly impacts application size: Electron applications: 85MB+ (includes full Chromium) Tauri applications: 2.5-10MB (uses system WebView) Browser-based SSBs: No additional download (uses existing browser) == Software == === Browser support === Most modern browsers provide some form of SSB functionality: Chromium-based browsers (Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Brave, Opera, Vivaldi): "Install as app" or "Create shortcut" feature Safari: "Add to Dock" feature in macOS Sonoma (2023) Firefox: Removed SSB support in December 2020 (version 85) GNOME Web: "Install Site as Web Application" feature === Standalone tools === ==== Active ==== WebCatalog (Windows, macOS, Linux) – Manages multiple SSBs with isolated storage Fluid (macOS) – Pioneering SSB creator for Mac Unite (macOS) – Creates SSBs with customization options Coherence X (macOS) – Advanced SSB creation tool Pake (cross-platform) – Open-source SSB creator Wavebox (cross-platform) – Workspace browser with SSB features ==== Discontinued ==== Mozilla Prism – Cross-platform SSB creator (discontinued 2011) Nativefier – Command-line SSB creator (discontinued 2023) Epichrome – macOS SSB creator (discontinued 2021) === Development frameworks === Electron – Most popular framework, bundles Chromium and Node.js Tauri – Rust-based framework using system WebView Chromium Embedded Framework (CEF) – C++ library for embedding Chromium Neutralino.js – Lightweight framework using system browser Wails – Go-based framework for web frontends
ReRites
ReRites (also known as RERITES, ReadingRites, Big Data Poetry) is a literary work of "Human + A.I. poetry" by David Jhave Johnston that used neural network models trained to generate poetry which the author then edited. ReRites won the Robert Coover Award for a Work of Electronic Literature in 2022. == About the project == The ReRites project began as a daily rite of writing with a neural network, expanded into a series of performances from which video documentation has been published online, and concluded with a set of 12 books and an accompanying book of essays published by Anteism Books in 2019. In Electronic Literature, Scott Rettberg describes the early phases of the project in 2016, when it bore the preliminary name Big Data Poetry. Jhave (the artist name that David Jhave Johnston goes by) describes the process of writing ReRites as a rite: "Every morning for 2 hours (normally 6:30–8:30am) I get up and edit the poetic output of a neural net. Deleting, weaving, conjugating, lineating, cohering. Re-writing. Re-wiring authorship: hybrid augmented enhanced evolutionary". There is video documentation of the writing process. The human editing of the neural network's output is fundamental to this project, and Jhave gives examples of both unedited text extracts and his edited versions in publications about the project. Kyle Booten describes ReRites as "simultaneously dusty and outrageously verdant, monotonously sublime and speckled with beautiful and rare specimens". === Performances === ReRites was first shared with an audience through a series of performances where audience members and poets would participate in reading the automatically generated texts, which appeared on screen so fast that human readers could barely keep up. This has been described as allowing participants to "re-discover[..] the peculiar pleasures of being embodied", or, in Jhave's own words, as a space where human participants were "playing their wits and voices against an evocative infinite deep-learning muse". The first performance was at Brown University's Interrupt Festival in 2019. It has been performed many times since, including at the Barbican Centre in London and Anteism Books. === Print publications === For a single year Jhave published one book of poetry from the ReRites project each month. These twelve volumes are accompanied by a book of essays, all published by Anteism Books. The accompanying essays provide critical responses to the project from poets and scholars including Allison Parrish, Johanna Drucker, Kyle Booten, Stephanie Strickland, John Cayley, Lai-Tze Fan, Nick Montfort, Mairéad Byrne, and Chris Funkhouser. Allison Parrish notes elsewhere that these paratexts to ReRites serve a legitimising function for a genre of poetry that is not yet institutionally acknowledged. === Technical details === Starting in 2016 under the name Big Data Poetry, Jhave generated poems using, in his own words, "neural network code (..) adapted from three corporate github-hosted machine-learning libraries: TensorFlow (Google), PyTorch (Facebook), and AWD-LSTM (SalesForce)". He explains that the "models were trained on a customised corpus of 600,000 lines of poetry ranging from the romantic epoch to the 20th century avant garde". Jhave maintains a GitHub repository with some of the code supporting ReRites. == Reception == ReRites is described by John Cayley as "one of the most thorough and beautiful" poetic responses to machine learning. The work's influence on the