YaDICs is a program written to perform digital image correlation on 2D and 3D tomographic images. The program was designed to be both modular, by its plugin strategy and efficient, by it multithreading strategy. It incorporates different transformations (Global, Elastic, Local), optimizing strategy (Gauss-Newton, Steepest descent), Global and/or local shape functions (Rigid-body motions, homogeneous dilatations, flexural and Brazilian test models)... == Theoretical background == === Context === In solid mechanics, digital image correlation is a tool that allows to identify the displacement field to register a reference image (called herein fixed image) to images during an experiment (mobile image). For example, it is possible to observe the face of a specimen with a painted speckle on it in order to determine its displacement fields during a tensile test. Before the appearance of such methods, researchers usually used strain gauges to measure the mechanical state of the material but strain gauges only measure the strain on a point and don't allow to understand material with an heterogeneous behavior. One can obtain a full in plane strain tensor by derivation of the displacement fields. Many methods are based upon the optical flow. In fluid mechanics a similar method is used, called Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV); the algorithms are similar to those of DIC but it is impossible to ensure that the optical flow is conserved so a vast majority of the software used the normalized cross correlation metric. In mechanics the displacement or velocity fields are the only concern, registering images is just a side effect. There is another process called image registration using the same algorithms (on monomodal images) but where the goal is to register images and thereby identifying the displacement field is just a side effect. YaDICs uses the general principle of image registration with a particular attention to the displacement fields basis. === Image registration principle === YaDICs can be explained using the classical image registration framework: === Image registration general scheme === The common idea of image registration and digital image correlation is to find the transformation between a fixed image and a moving one for a given metric using an optimization scheme. While there are many methods to achieve such a goal, Yadics focuses on registering images with the same modality. The idea behind the creation of this software is to be able to process data that comes from a μ-tomograph; i.e.: data cube over 10003 voxels. With such a size it is not possible to use naive approach usually used in a two-dimensional context. In order to get sufficient performances OpenMP parallelism is used and data are not globally stored in memory. As an extensive description of the different algorithms is given in. === Sampling === Contrary to image registration, Digital Image Correlation targets the transformation, one wants to extracted the most accurate transformation from the two images and not just match the images. Yadics uses the whole image as a sampling grid: it is thus a total sampling. === Interpolator === It is possible to choose between bilinear interpolation and bicubic interpolation for the grey level evaluation at non integer coordinates. The bi-cubic interpolation is the recommended one. === Metrics === ==== Sum of squared differences (SSD) ==== The SSD is also known as mean squared error. The equation below defines the SSD metric: S S D ( μ , I F , I M ) = 1 | Ω F | ∑ x i ∈ Ω F ( I F ( x i ) − I M ( T μ ( x i ) ) ) 2 , {\displaystyle SSD(\mu ,{\mathcal {I_{F}}},{\mathcal {I_{M}}})={\dfrac {1}{\left|\Omega _{F}\right|}}\sum _{x_{i}\in \Omega _{F}}\left({\mathcal {I_{F}}}(x_{i})-{\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i}))\right)^{2},} where I F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I_{F}}}} is the fixed image, I M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I_{M}}}} the moving one, Ω F {\displaystyle \Omega _{F}} the integration area | Ω F | {\displaystyle \left|\Omega _{F}\right|} the number of pi(vo)xels (cardinal) and T μ {\displaystyle {T}_{\mu }} the transformation parametrized by μ The transformation can be written as: T μ ( x ) = x + { Φ ( x ) } t { μ } . {\displaystyle T_{\mu }(x)=x+\left\{\Phi (x)\right\}^{t}\left\{\mu \right\}.