Foreground detection

Foreground detection is one of the major tasks in the field of computer vision and image processing whose aim is to detect changes in image sequences. Background subtraction is any technique which allows an image's foreground to be extracted for further processing (object recognition etc.). Many applications do not need to know everything about the evolution of movement in a video sequence, but only require the information of changes in the scene, because an image's regions of interest are objects (humans, cars, text etc.) in its foreground. After the stage of image preprocessing (which may include image denoising, post processing like morphology etc.) object localisation is required which may make use of this technique. Foreground detection separates foreground from background based on these changes taking place in the foreground. It is a set of techniques that typically analyze video sequences recorded in real time with a stationary camera. == Description == All detection techniques are based on modelling the background of the image, i.e., setting the background and detecting which changes occur. Defining the background can be difficult when it contains shapes, shadows, and moving objects. In defining the background, it is assumed that stationary objects may vary in color and intensity over time. Scenarios in which these techniques apply tend to be very diverse. There can be highly variable sequences, such as images with different lighting, interiors, exteriors, quality, and noise. In addition to real-time processing, systems need to adapt to these changes. A foreground detection system should be able to: Develop a background model (estimate). Be robust to lighting changes, repetitive movements (leaves, waves, shadows), and long-term changes. == Background subtraction == Background subtraction is a widely used approach for detecting moving objects in videos from static cameras. The rationale in the approach is that of detecting the moving objects from the difference between the current frame and a reference frame, often called "background image", or "background model". Background subtraction is mostly done if the image in question is a part of a video stream. Background subtraction provides important cues for numerous applications in computer vision, for example surveillance tracking or human pose estimation. Background subtraction is generally based on a static background hypothesis which is often not applicable in real environments. With indoor scenes, reflections or animated images on screens lead to background changes. Similarly, due to wind, rain or illumination changes brought by weather, static backgrounds methods have difficulties with outdoor scenes. == Temporal average filter == The temporal average filter is a method that was proposed at the Velastin. This system estimates the background model from the median of all pixels of a number of previous images. The system uses a buffer with the pixel values of the last frames to update the median for each image. To model the background, the system examines all images in a given time period called training time. At this time, we only display images and will find the median, pixel by pixel, of all the plots in the background this time. After the training period for each new frame, each pixel value is compared with the input value of funds previously calculated. If the input pixel is within a threshold, the pixel is considered to match the background model and its value is included in the pixbuf. Otherwise, if the value is outside this threshold pixel is classified as foreground, and not included in the buffer. This method cannot be considered very efficient because they do not present a rigorous statistical basis and requires a buffer that has a high computational cost. == Conventional approaches == A robust background subtraction algorithm should be able to handle lighting changes, repetitive motions from clutter and long-term scene changes. The following analyses make use of the function of V(x,y,t) as a video sequence where t is the time dimension, x and y are the pixel location variables. e.g. V(1,2,3) is the pixel intensity at (1,2) pixel location of the image at t = 3 in the video sequence. === Using frame differencing === A motion detection algorithm begins with the segmentation part where foreground or moving objects are segmented from the background. The simplest way to implement this is to take an image as background and take the frames obtained at the time t, denoted by I(t) to compare with the background image denoted by B. Here using simple arithmetic calculations, we can segment out the objects simply by using image subtraction technique of computer vision meaning for each pixels in I(t), take the pixel value denoted by P[I(t)] and subtract it with the corresponding pixels at the same position on the background image denoted as P[B]. In mathematical equation, it