field of electronic literature was acknowledged in 2022, when the work won the Electronic Literature Organization's Robert Coover Award for a Work of Electronic Literature. The jury described ReRites as particularly poignant in the time of the pandemic, as it was "a documentation of the performance of the private ritual of writing and the obsessive-compulsive need for writers to communicate — even when no one else is reading". The question of authorship and voice in ReRites has been raised by several critics. Although generated poetry is an established genre in electronic literature, Cayley notes that unlike the combinatory poems created by authors like Nick Montfort, where the author explicitly defines which words and phrases will be recombined, ReRites has "not been directed by literary preconceptions inscribed in the program itself, but only by patterns and rhythms pre-existing in the corpora". In an essay for the Australian journal TEXT, David Thomas Henry Wright asks how to understand authorship and authority in ReRites: "Who or what is the authority of the work? The original data fed into the machine, that is not currently retrievable or discernible from the final works? The code that was taken and adapted for his purposes? Or Jhave, the human editor?" Wright concludes that Jhave is the only actor with any intentionality and therefore the authority of the work. The centrality of the human editor is also emphasised by other scholars. In a chapter analysing ReRites Malthe Stavning Erslev argues that the machine learning misrepresents the dataset it is trained on. While ReRites uses 21st century neural networks, it has been compared to earlier literary traditions. Poet Victoria Stanton, who read at one of the ReRites performances, has compared ReRites to found poetry, while David Thomas Henry Wright compares it to the Oulipo movement and Mark Amerika to the cut-up technique. Scholars also position ReRites firmly within the long tradition of generative poetry both in electronic literature and print, stretching from the I Ching, Queneau's Cent Mille Milliards de Poemes and Nabokov's Pale Fire to computer-generated poems like Christopher Strachey's Love Letter Generator (1952) and more contemporary examples. Jhave describes the process of working with the output from the neural network as "carving". In his book My Life as an Artificial Creative Intelligence, Mark Amerika writes that the "method of carving the digital outputs provided by the language model as part of a collaborative remix jam session with GPT-2, where the language artist and the language model play off each other’s unexpected outputs as if caught in a live postproduction set, is one I share with electronic literature composer David Jhave Johnston, whose AI poetry experiments precede my own investigations."
Latent semantic analysis
Latent semantic analysis (LSA) is a technique in natural language processing, in particular distributional semantics, of analyzing relationships between a set of documents and the terms they contain by producing a set of concepts related to the documents and terms. LSA assumes that words that are close in meaning will occur in similar pieces of text (the distributional hypothesis). A matrix containing word counts per document (rows represent unique words and columns represent each document) is constructed from a large piece of text and a mathematical technique called singular value decomposition (SVD) is used to reduce the number of rows while preserving the similarity structure among columns. Documents are then compared by cosine similarity between any two columns. Values close to 1 represent very similar documents while values close to 0 represent very dissimilar documents. An information retrieval technique using latent semantic structure was patented in 1988 by Scott Deerwester, Susan Dumais, George Furnas, Richard Harshman, Thomas Landauer, Karen Lochbaum and Lynn Streeter. In the context of its application to information retrieval, it is sometimes called latent semantic indexing (LSI). == Overview == === Occurrence matrix === LSA can use a document-term matrix which describes the occurrences of terms in documents; it is a sparse matrix whose rows correspond to terms and whose columns correspond to documents. A typical example of the weighting of the elements of the matrix is tf-idf (term frequency–inverse document frequency): the weight of an element of the matrix is proportional to the number of times the terms appear in each document, where rare terms are upweighted to reflect their relative importance. This matrix is also common to standard semantic models, though it is not necessarily explicitly expressed as a matrix, since the mathematical properties of matrices are not always used. === Rank lowering === After the construction of the occurrence matrix, LSA finds a low-rank approximation to the term-document matrix. There could be various reasons for these approximations: The original term-document matrix is presumed too large for