An information element, sometimes informally referred to as a field, is an item in Q.931 and Q.2931 messages, IEEE 802.11 management frames, and cellular network messages sent between a base transceiver station and a mobile phone or similar piece of user equipment. An information element is often a type–length–value item, containing 1) a type (which corresponds to the label of a field), a length indicator, and a value, although any combination of one or more of those parts is possible. A single message may contain multiple information elements. The abbreviation IE is found in many technical specification documents from 3GPP. It is not uncommon for a single specification document to contain thousands of references to IEs.
Speech segmentation
Speech segmentation is the process of identifying the boundaries between words, syllables, or phonemes in spoken natural languages. The term applies both to the mental processes used by humans, and to artificial processes of natural language processing. In the field of automatic pronunciation assessment, the process of segmenting an utterance against expected word(s) is called forced alignment. Speech segmentation is a subfield of general speech perception and an important subproblem of the technologically focused field of speech recognition, and cannot be adequately solved in isolation. As in most natural language processing problems, one must take into account context, grammar, and semantics, and even so the result is often a probabilistic division (statistically based on likelihood) rather than a categorical one. Though it seems that coarticulation—a phenomenon which may happen between adjacent words just as easily as within a single word—presents the main challenge in speech segmentation across languages, some other problems and strategies employed in solving those problems can be seen in the following sections. This problem overlaps to some extent with the problem of text segmentation that occurs in some languages which are traditionally written without inter-word spaces, like Chinese and Japanese, compared to writing systems which indicate speech segmentation between words by a word divider, such as the space. However, even for those languages, text segmentation is often much easier than speech segmentation, because the written language usually has little interference between adjacent words, and often contains additional clues not present in speech (such as the use of Chinese characters for word stems in Japanese). == Lexical recognition == In natural languages, the meaning of a complex spoken sentence can be understood by decomposing it into smaller lexical segments (roughly, the words of the language), associating a meaning to each segment, and combining those meanings according to the grammar rules of the language. Though lexical recognition is not thought to be used by infants in their first year, due to their highly limited vocabularies, it is one of the major processes involved in speech segmentation for adults. Three main models of lexical recognition exist in current research: first, whole-word access, which argues that words have a whole-word representation in the lexicon; second, decomposition, which argues that morphologically complex words are broken down into their morphemes (roots, stems, inflections, etc.) and then interpreted and; third, the view that whole-word and decomposition models are both used, but that the whole-word model provides some computational advantages and is therefore dominant in lexical recognition. To give an example, in a whole-word model, the word "cats" might be stored and searched for by letter, first "c", then "ca", "cat", and finally "cats". The same word, in a decompositional model, would likely be stored under the root word "cat" and could be searched for after removing the "s" suffix. "Falling", similarly, would be stored as "fall" and suffixed with the "ing" inflection. Though proponents of the decompositional model recognize that a morpheme-by-morpheme analysis may require significantly more computation, they argue that the unpacking of morphological information is necessary for other processes (such as syntactic structure) which may occur parallel to lexical searches. As a whole, research into systems of human lexical recognition is limited due to little experimental evidence that fully discriminates between the three main models. In any case, lexical recognition likely contributes significantly to speech segmentation through the contextual clues it provides, given that it is a heavily probabilistic system—based on the statistical likelihood of certain words or constituents occurring together. For example, one can imagine a situation where a person might say "I bought my dog at a ____ shop" and the missing word's vowel is pronounced as in "net", "sweat", or "pet". While the probability of "netshop" is extremely low, since "netshop" isn't currently a compound or phrase in English, and "sweatshop" also seems contextually improbable, "pet shop" is a good fit because it is a common phrase and is also related to the word "dog". Moreover, an utterance can have different meanings depending on how it is split into words. A popular example, often quoted in the field, is the phrase "How to wreck a nice beach", which sounds very similar to "How to recognize speech". As this example shows, proper lexical segmentation depends on context and semantics which draws on the whole of human knowledge and experience, and