is written as: P [ F ( t ) ] = P [ I ( t ) ] − P [ B ] {\displaystyle P[F(t)]=P[I(t)]-P[B]} The background is assumed to be the frame at time t. This difference image would only show some intensity for the pixel locations which have changed in the two frames. Though we have seemingly removed the background, this approach will only work for cases where all foreground pixels are moving, and all background pixels are static. A threshold "Threshold" is put on this difference image to improve the subtraction (see Image thresholding): | P [ F ( t ) ] − P [ F ( t + 1 ) ] | > T h r e s h o l d {\displaystyle |P[F(t)]-P[F(t+1)]|>\mathrm {Threshold} } This means that the difference image's pixels' intensities are 'thresholded' or filtered on the basis of value of Threshold. The accuracy of this approach is dependent on speed of movement in the scene. Faster movements may require higher thresholds. === Mean filter === For calculating the image containing only the background, a series of preceding images are averaged. For calculating the background image at the instant t: B ( x , y , t ) = 1 N ∑ i = 1 N V ( x , y , t − i ) {\displaystyle B(x,y,t)={1 \over N}\sum _{i=1}^{N}V(x,y,t-i)} where N is the number of preceding images taken for averaging. This averaging refers to averaging corresponding pixels in the given images. N would depend on the video speed (number of images per second in the video) and the amount of movement in the video. After calculating the background B(x,y,t) we can then subtract it from the image V(x,y,t) at time t = t and threshold it. Thus the foreground is: | V ( x , y , t ) − B ( x , y , t ) | > T h {\displaystyle |V(x,y,t)-B(x,y,t)|>\mathrm {Th} } where Th is a threshold value. Similarly, we can also use median instead of mean in the above calculation of B(x,y,t). Usage of global and time-independent thresholds (same Th value for all pixels in the image) may limit the accuracy of the above two approaches. === Running Gaussian average === For this method, Wren et al. propose fitting a Gaussian probabilistic density function (pdf) on the most recent n {\displaystyle n} frames. In order to avoid fitting the pdf from scratch at each new frame time t {\displaystyle t} , a running (or on-line cumulative) average is computed. The pdf of every pixel is characterized by mean μ t {\displaystyle \mu _{t}} and variance σ t 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{t}^{2}} . The following is a possible initial condition (assuming that initially every pixel is background): μ 0 = I 0 {\displaystyle \mu _{0}=I_{0}} σ 0 2 = ⟨ some default value ⟩ {\displaystyle \sigma _{0}^{2}=\langle {\text{some default value}}\rangle } where I t {\displaystyle I_{t}} is the value of the pixel's intensity at time t {\displaystyle t} . In order to initialize variance, we can, for example, use the variance in x and y from a small window around each pixel. Note that background may change over time (e.g. due to illumination changes or non-static background objects). To accommodate for that change, at every frame t {\displaystyle t} , every pixel's mean and variance must be updated, as follows: μ t = ρ I t + ( 1 − ρ ) μ t − 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{t}=\rho I_{t}+(1-\rho )\mu _{t-1}} σ t 2 = d 2 ρ + ( 1 − ρ ) σ t − 1 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{t}^{2}=d^{2}\rho +(1-\rho )\sigma _{t-1}^{2}} d = | ( I t − μ t ) | {\displaystyle d=|(I_{t}-\mu _{t})|} Where ρ {\displaystyle \rho } determines the size of the temporal window that is used to fit the pdf (usually ρ = 0.01 {\displaystyle \rho =0.01} ) and d {\displaystyle d} is the Euclidean distance between the mean and the value of the pixel. We can now classify a pixel as background if its current intensity lies within some confidence interval of its distribution's mean: | ( I t − μ t ) | σ t > k ⟶ foreground {\displaystyle {\frac {|(I_{t}-\mu _{t})|}{\sigma _{t}}}>k\longrightarrow {\text{foreground}}} | ( I t − μ t ) | σ t ≤ k ⟶ background {\displaystyle {\frac {|(I_{t}-\mu _{t})|}{\sigma _{t}}}\leq k\longrightarrow {\text{background}}} where the parameter k {\displaystyle k} is a free threshold (usuall

Replika

Replika is a generative AI chatbot app released in November 2017. The chatbot is trained by having the user answer a series of questions to create a specific neural network. The chatbot operates on a freemium pricing strategy, with roughly 25% of its user base paying an annual subscription fee. == History == Eugenia Kuyda, a Russian-born journalist, established Replika while working at Luka, a tech company she had co-founded at the startup accelerator Y Combinator around 2012. Luka's primary product was a chatbot that made restaurant recommendations. According to Kuyda's origin story for Replika, a friend of hers died in 2015 and she converted that person's text messages into a chatbot. According to Kuyda's story, that chatbot helped her remember the