} This metric is the main one used in the YaDICs as it works well with same modality images. One has to find the minimum of this metric ==== Normalized cross-correlation ==== The normalized cross-correlation (NCC) is used when one cannot assure the optical flow conservation; it happens in case of change of lighting or if particles disappear from the scene can occur in particle images velocimetry (PIV). The NCC is defined by: N C C ( μ , I F , I M ) = ∑ x i ∈ Ω F ( I F ( x i ) − I F ¯ ) ( I M ( T μ ( x i ) ) − I M ¯ ) ∑ x i ∈ Ω F ( I F ( x i ) − I F ¯ ) 2 ∑ x i ∈ Ω F ( I M ( T μ ( x i ) ) − I M ¯ ) 2 , {\displaystyle NCC(\mu ,{\mathcal {I_{F}}},{\mathcal {I_{M}}})={\dfrac {\sum _{x_{i}\in \Omega _{F}}\left({\mathcal {I_{F}}}(x_{i})-{\overline {\mathcal {I_{F}}}}\right)\left({\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i}))-{\overline {\mathcal {I_{M}}}}\right)}{\sqrt {\sum _{x_{i}\in \Omega _{F}}\left({\mathcal {I_{F}}}(x_{i})-{\overline {\mathcal {I_{F}}}}\right)^{2}\sum _{x_{i}\in \Omega _{F}}\left({\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i}))-{\overline {\mathcal {I_{M}}}}\right)^{2}}}},} where I F ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {\mathcal {I_{F}}}}} and I M ¯ {\displaystyle {\overline {\mathcal {I_{M}}}}} are the mean values of the fixed and mobile images. This metric is only used to find local translation in Yadics. This metric with translation transform can be solved using cross-correlation methods, which are non iterative and can be accelerated using Fast Fourier Transform . === Classification of transformations === There are three categories of parametrization: elastic, global and local transformation. The elastic transformations respect the partition of unity, there are no holes created or surfaces counted several times. This is commonly used in Image Registration by the use of B-Spline functions and in solid mechanics with finite element basis. The global transformations are defined on the whole picture using rigid body or affine transformation (which is equivalent to homogeneous strain transformation). More complex transformations can be defined such as mechanically based one. These transformations have been used for stress intensity factor identification by and for rod strain by. The local transformation can be considered as the same global transformation defined on several Zone Of Interest (ZOI) of the fixed image. ==== Global ==== Several global transforms have been implemented: Rigid and homogeneous (Tx,Ty,Rz in 2D; Tx,Ty,Tz,Rx,Ry,Rz,Exx,Eyy,Ezz,Eyz,Exz,Exy in 3D) Brazilian (Only in 2D), Dynamic Flexion, ==== Elastic ==== First-order quadrangular finite elements Q4P1 are used in Yadics. ===== Local ===== Every global transform can be used on a local mesh. === Optimization === The YaDICs optimization process follows a gradient descent scheme. The first step is to compute the gradient of the metric regarding the transform parameters ∂ S S D ( μ , I F , I M ) ∂ μ = 2 | Ω F | ∑ x i ∈ Ω F ( I F ( x i ) − I M ( T μ ( x i ) ) ) ∂ I M ( T μ ( x i ) ∂ μ = 2 | Ω F | ∑ x i ∈ Ω F ( I F ( x i ) − I M ( T μ ( x i ) ) ) ( ∂ T μ ( x i ) ∂ μ ) t ∂ I M ( T μ ( x i ) ) ∂ x {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{lcl}{\dfrac {\partial SSD(\mu ,{\mathcal {I_{F}}},{\mathcal {I_{M}}})}{\partial \mu }}&=&{\dfrac {2}{\left|\Omega _{F}\right|}}\sum _{x_{i}\in \Omega _{F}}\left({\mathcal {I_{F}}}(x_{i})-{\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i}))\right){\dfrac {\partial {\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i})}{\partial \mu }}\\&=&{\dfrac {2}{\left|\Omega _{F}\right|}}\sum _{x_{i}\in \Omega _{F}}\left({\mathcal {I_{F}}}(x_{i})-{\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i}))\right)\left({\dfrac {\partial {T}_{\mu }(x_{i})}{\partial \mu }}\right)^{t}{\dfrac {\partial {\mathcal {I_{M}}}({T}_{\mu }(x_{i}))}{\partial x}}\\\end{array}}} ==== Gradient method ==== Once the metric gradient has been computed, one has to find an optimization strategy The gradient method principle is explained below: μ k + 1 = μ k + α k d k {\displaystyle \mu _{k+1}=\mu _{k}+\alpha _{k}d_{k}} The gradient step can be constant or updated at every iteration. d k = − γ k ∂ C ( μ , I F , I M ) ∂ μ {\displaystyle d_{k}=-\gamma _{k}{\dfrac {\partial {\mathcal {C}}(\mu ,{\mathcal {I_{F}}},{\mathcal {I_{M}}})}{\partial \mu }}} , γ k {\displaystyle \gamma _{k}} allows one to choose between the following methods : γ k {\displaystyle \gamma _{k}} ⟹ {\displaystyle \Longrightarrow } steepest descent, γ k = [ ∂ C ( μ , I F , I M ) ∂ μ ∂ C ( μ , I F , I M ) ∂ μ t ] − 1 {\displaystyle \gamma _{k}=\left[{\dfrac {\partial {\mathcal {C}}(\mu ,{\mathcal {I_{F}}},{\mathcal {I_{M}}})}{\partial \mu }}{\dfrac {\partial {\mathcal {C}}(\mu ,{\mathcal {I_{F}}},{\mathcal {I_{M}}})}{\partial \mu }}^{t}\right]^{-1}} ⟹ {\displaystyle \Longrightarrow } Gauss-Newto
Phase correlation