would thus require advanced pattern recognition and artificial intelligence technologies to be implemented on a computer. Lexical recognition is of particular value in the field of computer speech recognition, since the ability to build and search a network of semantically connected ideas would greatly increase the effectiveness of speech-recognition software. Statistical models can be used to segment and align recorded speech to words or phones. Applications include automatic lip-synch timing for cartoon animation, follow-the-bouncing-ball video sub-titling, and linguistic research. Automatic segmentation and alignment software is commercially available. == Phonotactic cues == For most spoken languages, the boundaries between lexical units are difficult to identify; phonotactics are one answer to this issue. One might expect that the inter-word spaces used by many written languages like English or Spanish would correspond to pauses in their spoken version, but that is true only in very slow speech, when the speaker deliberately inserts those pauses. In normal speech, one typically finds many consecutive words being said with no pauses between them, and often the final sounds of one word blend smoothly or fuse with the initial sounds of the next word. The notion that speech is produced like writing, as a sequence of distinct vowels and consonants, may be a relic of alphabetic heritage for some language communities. In fact, the way vowels are produced depends on the surrounding consonants just as consonants are affected by surrounding vowels; this is called coarticulation. For example, in the word "kit", the [k] is farther forward than when we say 'caught'. But also, the vowel in "kick" is phonetically different from the vowel in "kit", though we normally do not hear this. In addition, there are language-specific changes which occur in casual speech which makes it quite different from spelling. For example, in English, the phrase "hit you" could often be more appropriately spelled "hitcha". From a decompositional perspective, in many cases, phonotactics play a part in letting speakers know where to draw word boundaries. In English, the word "strawberry" is perceived by speakers as consisting (phonetically) of two parts: "straw" and "berry". Other interpretations such as "stra" and "wberry" are inhibited by English phonotactics, which does not allow the cluster "wb" word-initially. Other such examples are "day/dream" and "mile/stone" which are unlikely to be interpreted as "da/ydream" or "mil/estone" due to the phonotactic probability or improbability of certain clusters. The sentence "Five women left", which could be phonetically transcribed as [faɪvwɪmɘnlɛft], is marked since neither /vw/ in /faɪvwɪmɘn/ nor /nl/ in /wɪmɘnlɛft/ are allowed as syllable onsets or codas in English phonotactics. These phonotactic cues often allow speakers to easily distinguish the boundaries in words. Vowel harmony in languages like Finnish can also serve to provide phonotactic cues. While the system does not allow front vowels and back vowels to exist together within one morpheme, compounds allow two morphemes to maintain their own vowel harmony while coexisting in a word. Therefore, in compounds such as "selkä/ongelma" ('back problem') where vowel harmony is distinct between two constituents in a compound, the boundary will be wherever the switch in harmony takes place—between the "ä" and the "ö" in this case. Still, there are instances where phonotactics may not aid in segmentation. Words with unclear clusters or uncontrasted vowel harmony as in "opinto/uudistus" ('student reform') do not offer phonotactic clues as to how they are segmented. From the perspective of the whole-word model, however, these words are thought be stored as full words, so the constituent parts would not necessarily be relevant to lexical recognition. == In infants and non-natives == Infants are one major focus of research in speech segmentation. Since infants have not yet acquired a lexicon capable of providing extensive contextual clues or probability-based word searches within their first year, as mentioned above, they must often rely primarily upon phonotactic and rhythmic cues (with prosody being the dominant cue), all
Pharmacy automation
Pharmacy automation involves the mechanical processes of handling and distributing medications. Any pharmacy task may be involved, including counting small objects (e.g., tablets, capsules); measuring and mixing powders and liquids for compounding; tracking and updating customer information in databases (e.g., personally identifiable information (PII), medical history, drug interaction risk detection); and inventory management. This article focuses on the changes that have taken place in the local, or community pharmacy since the 1960s. == History == Dispensing medications in a community pharmacy before the 1970s was a time-consuming operation. The pharmacist dispensed prescriptions in tablet or capsule form with a simple tray and spatula. Many new medications were developed by pharmaceutical manufacturers at an ever-increasing pace, and medications prices were rising steeply. A typical community pharmacist was working longer hours and often forced to hire staff to handle increased workloads which resulted in less time to focus on safety issues. These additional factors led to use of a machine to count medications. The original electronic portable digital tablet counting technology was