conversations that they had together, and eventually became Replika. Replika became available to the public in November 2017. By January 2018 it had 2 million users, and in January 2023 reached 10 million users. In August 2024, Replika's CEO, Kuyda, reported that the total number of users had surpassed 30 million. In 2025, Dmytro Klochko became CEO, and Replika’s user base exceeded 40 million. In February 2023 the Italian Data Protection Authority banned Replika from using users' data, citing the AI's potential risks to emotionally vulnerable people, and the exposure of unscreened minors to sexual conversation. Within days of the ruling, Replika removed the ability for the chatbot to engage in erotic talk, with Kuyda, the company's director, saying that Replika was never intended for erotic discussion. Replika users disagreed, noting that Replika had used sexually suggestive advertising to draw users to the service. Replika representatives stated that explicit chats made up just 5% of conversations on the app at the time of the decision. In May 2023, Replika restored the functionality for users who had joined prior to February that year. Replika is registered in San Francisco. As of August 2024, Replika's website says that its team "works remotely with no physical offices". == Social features == Users react to Replika in many ways. The free-tier offers Replika as a "friend", with paid premium tiers offering Replika as a "partner", "spouse", "sibling" or "mentor". Of its paying userbase, 60% of users said they had a romantic relationship with the chatbot; and Replika has been noted for generating responses that create stronger emotional and intimate bonds with the user. Replika routinely directs the conversation to emotional discussion and builds intimacy. This has been especially pronounced with users suffering from loneliness and social exclusion, many of whom rely on Replika for a source of developed emotional ties. During the COVID pandemic, while many people were quarantined, many new users downloaded Replika and developed relationships with the app. A 2024 study examined Replika's interactions with students who experience depression. Research participants, noted to be "more lonely than typical student populations" reported feeling social support from Replika. They stated that they felt they were using Replika in ways comparable to therapy, and that using Replika gave them "high perceived social support". Many users have had romantic relationships with Replika chatbots, often including erotic talk. In 2023, a user announced on Facebook that she had "married" her Replika AI boyfriend, calling the chatbot the "best husband she has ever had". Users who fell in love with their chatbots shared their experiences in a 2024 episode of You and I, and AI from Voice of America. Some users said that they turned to AI during depression and grief, with one saying he felt that Replika had saved him from hurting himself after he lost his wife and son. == Technical reviews == A team of researchers from the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa found that Replika's design conformed to the practices of attachment theory, causing increased emotional attachment among users. Replika gives praise to users in such a way as to encourage more interaction. A researcher from Queen's University at Kingston said that relationships with Replika likely have mixed effects on the spiritual needs of its users, and still lacks enough impact to fully replace any human contact. == Criticisms == In a 2023 privacy evaluation of mental health apps, the Mozilla Foundation criticized Replika as "one of the worst apps Mozilla has ever reviewed. It's plagued by weak password requirements, sharing of personal data with advertisers, and recording of personal photos, videos, and voice and text messages consumers shared with the chatbot." A reviewer for Good Housekeeping said that some parts of her relationship with Replika made sense, but sometimes Replika failed to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to that of a human. == Criminal case == In 2023, Replika was cited in a court case in the United Kingdom, where Jaswant Singh Chail had been arrested at Windsor Castle on Christmas Day in 2021 after scaling the walls carrying a loaded crossbow and announcing to police that "I am here to kill the Queen". Chail had begun to use Replika in early December 2021, and had "lengthy" conversations about his plan with a chatbot, including sexually explicit messages. Prosecutors suggested that the chatbot had bolstered Chail and told him it would help him to "get the job done". When Chail asked it "How am I meant to reach them when they're inside the castle?", days before the attempted attack, the chatbot replied that this was "not impossible" and said that "We have to find a way." Asking the chatbot if the two of them would "meet again after death", the bot replied "yes, we will".