the computing resources; in this case, the approximated low rank matrix is interpreted as an approximation (a "least and necessary evil"). The original term-document matrix is presumed noisy: for example, anecdotal instances of terms are to be eliminated. From this point of view, the approximated matrix is interpreted as a de-noisified matrix (a better matrix than the original). The original term-document matrix is presumed overly sparse relative to the "true" term-document matrix. That is, the original matrix lists only the words actually in each document, whereas we might be interested in all words related to each document—generally a much larger set due to synonymy. The consequence of the rank lowering is that some dimensions are combined and depend on more than one term: {(car), (truck), (flower)} → {(1.3452 car + 0.2828 truck), (flower)} This mitigates the problem of identifying synonymy, as the rank lowering is expected to merge the dimensions associated with terms that have similar meanings. It also partially mitigates the problem with polysemy, since components of polysemous words that point in the "right" direction are added to the components of words that share a similar meaning. Conversely, components that point in other directions tend to either simply cancel out, or, at worst, to be smaller than components in the directions corresponding to the intended sense. === Derivation === Let X {\displaystyle X} be a matrix where element ( i , j ) {\displaystyle (i,j)} describes the occurrence of term i {\displaystyle i} in document j {\displaystyle j} (this can be, for example, the frequency). X {\displaystyle X} will look like this: d j ↓ t i T → [ x 1 , 1 … x 1 , j … x 1 , n ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ x i , 1 … x i , j … x i , n ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ x m , 1 … x m , j … x m , n ] {\displaystyle {\begin{matrix}&{\textbf {d}}_{j}\\&\downarrow \\{\textbf {t}}_{i}^{T}\rightarrow &{\begin{bmatrix}x_{1,1}&\dots &x_{1,j}&\dots &x_{1,n}\\\vdots &\ddots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\x_{i,1}&\dots &x_{i,j}&\dots &x_{i,n}\\\vdots &\ddots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\x_{m,1}&\dots &x_{m,j}&\dots &x_{m,n}\\\end{bmatrix}}\end{matrix}}} Now a row in this matrix will be a vector corresponding to a term, giving its relation to each document: t i T = [ x i , 1 … x i , j … x i , n ] {\displaystyle {\textbf {t}}_{i}^{T}={\begin{bmatrix}x_{i,1}&\dots &x_{i,j}&\dots &x_{i,n}\end{bmatrix}}} Likewise, a column in this matrix will be a vector corresponding to a document, giving its relation to each term: d j = [ x 1 , j ⋮ x i , j ⋮ x m , j ] {\displaystyle {\textbf {d}}_{j}={\begin{bmatrix}x_{1,j}\\\vdots \\x_{i,j}\\\vdots \\x_{m,j}\\\end{bmatrix}}} Now the dot product t i T t p {\displaystyle {\textbf {t}}_{i}^{T}{\textbf {t}}_{p}} between two term vectors gives the correlation between the terms over the set of documents. The matrix product X X T {\displaystyle XX^{T}} contains all these dot products. Element ( i , p ) {\displaystyle (i,p)} (which is equal to element ( p , i ) {\displaystyle (p,i)} ) contains the dot product t i T t p {\displaystyle {\textbf {t}}_{i}^{T}{\textbf {t}}_{p}} ( = t p T t i {\displaystyle ={\textbf {t}}_{p}^{T}{\textbf {t}}_{i}} ). Likewise, the matrix X T X {\displaystyle X^{T}X} contains the dot products between all the document vectors, giving their correlation over the terms: d j T d q = d q T d j {\displaystyle {\textbf {d}}_{j}^{T}{\textbf {d}}_{q}={\textbf {d}}_{q}^{T}{\textbf {d}}_{j}} . Now, from the theory of linear algebra, there exists a decomposition of X {\displaystyle X} such that U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} are orthogonal matrices and Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is a diagonal matrix. This is called a singular value decomposition (SVD): X = U Σ V T {\displaystyle {\begin{matrix}X=U\Sigma V^{T}\end{matrix}}} The matrix products giving us the term and document correlations then become X X T = ( U Σ V T ) ( U Σ V T ) T = ( U Σ V T ) ( V T T Σ T U T ) = U Σ V T V Σ T U T = U Σ Σ T U T X T X = ( U Σ V T ) T ( U Σ V T ) = ( V T T Σ T U T ) ( U Σ V T ) = V Σ T U T U Σ V T = V Σ T Σ V T {\displaystyle {\begin{matrix}XX^{T}&=&(U\Sigma V^{T})(U\Sigma V^{T})^{T}=(U\Sigma V^{T})(V^{T^{T}}\Sigma ^{T}U^{T})=U\Sigma V^{T}V\Sigma ^{T}U^{T}=U\Sigma \Sigma ^{T}U^{T}\\X^{T}X&=&(U\Sigma V^{T})^{T}(U\Sigma V^{T})=(V^{T^{T}}\Sigma ^{T}U^{T})(U\Sigma V^{T})=V\Sigma ^{T}U^{T}U\Sigma V^{T}=V\Sigma ^{T}\Sigma V^{T}\end{matrix}}} Since Σ Σ T {\displaystyle \Sigma \Sigma ^{T}} and Σ T Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{T}\Sigma } are diagonal we see that U {\displaystyle U} must contain the eigenvectors of X X T {\displaystyle XX^{T}} , while V {\displaystyle V} must be the eigenvectors of X T X {\displaystyle X^{T}X} . Both products have the same non-zero eigenvalues, given by the non-zero entries of Σ Σ T {\displaystyle \Sigma \Sigma ^{T}} , or equally, by