invented in Manchester, England between 1967 and 1970 by the brothers John and Frank Kirby. I had the original idea of how the machine would work and it was my patent, but it was a joint effort getting it to work in a saleable form. It was 3 years of very hard work. I had originally studied heavy electrical engineering before changing over to Medical School and qualifying as a Medical Doctor in 1968. In fact I was Senior House (Casualty) Officer (A&E or ER) in 1970 at North Manchester General Hospital when I filed the patent. I must have been the only hospital doctor in Britain with an oscilloscope, a soldering iron and a drawing board in his room in the Doctors' Residence. The housekeepers were bemused by all the wires. Frank originally trained as a Banker but quit to take a job with a local electronics firm during the development. He died in 1987, a terrible loss. [Extract from personal communication received in March 2010 from John Kirby.] Frank and John Kirby and their associate Rodney Lester were pioneers in pharmacy automation and small-object counting technology. In 1967, the Kirbys invented a portable digital tablet counter to count tablets and capsules. With Lester they formed a limited company. In 1970, their invention was patented and put into production in Oldham, England. The tablet counter aided the pharmacy industry with time-consuming manual counting of drug prescriptions. A counting machine consistently counted medications accurately and quickly. This aspect of pharmacy automation was quickly adopted, and innovations emerged every decade to aid the pharmacy industry to deliver medications quickly, safely, and economically. Modern pharmacies have many new options to improve their workflow by using the new technology, and can choose intelligently from the many options available. === Chronology === On 1 January 1971 commercial production of the first portable digital tablet counters in the World began. John Kirby had filed U.K. Patent number GB1358378(A) on 8 September 1970 and U.S. patent number 3789194 on 9 August 1971. These early electronic counters were designed to help pharmacies replace the common (but often inaccurate) practice of counting medications by hand. In 1975, the digital technology was exported to America. In early 1980 a dedicated research, development and production facility was built in Oldham, England at a cost of £500,000. Between 1982 and 1983, two separate development facilities had been created. In America, overseen by Rodney Lester; and in England, overseen by the Kirby brothers. In 1987, Frank Kirby died. In 1989, John Kirby moved his UK facility to Devon, England. A simple to operate machine had been developed to accurately and quickly count prescription medications. Technology improvements soon resulted in a more compact model. The price of such equipment in 1980 was around £1,300. This substantial investment in new technology was a major financial consideration, but the pharmacy community considered the use of a counting machine as a superior method compared to hand-counting medications. These early devices became known as tablet counter, capsule counter, pill counter, or drug counter. The new counting technology replaced manual methods in many industries such as, vitamin and diet supplement manufacturing. Technicians needed a small, affordable device to count and bottle medications. In England and America, the 1980s and 1990s saw new the development of high-speed machines for counting and bottle filling, Like their pharmacy-based counterparts, these industrial units were designed to be fast and simple to operate, yet remain small and cost effective. In America, in the late 1990s/early 2000s a new type of tablet counter appeared. It was simple to use, compact, inexpensive, and had good counting accuracy. At the turn of the millennium technical advances allowed the design of counters with a software verification system. With an onboard computer, displaying photo images of medications to assist the pharmacist or pharmacy technician to verify that the correct medication was being dispensed. In addition, a database for storing all prescriptions that were counted on the device. Between September 2005 and May 2007, American Capital made a major financial investment in Kirby Lester, which then relocated to a larger facility to expand its research and development capabilities. This move added extra space for product research and development facility (R&D). It allowed the opportunity to develop new advanced technology products that met the pharmacy's needs for simple, accurate, and cost-effective ways to dispense prescriptions safely. Pictured here is an early American type of integrated counter and packaging device. This machine was a third generation step in the evolution of pharmacy automated devices. Later models held pre-counted containers of commonly-prescribed medications. == Global variations == In the EU member states legislation was introduced in 1998 which had a major effect on UK Pharmacy operations. It effectively prohibited the use of tablet counters for counting and dispensing bulk packaged tablets. Both usage and sales of the machines in the UK declined rapidly as a result of the introduction of blister packaging for medicines. == Current state of the industry == A tablet counter has become a standard in more than 30,000 sites in 35 countries (as of 2010) (including many non-pharmacy sites, such as manufacturing facilities that use a counting