Phase correlation is an approach to estimate the relative translative offset between two similar images (digital image correlation) or other data sets. It is commonly used in image registration and relies on a frequency-domain representation of the data, usually calculated by fast Fourier transforms. The term is applied particularly to a subset of cross-correlation techniques that isolate the phase information from the Fourier-space representation of the cross-correlogram. == Example == The following image demonstrates the usage of phase correlation to determine relative translative movement between two images corrupted by independent Gaussian noise. The image was translated by (20,23) pixels. Accordingly, one can clearly see a peak in the phase-correlation representation at approximately (20,23). == Method == Given two input images g a {\displaystyle \ g_{a}} and g b {\displaystyle \ g_{b}} : Apply a window function (e.g., a Hamming window) on both images to reduce edge effects (this may be optional depending on the image characteristics). Then, calculate the discrete 2D Fourier transform of both images. G a = F { g a } , G b = F { g b } {\displaystyle \ \mathbf {G} _{a}={\mathcal {F}}\{g_{a}\},\;\mathbf {G} _{b}={\mathcal {F}}\{g_{b}\}} Calculate the cross-power spectrum by taking the complex conjugate of the second result, multiplying the Fourier transforms together elementwise, and normalizing this product elementwise. R = G a ∘ G b ∗ | G a ∘ G b ∗ | {\displaystyle \ R={\frac {\mathbf {G} _{a}\circ \mathbf {G} _{b}^{}}{|\mathbf {G} _{a}\circ \mathbf {G} _{b}^{}|}}} Where ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } is the Hadamard product (entry-wise product) and the absolute values are taken entry-wise as well. Written out entry-wise for element index ( j , k ) {\displaystyle (j,k)} : R j k = G a , j k ⋅ G b , j k ∗ | G a , j k ⋅ G b , j k ∗ | {\displaystyle \ R_{jk}={\frac {G_{a,jk}\cdot G_{b,jk}^{}}{|G_{a,jk}\cdot G_{b,jk}^{}|}}} Obtain the normalized cross-correlation by applying the inverse Fourier transform. r = F − 1 { R } {\displaystyle \ r={\mathcal {F}}^{-1}\{R\}} Determine the location of the peak in r {\displaystyle \ r} . ( Δ x , Δ y ) = arg max ( x , y ) { r } {\displaystyle \ (\Delta x,\Delta y)=\arg \max _{(x,y)}\{r\}} === Subpixel registration === Commonly, interpolation methods are used to estimate the peak location in the cross-correlogram to non-integer values, despite the fact that the data are discrete, and this procedure is often termed 'subpixel registration'. A large variety of subpixel interpolation methods are given in the technical literature. Common peak interpolation methods such as parabolic interpolation have been used, and the OpenCV computer vision package uses a centroid-based method, though these generally have inferior accuracy compared to more sophisticated methods. Because the Fourier representation of the data has already been computed, it is especially convenient to use the Fourier shift theorem with real-valued (sub-integer) shifts for this purpose, which essentially interpolates using the sinusoidal basis functions of the Fourier transform. An especially popular FT-based estimator is given by Foroosh et al. In this method, the subpixel peak location is approximated by a simple formula involving peak pixel value and the values of its nearest neighbors, where r ( 0 , 0 ) {\displaystyle r_{(0,0)}} is the peak value and r ( 1 , 0 ) {\displaystyle r_{(1,0)}} is the nearest neighbor in the x direction (assuming, as in most approaches, that the integer shift has already been found and the comparand images differ only by a subpixel shift). Δ x = r ( 1 , 0 ) r ( 1 , 0 ) ± r ( 0 , 0 ) {\displaystyle \ \Delta x={\frac {r_{(1,0)}}{r_{(1,0)}\pm r_{(0,0)}}}} The Foroosh et al. method is quite fast compared to most methods, though it is not always the most accurate. Some methods shift the peak in Fourier space and apply non-linear optimization to maximize the correlogram peak, but these tend to be very slow since they must apply an inverse Fourier transform or its equivalent in the objective function. It is also possible to infer the peak location from phase characteristics in Fourier space without the inverse transformation, as noted by Stone. These methods usually use a linear least squares (LLS) fit of the phase angles to a planar model. The long latency of the phase angle computation in these methods is a disadvantage, but the speed can sometimes be comparable to the Foroosh et al. method depending on the image size. They often compare favorably in speed to the multiple iterations of extremely slow objective functions in iterative non-linear methods. Since all subpixel shift computation methods are fundamentally interpolative, the performance of a particular method depends on how well the underlying data conform to the assumptions in the interpolator. This fact also may limit the usefulness of high numerical accuracy in an algorithm, since the uncertainty due to interpolation method choice may be larger than any numerical or approximation error in the particular method. Subpixel methods are also particularly sensitive to noise in the images, and the utility