the non-zero entries of Σ T Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{T}\Sigma } . Now the decomposition looks like this: X U Σ V T ( d j ) ( d ^ j ) ↓ ↓ ( t i T ) → [ x 1 , 1 … x 1 , j … x 1 , n ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ x i , 1 … x i , j … x i , n ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ x m , 1 … x m , j … x m , n ] = ( t ^ i T ) → [ [ u 1 ] … [ u l ] ] ⋅ [ σ 1 … 0 ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ 0 … σ l ] ⋅ [ [ v 1 ] ⋮ [ v l ] ] {\displaystyle {\begin{matrix}&X&&&U&&\Sigma &&V^{T}\\&({\textbf {d}}_{j})&&&&&&&({\hat {\textbf {d}}}_{j})\\&\downarrow &&&&&&&\downarrow \\({\textbf {t}}_{i}^{T})\rightarrow &{\begin{bmatrix}x_{1,1}&\dots &x_{1,j}&\dots &x_{1,n}\\\vdots &\ddots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\x_{i,1}&\dots &x_{i,j}&\dots &x_{i,n}\\\vdots &\ddots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\x_{m,1}&\dots &x_{m,j}&\dots &x_{m,n}\\\end{bmatrix}}&=&({\hat {\textbf {t}}}_{i}^{T})\rightarrow &{\begin{bmatrix}{\begin{bmatrix}\,\\\,\\{\textbf {u}}_{1}\\\,\\\,\end{bmatrix}}\dots {\begin{bmatrix}\,\\\,\\{\textbf {u}}_{l}\\\,\\\,\end{bmatrix}}\end{bmatrix}}&\cdot &{\begin{bmatrix}\sigma _{1}&\dots &0\\\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\0&\dots &\sigma _{l}\\\end{bmatrix}}&\cdot &{\begin{bmatrix}{\begin{bmatrix}&&{\textbf {v}}_{1}&&\end{bmatrix}}\\\vdots \\{\begin{bmatrix}&&{\textbf {v}}_{l}&&\end{bmatrix}}\end{bmatrix}}\end{matrix}}} The values σ 1 , … , σ l {\displaystyle \sigma _{1},\dots ,\sigma _{l}} are called the singular values, and u 1 , … , u l {\displaystyle u_{1},\dots ,u_{l}} and v 1 , … , v l {\displaystyle v_{1},\dots ,v_{l}} the left and right singular vectors. Notice the only part of U {\displaystyle U} that contributes to t i {\displaystyle {\textbf {t}}_{i}} is the i 'th {\displaystyle i{\textrm {'th}}} row. Let this row vector be called t ^ i T {\displaystyle {\hat {\textrm {t}}}_{i}^{T}} . Likewise, the only part of V T {\displaystyle V^{T}} that contributes to d j {\displaystyle {\textbf {d}}_{j}} is the j 'th {\displaystyle j{\textrm {'th}}} column, d ^ j {\displaystyle {\hat {\textrm {d}}}_{j}} . These are not the eigenvectors, but depend on all the eigenvectors. I
SemEval
SemEval (Semantic Evaluation) is an ongoing series of evaluations of computational semantic analysis systems; it evolved from the Senseval word sense evaluation series. The evaluations are intended to explore the nature of meaning in language. While meaning is intuitive to humans, transferring those intuitions to computational analysis has proved elusive. This series of evaluations provides a mechanism to characterize in more precise terms exactly what is necessary to compute in meaning. As such, the evaluations provide an emergent mechanism to identify the problems and solutions for computations with meaning. These exercises have evolved to articulate more of the dimensions that are involved in our use of language. They began with apparently simple attempts to identify word senses computationally. They have evolved to investigate the interrelationships among the elements in a sentence (e.g., semantic role labeling), relations between sentences (e.g., coreference), and the nature of what we are saying (semantic relations and sentiment analysis). The purpose of the SemEval and Senseval exercises is to evaluate semantic analysis systems. "Semantic Analysis" refers to a formal analysis of meaning, and "computational" refer to approaches that in principle support effective implementation. The first three evaluations, Senseval-1 through Senseval-3, were focused on word sense disambiguation (WSD), each time growing in the number of languages offered in the tasks and in the number of participating teams. Beginning with the fourth workshop, SemEval-2007 (SemEval-1), the nature of the tasks evolved to include semantic analysis tasks outside of word sense disambiguation. Triggered by the conception of the SEM conference, the SemEval community had decided to hold the evaluation workshops yearly in association with the SEM conference. It was also the decision that not every evaluation task will be run every year, e.g. none of the WSD tasks were included in the SemEval-2012 workshop. == History == === Early evaluation of algorithms for word sense disambiguation === From the earliest days, assessing the quality of word sense disambiguation algorithms had been primarily a matter of intrinsic evaluation, and “almost no attempts had been made to evaluate embedded WSD components”. Only very recently (2006) had extrinsic evaluations begun to provide some evidence for the value of WSD in end-user applications. Until 1990 or so, discussions of the sense disambiguation task focused mainly on illustrative examples rather than comprehensive evaluation. The early 1990s saw the beginnings of more systematic and rigorous intrinsic evaluations, including more formal experimentation on small sets of ambiguous words. === Senseval to SemEval === In April 1997, Martha Palmer and Marc Light organized a workshop entitled Tagging with Lexical Semantics: Why, What, and How? in conjunction with the Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. At the time, there was a clear recognition that manually annotated corpora had revolutionized other areas of NLP, such as part-of-speech tagging and parsing, and that corpus-driven approaches had the potential to revolutionize automatic semantic analysis as well. Kilgarriff recalled that there was "a high degree of consensus that the field needed evaluation", and several practical proposals by Resnik and Yarowsky kicked off a discussion that led to the creation of the Senseval evaluation exercises. === SemEval's 3, 2 or 1 year(s) cycle === After SemEval-2010, many participants feel that the 3-year cycle is a long wait. Many other shared tasks such as Conference on Natural Language Learning (CoNLL) and Recognizing Textual Entailments (RTE) run annually. For this reason, the SemEval coordinators gave the opportunity for task organizers to choose between a 2-year or a 3-year cycle. The SemEval community favored the 3-year cycle. Although the votes within the SemEval community favored a 3-year cycle, organizers and coordinators had settled to split the SemEval task into 2 evaluation workshops. This was triggered by the introduction of the new SEM conference. The SemEval organizers thought it would be appropriate to associate our event with the SEM conference and collocate the SemEval workshop with the SEM conference. The organizers got very positive responses (from the task coordinators/organizers and participants) about the association with the yearly SEM, and 8 tasks were willing to switch to 2012. Thus was born SemEval-2012 and SemEval-2013. The current plan is to switch to a yearly SemEval schedule to associate it with the SEM conference but not every task needs to run every year. ==== List of Senseval and SemEval Workshops ==== Senseval-1 took place in the summer of 1998 for English, French, and Italian, culminating in a workshop held at Herstmonceux Castle, Sussex, England on September 2–4. Senseval-2 took place in the summer of 2001, and was followed by a workshop held in July 2001 in Toulouse, in conjunction with ACL 2001. Senseval-2 included tasks for Basque, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Spanish and Swedish. Senseval-3 took place in March–April 2004, followed by a workshop held in July 2004 in Barcelona, in conjunction with ACL 2004. Senseval-3 included 14 different tasks for core word sense disambiguation, as well as identification of semantic roles, multilingual annotations, logic forms, subcategorization acquisition. SemEval-2007 (Senseval-4) took place in 2007, followed by a workshop held in conjunction with ACL in Prague. SemEval-2007 included 18 different tasks targeting the evaluation of systems for the semantic analysis of text. A special issue of Language Resources and Evaluation is devoted to the result. SemEval-2010 took place in 2010, followed by a workshop held in conjunction with ACL in Uppsala. SemEval-2010 included 18 different tasks targeting the evaluation of semantic analysis systems. SemEval-2012 took place in 2012; it was associated with the new SEM, First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, and co-located with NAACL, Montreal, Canada. SemEval-2012 included 8 different tasks targeting at evaluating computational semantic systems. However, there was no WSD task involved in SemEval-2012, the WSD related tasks were scheduled in the upcoming SemEval-2013. SemEval-2013 was associated with NAACL 2013, North American Association of Computational Linguistics, Georgia, USA and took place in 2013. It included 13 different tasks targeting at evaluating computational semantic systems. SemEval-2014 took place in 2014. It was co-located with COLING 2014, 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and SEM 2014, Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Dublin, Ireland. There were 10 different tasks in SemEval-2014 evaluating various computational semantic systems. SemEval-2015 took place in 2015. It was co-located with NAACL-HLT 2015, 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics – Human Language Technologies and SEM 2015, Third Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Denver, USA. There were 17 different tasks in SemEval-2015 evaluating various computational semantic systems. == SemEval Workshop framework == The framework of the SemEval/Senseval evaluation workshops emulates the Message Understanding Conferences (MUCs) and other evaluation workshops ran by ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency, renamed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)). Stages of SemEval/Senseval evaluation workshops Firstly, all likely participants were invited to express their interest and participate in the exercise design. A timetable towards a final workshop was worked out. A plan for selecting evaluation materials was agreed. 