machine as a check for small items). During the 1990s through 2012, numerous new pharmacy automation products came to market. During this timeframe, counting technologies, robotics, workflow management software, and interactive voice recognition (IVR) systems for retail (both chain and independent), outpatient, government, and closed-door pharmacies (mail order and central fill) were all introduced. Additionally, the concept of scalability - of migrating from an entry-level product to the next level of automation (e.g., counting technology to robotics) - was introduced and subsequently launched a new product line in 1997. Pharmacists everywhere are making the switch to automation for its increased speed, greater accuracy, and better security. As the industry evolves and customer expectations grow, automation is becoming less of a luxury and more of a necessity. Especially for independent pharmacies, automation is now a means of keeping up with the competition of large chain pharmacies. == Technological changes and design improvements == Constant developments in technology make the dispensing of prescription medications safer, more accurate and more efficient. In America, in 2008, "next-generation" counting and verification systems were introduced. Based on the counting technology employed in preceding models, later machines included the ability to help the pharmacy operate more effectively. Equipped with a new computer interface to a pharmacy management system, with workflow and inventory software. It also included "checks and balances" to ensure the technician and pharmacist were dispensing the correct medication for each patient. This is something that is important to keep reported correctly when dealing with controlled substances like narcotics. This was a step forward to verify all 100% of prescriptions that were dispensed by pharmacy staff. In America, in 2009, further advanced counters were designed that included the ability to dispense hands-free – a feature that many operators had desired. This allowed pharmacies to automate their most commonly dispensed medications via calibrated cassettes. Thirty of a pharmacy's common medications would now be dispensed automatically. Another new model doubled that throughput via an enclosed robotic mechanism. Robo
Structural similarity index measure
The structural similarity index measure (SSIM) is a method for predicting the perceived quality of digital television and cinematic pictures, as well as other kinds of digital images and videos. It is also used for measuring the similarity between two images. The SSIM index is a full reference metric; in other words, the measurement or prediction of image quality is based on an initial uncompressed or distortion-free image as reference. SSIM is a perception-based model that considers image degradation as perceived change in structural information, while also incorporating important perceptual phenomena, including both luminance masking and contrast masking terms. This distinguishes from other techniques such as mean squared error (MSE) or peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) that instead estimate absolute errors. Structural information is the idea that the pixels have strong inter-dependencies especially when they are spatially close. These dependencies carry important information about the structure of the objects in the visual scene. Luminance masking is a phenomenon whereby image distortions (in this context) tend to be less visible in bright regions, while contrast masking is a phenomenon whereby distortions become less visible where there is significant activity or "texture" in the image. == History == The predecessor of SSIM was called Universal Quality Index (UQI), or Wang–Bovik index, which was developed by Zhou Wang and Alan Bovik in 2001. This evolved, through their collaboration with Hamid Sheikh and Eero Simoncelli, into the current version of SSIM, which was published in April 2004 in the IEEE Transactions on Image Processing. In addition to defining the SSIM quality index, the paper provides a general context for developing and evaluating perceptual quality measures, including connections to human visual neurobiology and perception, and direct validation of the index against human subject ratings. The basic model was developed in the Laboratory for Image and Video Engineering (LIVE) at The University of Texas at Austin and further developed jointly with the Laboratory for Computational Vision (LCV) at New York University. Further variants of the model have been developed in the Image and Visual Computing Laboratory at University of Waterloo and have been commercially marketed. SSIM subsequently found strong adoption in the image processing community and in the television and social media industries. The 2004 SSIM paper has been cited over 50,000 times according to Google Scholar, making it one of the highest cited papers in the image processing and video engineering fields. It was recognized with the IEEE Signal Processing Society Best Paper Award for 2009. It also received the IEEE Signal Processing Society Sustained Impact Award for 2016, indicative of a paper having an unusually high impact for at least 10 years following its publication. Because of its high adoption by the television industry, the authors of the original SSIM paper were each accorded a Primetime Engineering Emmy Award in 2015 by the Television Academy. == Algorithm == The SSIM index is calculated