of a particular algorithm is distinguished not only by its speed and accuracy but its resilience to the particular types of noise in the application. == Rationale == The method is based on the Fourier shift theorem. Let the two images g a {\displaystyle \ g_{a}} and g b {\displaystyle \ g_{b}} be circularly-shifted versions of each other: g b ( x , y ) = d e f g a ( ( x − Δ x ) mod M , ( y − Δ y ) mod N ) {\displaystyle \ g_{b}(x,y)\ {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\ g_{a}((x-\Delta x){\bmod {M}},(y-\Delta y){\bmod {N}})} (where the images are M × N {\displaystyle \ M\times N} in size). Then, the discrete Fourier transforms of the images will be shifted relatively in phase: G b ( u , v ) = G a ( u , v ) e − 2 π i ( u Δ x M + v Δ y N ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {G} _{b}(u,v)=\mathbf {G} _{a}(u,v)e^{-2\pi i({\frac {u\Delta x}{M}}+{\frac {v\Delta y}{N}})}} One can then calculate the normalized cross-power spectrum to factor out the phase difference: R ( u , v ) = G a G b ∗ | G a G b ∗ | = G a G a ∗ e 2 π i ( u Δ x M + v Δ y N ) | G a G a ∗ e 2 π i ( u Δ x M + v Δ y N ) | = G a G a ∗ e 2 π i ( u Δ x M + v Δ y N ) | G a G a ∗ | = e 2 π i ( u Δ x M + v Δ y N ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}R(u,v)&={\frac {\mathbf {G} _{a}\mathbf {G} _{b}^{}}{|\mathbf {G} _{a}\mathbf {G} _{b}^{}|}}\\&={\frac {\mathbf {G} _{a}\mathbf {G} _{a}^{}e^{2\pi i({\frac {u\Delta x}{M}}+{\frac {v\Delta y}{N}})}}{|\mathbf {G} _{a}\mathbf {G} _{a}^{}e^{2\pi i({\frac {u\Delta x}{M}}+{\frac {v\Delta y}{N}})}|}}\\&={\frac {\mathbf {G} _{a}\mathbf {G} _{a}^{}e^{2\pi i({\frac {u\Delta x}{M}}+{\frac {v\Delta y}{N}})}}{|\mathbf {G} _{a}\mathbf {G} _{a}^{}|}}\\&=e^{2\pi i({\frac {u\Delta x}{M}}+{\frac {v\Delta y}{N}})}\end{aligned}}} since the magnitude of an imaginary exponential always is one, and the phase of G a G a ∗ {\displaystyle \ \mathbf {G} _{a}\mathbf {G} _{a}^{}} always is zero. The inverse Fourier transform of a complex exponential is a Dirac delta function, i.e. a single peak: r ( x , y ) = δ ( x + Δ x , y + Δ y ) {\displaystyle \ r(x,y)=\delta (x+\Delta x,y+\Delta y)} This result could have been obtained by calculating the cross correlation directly. The advantage of this method is that the discrete Fourier transform and its inverse can be performed using the fast Fourier transform, which is much faster than correlation for large images. === Benefits === Unlike many spatial-domain algorithms, the phase correlation method is resilient to noise, occlusions, and other defects typical of medical or satellite images. The method can be extended to determine rotation and scaling differences between two images by first converting the images to log-polar coordinates. Due to properties of the Fourier transform, the rotation and scaling parameters can be determined in a manner invariant to translation. === Limitations === In practice, it is more likely that g b {\displaystyle \ g_{b}} will be a simple linear shift of g a {\displaystyle \ g_{a}} , rather than a circular shift as required by the explanation above. In such cases, r {\displaystyle \ r} will not be a simple delta function, which will reduce the performance of the method. In such cases, a window function (such as a Gaussian or Tukey window) should be employed during the Fourier transform to reduce edge effects, or the images should be zero padded so that the edge effects can be ignored. If the images consist of a flat background, with all detail situated away from the edges, then a linear shift will be equivalent to a circular shift, and the above derivation will hold exactly. The peak can be sharpened by using edge or vector correlation. For periodic images (such as a chessboard or picket fence), phase correlation may yield ambiguous results with several peaks in the resulting output. == Applications == Phase correlation is the preferred m
Algorithm selection
Algorithm selection (sometimes also called per-instance algorithm selection or offline algorithm selection) is a meta-algorithmic technique to choose an algorithm from a portfolio on an instance-by-instance basis. It is motivated by the observation that on many practical problems, different algorithms have different performance characteristics. That is, while one algorithm performs well in some scenarios, it performs poorly in others and vice versa for another algorithm. If we can identify when to use which algorithm, we can optimize for each scenario and improve overall performance. This is what algorithm selection aims to do. The only prerequisite for applying algorithm selection techniques is that there exists (or that there can be constructed) a set of complementary algorithms. == Definition == Given a portfolio P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} of algorithms A ∈ P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}\in {\mathcal {P}}} , a set of instances i ∈ I {\displaystyle i\in {\mathcal {I}}} and a cost metric m : P × I → R {\displaystyle m:{\mathcal {P}}\times {\mathcal {I}}\to \mathbb {R} } , the algorithm selection problem consists of finding a mapping s : I → P {\displaystyle s:{\mathcal {I}}\to {\mathcal {P}}} from instances I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} to algorithms P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} such that the cost ∑ i ∈ I m ( s ( i ) , i ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i\in {\mathcal {I}}}m(s(i),i)} across all instances is optimized. == Examples == === Boolean satisfiability problem (and other hard combinatorial problems) === A well-known application of algorithm selection is the Boolean satisfiability problem. Here, the portfolio of algorithms is a set of (complementary) SAT solvers, the instances are Boolean formulas, the cost metric is for example average runtime or number of unsolved instances. So, the goal is to select a well-performing SAT solver for each individual instance. In the same way, algorithm selection can be applied to many other N P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {NP}}} -hard problems (such as mixed integer programming, CSP, AI planning, TSP, MAXSAT, QBF and answer set programming). Competition-winning systems in SAT are SATzilla, 3S and CSHC === Machine learning === In machine learning, algorithm selection is better known as meta-learning. The portfolio of algorithms consists of machine learning algorithms (e.g., Random Forest, SVM, DNN), the instances are data sets and the cost metric is for example the error rate. So, the goal is to predict which machine learning algorithm will have a small error on each data set. == Instance features == The algorithm selection problem is mainly solved with machine learning techniques. By representing the problem instances by numerical features f {\displaystyle f} , algorithm selection can be seen as a multi-class classification problem by learning a mapping f i ↦ A {\displaystyle f_{i}\mapsto {\mathcal {A}}} for a given instance i {\displaystyle i} . Instance features are numerical representations of instances. For example, we can count the number of variables, clauses, average clause length for Boolean formulas, or number of samples, features, class balance for ML data sets to get an impression about their characteristics. === Static vs. probing features === We distinguish between two kinds of features: Static features are in most cases some counts and statistics (e.g., clauses-to-variables ratio in SAT). These features ranges from very cheap features (e.g. number of variables) to very complex features (e.g., statistics about variable-clause graphs). Probing features (sometimes also called landmarking features) are computed by running some analysis of algorithm behavior on an instance (e.g., accuracy of a cheap decision tree algorithm on an ML data set, or running for a short time a stochastic local search solver on a Boolean formula). These feature often cost more than simple static features. === Feature costs === Depending on the used performance metric m {\displaystyle m} , feature computation can be associated with costs. For example, if we use running time as performance metric, we include the time to compute our instance features into the performance of an algorithm selection system. SAT solving is a concrete example, where such feature costs cannot be neglected, since instance features for CNF formulas can be either very cheap (e.g., to get the number of variables can be done in constant time for CNFs in the DIMACs format) or very expensive (e.g., graph features which can cost tens or hundreds of seconds). It is important to take the overhead of feature computation into account in practice in such scenarios; otherwise a misleading impression of the performance of the algorithm selection approach is created. For example, if the decision which algorithm to choose can be made with perfect accuracy, but the features are the running time of the portfolio algorithms, there is no benefit to the portfolio approach. This would not be obvious if feature costs were omitted. == Approaches == === Regression approach === One of the first successful algorithm selection approaches predicted the performance of each algorithm m ^ A : I → R {\displaystyle {\hat {m}}_{\mathcal {A}}:{\mathcal {I}}\to \mathbb {R} } and selected the algorithm with the best predicted performance a r g min A ∈ P m ^ A ( i ) {\displaystyle arg\min _{{\mathcal {A}}\in {\mathcal {P}}}{\hat {m}}_{\mathcal {A}}(i)} for an instance i {\displaystyle i} . === Clustering approach === A common assumption is that the given set of instances I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} can