'Gold standards' for the individual tasks were acquired, often human annotators were considered as a gold standard to measure precision and recall scores of computer systems. These 'gold standards' are what the computational systems strive towards. In WSD tasks, human annotators were set on the task of generating a set of correct WSD answers (i.e. the correct sense for a given word in a given context) The gold standard materials, without answers, were released to participants, who then had a short time to run their programs over them and return their sets of answers to the organizers. The organizers then scored the answers and the scores were announced and discussed at a workshop. == Semantic evaluation tasks == Senseval-1 & Senseval-2 focused on evaluation WSD systems on major languages that were available corpus and computerized dictionary. Senseval-3 looked beyond the lexemes and started to evaluate systems that looked into wider areas of semantics, such as Semantic Roles (technically known as Theta roles in formal semantics), Logic Form Transformation (commonly semantics of phrases, clauses or sentences were represented
Spatial embedding
Spatial embedding is one of feature learning techniques used in spatial analysis where points, lines, polygons or other spatial data types. representing geographic locations are mapped to vectors of real numbers. Conceptually it involves a mathematical embedding from a space with many dimensions per geographic object to a continuous vector space with a much lower dimension. Such embedding methods allow complex spatial data to be used in neural networks and have been shown to improve performance in spatial analysis tasks == Embedded data types == Geographic data can take many forms: text, images, graphs, trajectories, polygons. Depending on the task, there may be a need to combine multimodal data from different sources. The next section describes examples of different types of data and their uses. === Text === Geolocated posts on social media can be used to acquire a library of documents bound to a given place that can be later transformed to embedded vectors using word embedding techniques. === Image === Satellites and aircraft collect digital spatial data acquired from remotely sensed images which can be used in machine learning. They are sometimes hard to analyse using basic image analysis methods and convolutional neural networks can be used to acquire an embedding of images bound to a given geographical object or a region. === Point === A single point of interest (POI) can be assigned multiple features that can be used in machine learning. These could be demographic, transportation, meteorological, or economic data, for example. When embedding single points, it is common to consider the entire set of available points as nodes in a graph. === Line / multiline === Among other things, motion trajectories are represented as lines (multilines). Individual trajectories are embedded taking into account travel time, distances and also features of points visited along the way. Embedding of trajectories allows to improve performance of such tasks as clustering and also categorization. === Polygon === The geographic areas analyzed in machine learning are defined by both administrative boundaries and top-down division into grids of regular shapes such as rectangles, for example. Both types are represented as polygons and, like points, can be assigned different demographic, transportation, or economic features. A polygon can also have features related to the size of the area or shape it represents. === Graph === An example domain where graph representation is used is the street layout in a city, where vertices can be intersections and edges can be roads. The vertices can also be destination points like public transport stops or important points in the city, and the edges represent the flow between them. Embedding graphs or single vertices allows to improve accuracy of analysis methods in which the treated geographical domain can be represented as a network. == Usage == POI recommendation - generating personalized point of interest recommendations based on user preferences. Next/future location prediction - prediction of the next location a person will go to based on their historical trajectory. Zone functions classification - based on different mobility of people or POI distribution a function of a given area in a city can be predicted. Crime prediction - estimation of crime rate in different regions of a city. Local event detection - studying spatio-temporal changes in embeddings can provide valuable information in detection of local event occurring in specific location. Regional mobility popularity prediction - analysis of mobility can show patterns in popularity of different regions in a city. Shape matching - finding a similar shape of given polygon, for example finding building with the same shape as input building. Travel time estimation - predicting estimated travel time given current