between two windows of pixel values x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} of common size, from corresponding locations in two images to be compared. These SSIM values can be aggregated across the full images by averaging or other variations. === Special-case formula === In one simple special case, further explained in the next section, the SSIM measure between x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} is: SSIM ( x , y ) = ( 2 μ x μ y + c 1 ) ( 2 σ x y + c 2 ) ( μ x 2 + μ y 2 + c 1 ) ( σ x 2 + σ y 2 + c 2 ) {\displaystyle {\hbox{SSIM}}(x,y)={\frac {(2\mu _{x}\mu _{y}+c_{1})(2\sigma _{xy}+c_{2})}{(\mu _{x}^{2}+\mu _{y}^{2}+c_{1})(\sigma _{x}^{2}+\sigma _{y}^{2}+c_{2})}}} with: μ x {\displaystyle \mu _{x}} the pixel sample mean of x {\displaystyle x} ; μ y {\displaystyle \mu _{y}} the pixel sample mean of y {\displaystyle y} ; σ x 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{x}^{2}} the sample variance of x {\displaystyle x} ; σ y 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{y}^{2}} the sample variance of y {\displaystyle y} ; σ x y {\displaystyle \sigma _{xy}} the sample covariance of x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} ; c 1 = ( k 1 L ) 2 {\displaystyle c_{1}=(k_{1}L)^{2}} , c 2 = ( k 2 L ) 2 {\displaystyle c_{2}=(k_{2}L)^{2}} two variables to stabilize the division with weak denominator; L {\displaystyle L} the dynamic range of the pixel-values (typically this is 2 # b i t s p e r p i x e l − 1 {\displaystyle 2^{\#bits\ per\ pixel}-1} ); k 1 = 0.01 {\displaystyle k_{1}=0.01} and k 2 = 0.03 {\displaystyle k_{2}=0.03} by default. === General formula and components === The SSIM formula is based on three comparison measurements between the samples of x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} : luminance ( l {\displaystyle l} ), contrast ( c {\displaystyle c} ), and structure ( s {\displaystyle s} ). The individual comparison functions are: l ( x , y ) = 2 μ x μ y + c 1 μ x 2 + μ y 2 + c 1 {\displaystyle l(x,y)={\frac {2\mu _{x}\mu _{y}+c_{1}}{\mu _{x}^{2}+\mu _{y}^{2}+c_{1}}}} c ( x , y ) = 2 σ x σ y + c 2 σ x 2 + σ y 2 + c 2 {\displaystyle c(x,y)={\frac {2\sigma _{x}\sigma _{y}+c_{2}}{\sigma _{x}^{2}+\sigma _{y}^{2}+c_{2}}}} s ( x , y ) = σ x y + c 3 σ x σ y + c 3 {\displaystyle s(x,y)={\frac {\sigma _{xy}+c_{3}}{\sigma _{x}\sigma _{y}+c_{3}}}} The SSIM for each block is then a weighted combination of those comparative measures: SSIM ( x , y ) = l ( x , y ) α ⋅ c ( x , y ) β ⋅ s ( x , y ) γ {\displaystyle {\text{SSIM}}(x,y)=l(x,y)^{\alpha }\cdot c(x,y)^{\beta }\cdot s(x,y)^{\gamma }} Choosing the third denominator stabilizing constant as: c 3 = c 2 / 2 {\displaystyle c_{3}=c_{2}/2} leads to a simplification when combining the c and s components with equal exponents ( β = γ {\displaystyle \beta =\gamma } ), as the numerator of c is then twice the denominator of s, leading to a cancellation leaving just a 2. Setting the weights (exponents) α , β , γ {\displaystyle \alpha ,\beta ,\gamma } to 1, the formula can then be reduced to the special case shown above. === Mathematical properties === SSIM satisfies the identity of indiscernibles, and symmetry properties, but not the triangle inequality or non-negativity, and thus is not a distance function. However, under certain conditions, SSIM may be converted to a normalized root MSE measure, which is a distance function. The square of such a function is not convex, but is locally convex and quasiconvex, making SSIM a feasible target for optimization. === Application of the formula === In order to evaluate the image quality, this formula is usually applied only on luma, although it may also be applied on color (e.g., RGB) values or chromatic (e.g. YCbCr) values. The resultant SSIM index is a decimal value between -1 and 1, where 1 indicates perfect similarity, 0 indicates no similarity, and -1 indicates perfect anti-correlation. For an image, it is typically calculated using a sliding Gaussian window of size 11×11 or a block window of size 8×8. The window can be displaced pixel-by-pixel on the image to create an SSIM quality map of the image. In the case of video quality assessment, the authors propose to use only a subgroup of the possible windows to reduce the complexity of the calculation. === Variants === ==== Multi-scale SSIM ==== A more advanced form of SSIM, called Multiscale SSIM (MS-SSIM) is conducted over multiple scales through a process of multiple stages of sub-sampling, reminiscent of multiscale processing in the early vision system. It has been shown to perform equally well or better than SSIM on different subjective image and video databases. ==== Multi-component SSIM ==== Three-component SSIM (3-SSIM) is a form of SSIM that takes into account the fact that the human eye can see differences more precisely on textured or edge regions than on smooth regions. The resulting metric is calculated as a weighted average of SSIM for three categories of regions: edges, textures, and smooth regions. The proposed weighting is 0.5 for edges, 0.25 for the textured and smooth regions. The authors mention that a 1/0/0 weighting (ignoring anything but edge distortions) leads to results that are closer to subjective ratings. This suggests that edge regions play a dominant role in image quality perception. The authors of 3-SSIM have also extended the model into four-component SSIM (4-SSIM). The edge types are further subdivided into preserved and changed edges by their distortion status. The proposed weighting is 0.25 for all four components. ==== Structural dissimilarity ==== Structural dissimilarity (DSSIM) may be derived from SSIM, though it does not constitute a distance function as the triangle inequality is not necessarily satisfied. DSSIM ( x , y ) = 1 − SSIM ( x , y ) 2 {\displaystyle {\hbox{DSSIM}}(x,y)={\frac {1-{\hbox{SSIM}}(x,y)}{2}}} ==== Video quality metrics and temporal variants ==== It is worth noting that the original vers