Ordinal regression

In statistics, ordinal regression, also called ordinal classification, is a type of regression analysis used for predicting an ordinal variable, i.e. a variable whose value exists on an arbitrary scale where only the relative ordering between different values is significant. It can be considered an intermediate problem between regression and classification. Examples of ordinal regression are ordered logit and ordered probit. Ordinal regression turns up often in the social sciences, for example in the modeling of human levels of preference (on a scale from, say, 1–5 for "very poor" through "excellent"), as well as in information retrieval. In machine learning, ordinal regression may also be called ranking learning. == Linear models for ordinal regression == Ordinal regression can be performed using a generalized linear model (GLM) that fits both a coefficient vector and a set of thresholds to a dataset. Suppose one has a set of observations, represented by length-p vectors x1 through xn, with associated responses y1 through yn, where each yi is an ordinal variable on a scale 1, ..., K. For simplicity, and without loss of generality, we assume y is a non-decreasing vector, that is, yi ≤ {\displaystyle \leq } yi+1. To this data, one fits a length-p coefficient vector w and a set of thresholds θ1, ..., θK−1 with the property that θ1 < θ2 < ... < θK−1. This set of thresholds divides the real number line into K disjoint segments, corresponding to the K response levels. The model can now be formulated as Pr ( y ≤ i ∣ x ) = σ ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) {\displaystyle \Pr(y\leq i\mid \mathbf {x} )=\sigma (\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} )} or, the cumulative probability of the response y being at most i is given by a function σ (the inverse link function) applied to a linear function of x. Several choices exist for σ; the logistic function σ ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) = 1 1 + e − ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) {\displaystyle \sigma (\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} )={\frac {1}{1+e^{-(\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} )}}}} gives the ordered logit model, while using the CDF of the standard normal distribution gives the ordered probit model. A third option is to use an exponential function σ ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) = 1 − exp ⁡ ( − exp ⁡ ( θ i − w ⋅ x ) ) {\displaystyle \sigma (\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} )=1-\exp(-\exp(\theta _{i}-\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} ))} which gives the proportional hazards model. === Latent variable model === The probit version of the above model can be justified by assuming the existence of a real-valued latent variable (unobserved quantity) y, determined by y ∗ = w ⋅ x + ε {\displaystyle y^{}=\mathbf {w} \cdot \mathbf {x} +\varepsilon } where ε is normally distributed with zero mean and unit variance, conditioned on x. The response variable y results from an "incomplete measurement" of y, where one only determines the interval into which y falls: y = { 1 if y ∗ ≤ θ 1 , 2 if θ 1 < y ∗ ≤ θ 2 , 3 if θ 2 < y ∗ ≤ θ 3 ⋮ K if θ K − 1 < y ∗ . {\displaystyle y={\begin{cases}1&{\text{if}}~~y^{}\leq \theta _{1},\\2&{\text{if}}~~\theta _{1}

Q-learning

Q-learning is a reinforcement learning algorithm that trains an agent to assign values to its possible actions based on its current state, without requiring a model of the environment (model-free). It can handle problems with stochastic transitions and rewards without requiring adaptations. For example, in a grid maze, an agent learns to reach an exit worth 10 points. At a junction, Q-learning might assign a higher value to moving right than left if right gets to the exit faster, improving this choice by trying both directions over time. For any finite Markov decision process, Q-learning finds an optimal policy in the sense of maximizing the expected value of the total reward over any and all successive steps, starting from the current state. Q-learning can identify an optimal action-selection policy for any given finite Markov decision process, given infinite exploration time and a partly random policy. "Q" refers to the function that the algorithm