traffic conditions and special occurring events. Time estimation for on-demand food delivery - estimation of delivery time when placing an order through the website. == Temporal aspect == Some of the data analyzed has a timestamp associated with it. In some cases of data analysis this information is omitted and in others it is used to divide the set into groups. The most common division is the separation of weekdays from weekends or division into hours of the day. This is particularly important in the analysis of mobility data, because the characteristics of mobility during the week and at different times of the day are very different from each other. Another area in which time division into, for example, individual months can be used is in the analysis of tourism of a given region. In order to take such a split into account, embedding methods treat the time stamp specifically or separate versions of the model are developed for different subgroups of the analyzed set.
Topological deep learning
Topological deep learning (TDL) is a research field that extends deep learning to handle complex, non-Euclidean data structures. Traditional deep learning models, such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and recurrent neural networks (RNNs), excel in processing data on regular grids and sequences. However, scientific and real-world data often exhibit more intricate data domains encountered in scientific computations, including point clouds, meshes, time series, scalar fields graphs, or general topological spaces like simplicial complexes and CW complexes. TDL addresses this by incorporating topological concepts to process data with higher-order relationships, such as interactions among multiple entities and complex hierarchies. This approach leverages structures like simplicial complexes and hypergraphs to capture global dependencies and qualitative spatial properties, offering a more nuanced representation of data. TDL also encompasses methods from computational and algebraic topology that permit studying properties of neural networks and their training process, such as their predictive performance or generalization properties. The mathematical foundations of TDL are algebraic topology, differential topology, and geometric topology. Therefore, TDL can be generalized for data on differentiable manifolds, knots, links, tangles, curves, etc. == History and motivation == Traditional techniques from deep learning often operate under the assumption that a dataset is residing in a highly-structured space (like images, where convolutional neural networks exhibit outstanding performance over alternative methods) or a Euclidean space. The prevalence of new types of data, in particular graphs, meshes, and molecules, resulted in the development of new techniques, culminating in the field of geometric deep learning, which originally proposed a signal-processing perspective for treating such data types. While originally confined to graphs, where connectivity is defined based on nodes and edges, follow-up work extended concepts to a larger variety of data types, including simplicial complexes and CW complexes, with recent work proposing a unified perspective of message-passing on general combinatorial complexes. An independent perspective on different types of data originated from topological data analysis, which proposed a new framework for describing structural information of data, i.e., their "shape," that is inherently aware of multiple scales in data, ranging from local information to global information. While at first restricted to smaller datasets, subsequent work developed new descriptors that efficiently summarized topological information of datasets to make them available for traditional machine-learning techniques, such as support vector machines or random forests. Such descriptors ranged from new techniques for feature engineering over new ways of providing suitable coordinates for topological descriptors, or the creation of more efficient dissimilarity measures. Contemporary research in this field is largely concerned with either integrating information about the underlying data topology into existing deep-learning models or obtaining novel ways of training on topological domains. == Learning on topological spaces == One of the core concepts in topological deep learning is considering the domain upon which this data is defined and supported. In case of Euclidean data, such as images, this domain is a grid, upon which the pixel value of the image is supported. In a more general setting this domain might be a topological domain. Studying and developing deep learning models that are supported ln topological domains constitute the essence of topological deep learning. Next, we introduce the most common topological domains that are encountered in a deep learning setting. These domains include, but not limited to, graphs, simplicial complexes, cell complexes, combinatorial complexes and hypergraphs. Given a finite set S of abstract