LCD crosstalk
LCD crosstalk is a visual defect in an LCD screen which occurs because of interference between adjacent pixels. Owing to the way rows and columns in the display are addressed, and charge is pushed around, the data on one part of the display has the potential to influence what is displayed elsewhere. This is generally known as crosstalk, and in matrix displays typically occurs in the horizontal and vertical directions. Crosstalk used to be a serious problem in the old passive-matrix (STN) displays, but is rarely discernable in modern active-matrix (TFT) displays. A fortunate side effect of inversion (see above) is that, for most display material, what little crosstalk there is largely cancelled out. For most practical purposes, the level of crosstalk in modern LCDs is negligible. Certain patterns, particularly those involving fine dots, can interact with the inversion and reveal visible crosstalk. If you try moving a small Window in front of the inversion pattern (above) which makes your screen flicker the most, you may well see crosstalk in the surrounding pattern. Different patterns are required to reveal crosstalk on different displays (depending on their inversion scheme).
Spike-and-slab regression
Spike-and-slab regression is a type of Bayesian linear regression in which a particular hierarchical prior distribution for the regression coefficients is chosen such that only a subset of the possible regressors is retained. The technique is particularly useful when the number of possible predictors is larger than the number of observations. The idea of the spike-and-slab model was originally proposed by Mitchell & Beauchamp (1988). The approach was further significantly developed by Madigan & Raftery (1994) and George & McCulloch (1997). A recent and important contribution to this literature is Ishwaran & Rao (2005). == Model description == Suppose we have P possible predictors in some model. Vector γ has a length equal to P and consists of zeros and ones. This vector indicates whether a particular variable is included in the regression or not. If no specific prior information on initial inclusion probabilities of particular variables is available, a Bernoulli prior distribution is a common default choice. Conditional on a predictor being in the regression, we identify a prior distribution for the model coefficient, which corresponds to that variable (β). A common choice on that step is to use a normal prior with a mean equal to zero and a large variance calculated based on ( X T X ) − 1 {\displaystyle (X^{T}X)^{-1}} (where X {\displaystyle X} is a design matrix of explanatory variables of the model). A draw of γ from its prior distribution is a list of the variables included in the regression. Conditional on this set of selected variables, we take a draw from the prior distribution of the regression coefficients (if γi = 1 then βi ≠ 0 and if γi = 0 then βi = 0). βγ denotes the subset of β for which γi = 1. In the next step, we calculate a posterior probability for both inclusion and coefficients by applying a standard statistical procedure. All steps of the described algorithm are repeated thousands of times using the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) technique. As a result, we obtain a posterior distribution of γ (variable inclusion in the model), β (regression coefficient values) and the corresponding prediction of y. The model got its name (spike-and-slab) due to the shape of the two prior distributions. The "spike" is the probability of a particular coefficient in the model to be zero. The "slab" is the prior distribution for the regression coefficient values. An advantage of Bayesian variable selection techniques is that they are able to make use of prior knowledge about the model. In the absence of such knowledge, some reasonable default values can be used; to quote Scott and Varian (2013): "For the analyst who prefers simplicity at the cost of some reasonable assumptions, useful prior information can be reduced to an expected model size, an expected R2, and a sample size ν determining the weight given to the guess at R2." Some researchers suggest the following default values: R2 = 0.5, ν = 0.01, and π = 0.5 (parameter of a prior Bernoulli distribution).
Frameserver
A frameserver is any program that acts as a media source in the process called frameserving, which transfers digital video data from one computer program to another without intermediate files. The program that receives the data – the frameclient – could be any type of video application. The process is controlled by the frameclient: the frameclient requests audio/video frames and the frameserver serves them. The client can request frames in any order, allowing it to pause or jump to an arbitrary frame, just as a media player does with a file on disk. The client is most commonly a media encoder, a non-linear editing system, or a media player. == Frameservers == AviSynth VirtualDub VapourSynth Debugmode FrameServer