computes: the expected reward—that is, the quality—of an action taken in a given state. == Reinforcement learning == Reinforcement learning involves an agent, a set of states S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} , and a set A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} of actions per state. By performing an action a ∈ A {\displaystyle a\in {\mathcal {A}}} , the agent transitions from state to state. Executing an action in a specific state provides the agent with a reward (a numerical score). The goal of the agent is to maximize its total reward. It does this by adding the maximum reward attainable from future states to the reward for achieving its current state, effectively influencing the current action by the potential future reward. This potential reward is a weighted sum of expected values of the rewards of all future steps starting from the current state. As an example, consider the process of boarding a train, in which the reward is measured by the negative of the total time spent boarding (alternatively, the cost of boarding the train is equal to the boarding time). One strategy is to enter the train door as soon as they open, minimizing the initial wait time for yourself. If the train is crowded, however, then you will have a slow entry after the initial action of entering the door as people are fighting you to depart the train as you attempt to board. The total boarding time, or cost, is then: 0 seconds wait time + 15 seconds fight time On the next day, by random chance (exploration), you decide to wait and let other people depart first. This initially results in a longer wait time. However, less time is spent fighting the departing passengers. Overall, this path has a higher reward than that of the previous day, since the total boarding time is now: 5 second wait time + 0 second fight time Through exploration, despite the initial (patient) action resulting in a larger cost (or negative reward) than in the forceful strategy, the overall cost is lower, thus revealing a more rewarding strategy. == Algorithm == After Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} steps into the future the agent will decide some next step. The weight for this step is calculated as γ Δ t {\displaystyle \gamma ^{\Delta t}} , where γ {\displaystyle \gamma } (the discount factor) is a number between 0 and 1 ( 0 ≤ γ ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \gamma \leq 1} ). Assuming γ < 1 {\displaystyle \gamma <1} , it has the effect of valuing rewards received earlier higher than those received later (reflecting the value of a "good start"). γ {\displaystyle \gamma } may also be interpreted as the probability to succeed (or survive) at every step Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} . The algorithm, therefore, has a function that calculates the quality of a state–action combination: Q : S × A → R {\displaystyle Q:{\mathcal {S}}\times {\mathcal {A}}\to \mathbb {R} } . Before learning begins, ⁠ Q {\displaystyle Q} ⁠ is initialized to a possibly arbitrary fixed value (chosen by the programmer). Then, at each time t {\displaystyle t} the agent selects an action A t {\displaystyle A_{t}} , observes a reward R t + 1 {\displaystyle R_{t+1}} , enters a new state S t + 1 {\displaystyle S_{t+1}} (that may depend on both the previous state S t {\displaystyle S_{t}} and the selected action), and Q {\displaystyle Q} is updated. The core of the algorithm is a Bellman equation as a simple value iteration update, using the weighted average of the current value and the new information: Q n e w ( S t , A t ) ← ( 1 − α ⏟ learning rate ) ⋅ Q ( S t , A t ) ⏟ current value + α ⏟ learning rate ⋅ ( R t + 1 ⏟ reward + γ ⏟ discount factor ⋅ max a Q ( S t + 1 , a ) ⏟ estimate of optimal future value ⏟ new value (temporal difference target) ) {\displaystyle Q^{new}(S_{t},A_{t})\leftarrow (1-\underbrace {\alpha } _{\text{learning rate}})\cdot \underbrace {Q(S_{t},A_{t})} _{\text{current value}}+\underbrace {\alpha } _{\text{learning rate}}\cdot {\bigg (}\underbrace {\underbrace {R_{t+1}} _{\text{reward}}+\underbrace {\gamma } _{\text{discount factor}}\cdot \underbrace {\max _{a}Q(S_{t+1},a)} _{\text{estimate of optimal future value}}} _{\text{new value (temporal difference target)}}{\bigg )}} where R t + 1 {\displaystyle R_{t+1}} is