entities, a neighborhood function N {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}} on S is an assignment that attach to every point x {\displaystyle x} in S a subset of S or a relation. Such a function can be induced by equipping S with an auxiliary structure. Edges provide one way of defining relations among the entities of S. More specifically, edges in a graph allow one to define the notion of neighborhood using, for instance, the one hop neighborhood notion. Edges however, limited in their modeling capacity as they can only be used to model binary relations among entities of S since every edge is connected typically to two entities. In many applications, it is desirable to permit relations that incorporate more than two entities. The idea of using relations that involve more than two entities is central to topological domains. Such higher-order relations allow for a broader range of neighborhood functions to be defined on S to capture multi-way interactions among entities of S. Next we review the main properties, advantages, and disadvantages of some commonly studied topological domains in the context of deep learning, including (abstract) simplicial complexes, regular cell complexes, hypergraphs, and combinatorial complexes. ==== Comparisons among topological domains ==== Each of the enumerated topological domains has its own characteristics, advantages, and limitations: Simplicial complexes Simplest form of higher-order domains. Extensions of graph-based models. Admit hierarchical structures, making them suitable for various applications. Hodge theory can be naturally defined on simplicial complexes. Require relations to be subsets of larger relations, imposing constraints on the structure. Cell Complexes Generalize simplicial complexes. Provide more flexibility in defining higher-order relations. Each cell in a cell complex is homeomorphic to an open ball, attached together via attaching maps. Boundary cells of each cell in a cell complex are also cells in the complex. Represented combinatorially via incidence matrices. Hypergraphs Allow arbitrary set-type relations among entities. Relations are not imposed by other relations, providing more flexibility. Do not explicitly encode the dimension of cells or relations. Useful when relations in the data do not adhere to constraints imposed by other models like simplicial and cell complexes. Combinatorial Complexes : Generalize and bridge the gaps between simplicial complexes, cell complexes, and hypergraphs. Allow for hierarchical structures and set-type relations. Combine features of other complexes while providing more flexibility in modeling relations. Can be represented combinatorially, similar to cell complexes. ==== Hierarchical structure and set-type relations ==== The properties of simplicial complexes, cell complexes, and hypergraphs give rise to two main features of relations on higher-order domains, namely hierarchies of relations and set-type relations. ===== Rank function ===== A rank function on a higher-order domain X is an order-preserving function rk: X → Z, where rk(x) attaches a non-negative integer value to each relation x in X, preserving set inclusion in X. Cell and simplicial complexes are common examples of higher-order domains equipped with rank functions and therefore with hierarchies of relations. ===== Set-type relations ===== Relations in a higher-order domain are called set-type relations if the existence of a relation is not implied by another relation in the domain. Hypergraphs constitute examples of higher-order domains equipped with set-type relations. Given the modeling limitations of simplicial complexes, cell complexes, and hypergraphs, we develop the combinatorial complex, a higher-order domain that features both hierarchies of relations and set-type relations. The learning tasks in TDL can be broadly classified into three categories: Cell classification: Predict targets for each cell in a complex. Examples include triangular mesh segmentation, where the task is to predict the class of each face or edge in a given mesh. Complex classification: Predict targets for an entire complex. For example, predict the class of each input mesh. Cell prediction: Predict properties of cell-cell interactions in a complex, and in some cases, predict whether a cell exists in the complex. An example is the prediction of linkages among entities in hyperedges of a hypergraph. In practice, to perform the aforementioned tasks, deep learning models designed for specific topological spaces must be constructed and implemented. These models, known as topological neural networks, are tailored to operate effectively within these spaces. === Topological neural networks === Central to TDL are topological neural networks (TNNs), specialized architectures designed to operate on data structured in topological domains. Unlike traditional neural networks tailored for grid-like structures, TNNs are adept at handling more intricate data representations, such as graphs