be clustered into homogeneous subsets and for each of these subsets, there is one well-performing algorithm for all instances in there. So, the training consists of identifying the homogeneous clusters via an unsupervised clustering approach and associating an algorithm with each cluster. A new instance is assigned to a cluster and the associated algorithm selected. A more modern approach is cost-sensitive hierarchical clustering using supervised learning to identify the homogeneous instance subsets. === Pairwise cost-sensitive classification approach === A common approach for multi-class classification is to learn pairwise models between every pair of classes (here algorithms) and choose the class that was predicted most often by the pairwise models. We can weight the instances of the pairwise prediction problem by the performance difference between the two algorithms. This is motivated by the fact that we care most about getting predictions with large differences correct, but the penalty for an incorrect prediction is small if there is almost no performance difference. Therefore, each instance i {\displaystyle i} for training a classification model A 1 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}_{1}} vs A 2 {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}_{2}} is associated with a cost | m ( A 1 , i ) − m ( A 2 , i ) | {\displaystyle |m({\mathcal {A}}_{1},i)-m({\mathcal {A}}_{2},i)|} . == Requirements == The algorithm selection problem can be effectively applied under the following assumptions: The portfolio P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} of algorithms is complementary with respect to the instance set I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} , i.e., there is no single algorithm A ∈ P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}\in {\mathcal {P}}} that dominates the performance of all other algorithms over I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} (see figures to the right for examples on complementary analysis). In some application, the computation of instance features is associated with a cost. For example, if the cost metric is running time, we have also to consider the time to compute the instance features. In such cases, the cost to compute features should not be larger than the performance gain through algorithm selection. == Application domains == Algorithm selection is not limited to single domains but can be applied to any kind of algorithm if the above requirements are satisfied. Application domains include: hard combinatorial problems: SAT, Mixed Integer Programming, CSP, AI Planning, TSP, MAXSAT, QBF and Answer Set Programming combinatorial auctions in machine learning, the problem is known as meta-learning software design black-box optimization multi-agent systems numerical optimization linear algebra, differential equations evolutionary algorithms vehicle routing problem power systems For an extensive list of literature about algorithm selection, we refer to a literature overview. == Variants of algorithm selection == === Online selection === Online algorithm selection refers to switching between different algorithms during the solving process. This is useful as a hyper-heuristic. In contrast, offline algorithm selection selects an algorithm for a given instance only once and before the solving process. === Computation of schedules === An extension of algorithm selection is the per-instance algorithm scheduling problem, in which we do not select only one solver, but we select a time budget for each algorithm
Equalized odds
Equalized odds, also referred to as conditional procedure accuracy equality and disparate mistreatment, is a measure of fairness in machine learning. A classifier satisfies this definition if the subjects in the protected and unprotected groups have equal true positive rate and equal false positive rate, satisfying the formula: P ( R = + | Y = y , A = a ) = P ( R = + | Y = y , A = b ) y ∈ { + , − } ∀ a , b ∈ A {\displaystyle P(R=+|Y=y,A=a)=P(R=+|Y=y,A=b)\quad y\in \{+,-\}\quad \forall a,b\in A} For example, A {\displaystyle A} could be gender, race, or any other characteristics that we want to be free of bias, while Y {\displaystyle Y} would be whether the person is qualified for the degree, and the output R {\displaystyle R} would be the school's decision whether to offer the person to study for the degree. In this context, higher university enrollment rates of African Americans compared to whites with similar test scores might be necessary to fulfill the condition of equalized odds, if the "base rate" of Y {\displaystyle Y} differs between the groups. The concept was originally defined for binary-valued Y {\displaystyle Y} . In 2017, Woodworth et al. generalized the concept further for multiple classes.
Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference
Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference proves that, under its common sense assumptions (axioms), the best possible scientific model is the shortest algorithm that generates the empirical data under consideration. In addition to the choice of data, other assumptions are that, to avoid the post-hoc fallacy, the programming language must be chosen prior to the data and that the environment being observed is generated by an unknown algorithm. This is also called a theory of induction. Due to its basis in the dynamical (state-space model) character of Algorithmic Information Theory, it encompasses statistical as well as dynamical information criteria for model selection. It was introduced by Ray Solomonoff, based on probability theory and theoretical computer science. In essence, Solomonoff's induction derives the posterior probability of any computable theory, given a sequence of observed data. This posterior probability is derived from Bayes' rule and some universal prior, that is, a prior that assigns a positive probability to any computable theory. Solomonoff proved that this induction is incomputable (or more precisely, lower semi-computable), but noted that "this incomputability is of a very benign kind", and that it "in no way inhibits its use for practical prediction" (as it can be approximated from below more accurately with more computational resources). It is only "incomputable" in the benign sense that no scientific consensus is able to prove that the best current scientific theory is the best of all possible theories. However, Solomonoff's theory does provide an objective criterion for deciding among the current scientific theories explaining a given set of observations. Solomonoff's induction naturally formalizes Occam's razor by assigning larger prior credences to theories that require a shorter algorithmic description. == Origin == === Philosophical === The theory is based in philosophical foundations, and was founded by Ray Solomonoff around 1960. It is a mathematically formalized combination of Occam's razor and the Principle of Multiple Explanations. All computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations are used to calculate the probability of the next observation, with more weight put on the shorter computable theories. Marcus Hutter's universal artificial intelligence builds upon this to calculate the expected value of an action. === Principle === Solomonoff's induction has been argued to be the computational formalization of pure Bayesianism. To understand, recall that Bayesianism derives the posterior probability P [ T | D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [T|D]} of a theory T {\displaystyle T} given data D {\displaystyle D} by applying Bayes rule, which yields P [ T | D ] = P [ D | T ] P [ T ] P [ D | T ] P [ T ] + ∑ A ≠ T P [ D | A ] P [ A ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [T|D]={\frac {\mathbb {P} [D|T]\mathbb {P} [T]}{\mathbb {P} [D|T]\mathbb {P} [T]+\sum _{A\neq T}\mathbb {P} [D|A]\mathbb {P} [A]}}} where theories A {\displaystyle A} are alternatives to theory T {\displaystyle T} . For this equation to make sense, the quantities P [ D | T ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [D|T]} and P [ D | A ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [D|A]} must be well-defined for all theories T {\displaystyle T} and A {\displaystyle A} . In other words, any theory must define a probability distribution over observable data D {\displaystyle D} . Solomonoff's induction essentially boils down to demanding that all such probability distributions be computable. Interestingly, the set of computable probability distributions is a subset of the set of all programs, which is countable. Similarly, the sets of observable data considered by Solomonoff were finite. Without loss of generality, we can thus consider that any observable data is a finite bit string. As a result, Solomonoff's induction can be defined by only invoking discrete probability distributions. Solomonoff's induction then allows to make probabilistic predictions of future data F {\displaystyle F} , by simply obeying the laws of probability. Namely, we have P [ F | D ] = E T [ P [ F | T , D ] ] = ∑ T P [ F | T , D ] P [ T | D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [F|D]=\mathbb {E} _{T}[\mathbb {P} [F|T,D]]=\sum _{T}\mathbb {P} [F|T,D]\mathbb {P} [T|D]} . This quantity can be interpreted as the average predictions P [ F | T , D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [F|T,D]} of all theories T {\displaystyle T} given past data D {\displaystyle D} , weighted by their posterior credences P [ T | D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [T|D]} . === Mathematical === The proof of the "razor" is based on the known mathematical properties of a probability distribution over a countable set. These properties are relevant because the infinite set of all programs is a denumerable set. The sum S of the probabilities of all programs must be exactly equal to one (as per the definition of probability) thus the probabilities must roughly decrease as we enumerate the infinite set of all programs, otherwise S will be strictly greater than one. To be more precise, for every ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } > 0, there is some length l such that the probability of all programs longer than l is at most ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } . This does not, however, preclude very long programs from having very high probability. Fundamental ingredients of the theory are the concepts of algorithmic probability and Kolmogorov complexity. The universal prior probability of any prefix p of a computable sequence x is the sum of the probabilities of all programs (for a universal computer) that compute something starting with p. Given some p and any computable but unknown probability distribution from which x is sampled, the universal prior and Bayes' theorem can be used to predict the yet unseen parts of x in optimal