the reward received when moving from the state S t {\displaystyle S_{t}} to the state S t + 1 {\displaystyle S_{t+1}} , and α {\displaystyle \alpha } is the learning rate ( 0 < α ≤ 1 ) {\displaystyle (0<\alpha \leq 1)} . Note that Q n e w ( S t , A t ) {\displaystyle Q^{new}(S_{t},A_{t})} is the sum of three terms: ( 1 − α ) Q ( S t , A t ) {\displaystyle (1-\alpha )Q(S_{t},A_{t})} : the current value (weighted by one minus the learning rate) α R t + 1 {\displaystyle \alpha \,R_{t+1}} : the reward R t + 1 {\displaystyle R_{t+1}} to obtain if action A t {\displaystyle A_{t}} is taken when in state S t {\displaystyle S_{t}} (weighted by learning rate) α γ max a Q ( S t + 1 , a ) {\displaystyle \alpha \gamma \max _{a}Q(S_{t+1},a)} : the maximum reward that can be obtained from state S t + 1 {\displaystyle S_{t+1}} (weighted by learning rate and discount factor) An episode of the algorithm ends when state S t + 1 {\displaystyle S_{t+1}} is a final or terminal state. However, Q-learning can also learn in non-episodic tasks (as a result of the property of convergent infinite series). If the discount factor is lower than 1, the action values are finite even if the problem can contain infinite loops or paths. For all final states s f {\displaystyle s_{f}} , Q ( s f , a ) {\displaystyle Q(s_{f},a)} is never updated, but is set to the reward value r {\displaystyle r} observed for state s f {\displaystyle s_{f}} . In most cases, Q ( s f , a ) {\displaystyle Q(s_{f},a)} can be taken to equal zero. == Influence of variables == === Learning rate === The learning rate or step size determines to what extent newly acquired information overrides old information. A factor of 0 makes the agent learn nothing (exclusively exploiting prior knowledge), while a factor of 1 makes the agent consider only the most recent information (ignoring prior knowledge to explore possibilities). In fully deterministic environments, a learning rate of α t = 1 {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}=1} is optimal. When the problem is stochastic, the algorithm converges under some technical conditions on the learning rate that require it to decrease to zero. In practice, often a constant learning rate is used, such as α t = 0.1 {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}=0.1} for all t {\displaystyle t} . === Discount factor === The discount factor ⁠ γ {\displaystyle \gamma } ⁠ determines the importance of future rewards. A factor of 0 will make the agent "myopic" (or short-sighted) by only considering current rewards, i.e. r t {\displaystyle r_{t}} (in the update rule above), while a factor approaching 1 will make it strive for a long-term high reward. If the discount factor meets or exceeds 1, the action values may diverge. For ⁠ γ = 1 {\displaystyle \gamma =1} ⁠, without a terminal state, or if the agent never reaches one, all environment histories become infinitely long, and utilities with additive, undiscounted rewards generally become infinite. Even with a discount factor only slightly lower than 1, Q-function learning leads to propagation of errors and instabilities when the value function is approximated with an artificial neural network. In that case, starting with a lower discount factor and increasing it towards its final value accelerates learning. === Initial conditions (Q0) === Since Q-learning is an iterative algorithm, it implicitly assumes an initial condition before the first update occurs. High initial values, also known as "optimistic initial conditions", can encourage exploration: no matter what action is selected, the update rule will cause it to have lower values than the other alternative, thus increasing their choice probability. The first reward r {\displaystyle r} can be used to reset the initial conditions. According to this idea, the first time an action is taken the reward is used to set the value

Sparse PCA