fashion. == Mathematical guarantees == === Solomonoff's completeness === The remarkable property of Solomonoff's induction is its completeness. In essence, the completeness theorem guarantees that the expected cumulative errors made by the predictions based on Solomonoff's induction are upper-bounded by the Kolmogorov complexity of the (stochastic) data generating process. The errors can be measured using the Kullback–Leibler divergence or the square of the difference between the induction's prediction and the probability assigned by the (stochastic) data generating process. === Solomonoff's uncomputability === Unfortunately, Solomonoff also proved that Solomonoff's induction is uncomputable. In fact, he showed that computability and completeness are mutually exclusive: any complete theory must be uncomputable. The proof of this is derived from a game between the induction and the environment. Essentially, any computable induction can be tricked by a computable environment, by choosing the computable environment that negates the computable induction's prediction. This fact can be regarded as an instance of the no free lunch theorem. == Modern applications == === Artificial intelligence === Though Solomonoff's inductive inference is not computable, several AIXI-derived algorithms approximate it in order to make it run on a modern computer. The more computing power they are given, the closer their predictions are to the predictions of inductive inference (their mathematical limit is Solomonoff's inductive inference). Another direction of inductive inference is based on E. Mark Gold's model of learning in the limit from 1967 and has developed since then more and more models of learning. The general scenario is the following: Given a class S of computable functions, is there a learner (that is, recursive functional) which for any input of the form (f(0),f(1),...,f(n)) outputs a hypothesis (an index e with respect to a previously agreed on acceptable numbering of all computable functions; the indexed function may be required consistent with the given values of f). A learner M learns a function f if almost all its hypotheses are the same index e, which generates the function f; M learns S if M learns every f in S. Basic results are that all recursively enumerable classes of functions are learnable while the class REC of all computable functions is not learnable. Many related models have been considered and also the learning of classes of recursively enumerable sets from positive data is a topic studied from Gold's pioneering paper in 1967 onwards. A far reaching extension of the Gold’s approach is developed by Schmidhuber's theory of generalized Kolmogorov complexities, which are kinds of super-recursive algorithms.
Corel Designer
Corel DESIGNER is a vector-based graphics program. It was originally developed by Micrografx, which was bought by Corel in 2001. The last version developed by Micrografx was 9.0 in 2001. This program was later sold as Corel DESIGNER 9. There are still a number of users who continue working with version 9.0, because newer versions of the product are based on a modified CorelDRAW rather than the original product. Corel DESIGNER is effective for the creation of engineering drawings, but also offers many functions for graphic design. Starting with version X5, Corel DESIGNER Technical Suite includes Corel Designer, CorelDRAW and Corel Photo-Paint. X6 was the last release for Windows XP. == Release history and file formats ==
Sequence labeling
In machine learning, sequence labeling is a type of pattern recognition task that involves the algorithmic assignment of a categorical label to each member of a sequence of observed values. A common example of a sequence labeling task is part of speech tagging, which seeks to assign a part of speech to each word in an input sentence or document. Sequence labeling can be treated as a set of independent classification tasks, one per member of the sequence. However, accuracy is generally improved by making the optimal label for a given element dependent on the choices of nearby elements, using special algorithms to choose the globally best set of labels for the entire sequence at once. As an example of why finding the globally best label sequence might produce better results than labeling one item at a time, consider the part-of-speech tagging task just described. Frequently, many words are members of multiple parts of speech, and the correct label of such a word can often be deduced from the correct label of the word to the immediate left or right. For example, the word "sets" can be either a noun or verb. In a phrase like "he sets the books down", the word "he" is unambiguously a pronoun, and "the" unambiguously a determiner, and using either of these labels, "sets" can be deduced to be a verb, since nouns very rarely follow pronouns and are less likely to precede determiners than verbs are. But in other cases, only one of the adjacent words is similarly helpful. In "he sets and then knocks over the table", only the word "he" to the left is helpful (cf. "...picks up the sets and then knocks over..."). Conversely, in "... and also sets the table" only the word "the" to the right is helpful (cf. "... and also sets of books were ..."). An algorithm that proceeds from left to right, labeling one word at a time, can only use the tags of left-adjacent words and might fail in the second example above; vice versa for an algorithm that proceeds from right to left. Most sequence labeling algorithms are probabilistic in nature, relying on statistical inference to find the best sequence. The most common statistical models in use for sequence labeling make a Markov assumption, i.e. that the choice of label for a particular word is directly dependent only on the immediately adjacent labels; hence the set of labels forms a Markov chain. This leads naturally to the hidden Markov model (HMM), one of the most common statistical models used for sequence labeling. Other common models in use are the maximum entropy Markov model and conditional random field.