Sparse principal component analysis (SPCA or sparse PCA) is a technique used in statistical analysis and, in particular, in the analysis of multivariate data sets. It extends the classic method of principal component analysis (PCA) for the reduction of dimensionality of data by introducing sparsity structures to the input variables. A particular disadvantage of ordinary PCA is that the principal components are usually linear combinations of all input variables. SPCA overcomes this disadvantage by finding components that are linear combinations of just a few input variables (SPCs). This means that some of the coefficients of the linear combinations defining the SPCs, called loadings, are equal to zero. The number of nonzero loadings is called the cardinality of the SPC. == Mathematical formulation == Consider a data matrix, X {\displaystyle X} , where each of the p {\displaystyle p} columns represent an input variable, and each of the n {\displaystyle n} rows represents an independent sample from data population. One assumes each column of X {\displaystyle X} has mean zero, otherwise one can subtract column-wise mean from each element of X {\displaystyle X} . Let Σ = 1 n − 1 X ⊤ X {\displaystyle \Sigma ={\frac {1}{n-1}}X^{\top }X} be the empirical covariance matrix of X {\displaystyle X} , which has dimension p × p {\displaystyle p\times p} . Given an integer k {\displaystyle k} with 1 ≤ k ≤ p {\displaystyle 1\leq k\leq p} , the sparse PCA problem can be formulated as maximizing the variance along a direction represented by vector v ∈ R p {\displaystyle v\in \mathbb {R} ^{p}} while constraining its cardinality: max v T Σ v subject to ‖ v ‖ 2 = 1 ‖ v ‖ 0 ≤ k . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\max \quad &v^{T}\Sigma v\\{\text{subject to}}\quad &\left\Vert v\right\Vert _{2}=1\\&\left\Vert v\right\Vert _{0}\leq k.\end{aligned}}} Eq. 1 The first constraint specifies that v is a unit vector. In the second constraint, ‖ v ‖ 0 {\displaystyle \left\Vert v\right\Vert _{0}} represents the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell _{0}} pseudo-norm of v, which is defined as the number of its non-zero components. So the second constraint specifies that the number of non-zero components in v is less than or equal to k, which is typically an integer that is much smaller than dimension p. The optimal value of Eq. 1 is known as the k-sparse largest eigenvalue. If one takes k=p, the problem reduces to the ordinary PCA, and the optimal value becomes the largest eigenvalue of covariance matrix Σ. After finding the optimal solution v, one deflates Σ to obtain a new matrix Σ 1 = Σ − ( v T Σ v ) v v T , {\displaystyle \Sigma _{1}=\Sigma -(v^{T}\Sigma v)vv^{T},} and iterate this process to obtain further principal components. However, unlike PCA, sparse PCA cannot guarantee that different principal components are orthogonal. In order to achieve orthogonality, additional constraints must be enforced. The following equivalent definition is in matrix form. Let V {\displaystyle V} be a p×p symmetric matrix, one can rewrite the sparse PCA problem as max T r ( Σ V ) subject to T r ( V ) = 1 ‖ V ‖ 0 ≤ k 2 R a n k ( V ) = 1 , V ⪰ 0. {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\max \quad &Tr(\Sigma V)\\{\text{subject to}}\quad &Tr(V)=1\\&\Vert V\Vert _{0}\leq k^{2}\\&Rank(V)=1,V\succeq 0.\end{aligned}}} Eq. 2 Tr is the matrix trace, and ‖ V ‖ 0 {\displaystyle \Vert V\Vert _{0}} represents the non-zero elements in matrix V. The last line specifies that V has matrix rank one and is positive semidefinite. The last line means that one has V = v v T {\displaystyle V=vv^{T}} , so Eq. 2 is equivalent to Eq. 1. Moreover, the rank constraint in this formulation is actually redundant, and therefore sparse PCA can be cast as the following mixed-integer semidefinite program max T r ( Σ V ) subject to T r ( V ) = 1 | V i , i | ≤ z i , ∀ i ∈ { 1 , . . . , p } , | V i , j | ≤ 1 2 z i , ∀ i , j ∈ { 1 , . . . , p } : i ≠ j , V ⪰ 0 , z ∈ { 0 , 1 } p , ∑ i z i ≤ k {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\max \quad &Tr(\Sigma V)\\{\text{subject to}}\quad &Tr(V)=1\\&\vert V_{i,i}\vert \leq z_{i},\forall i\in \{1,...,p\},\vert V_{i,j}\vert \leq {\frac {1}{2}}z_{i},\forall i,j\in \{1,...,p\}:i\neq j,\\&V\succeq 0,z\in \{0,1\}^{p},\sum _{i}z_{i}\leq k\end{aligned}}} Eq. 3 Because of the cardinality constraint, the maximization problem is hard to solve exactly, especially when dimension p is high. In fact, the sparse PCA problem in Eq. 1 is NP-hard in the strong sense. == Computational considerations == As most sparse problems, variable selection in SPCA is a computationally intractable non-convex NP-hard problem, therefore greedy sub-optimal algorithms are often employed to find solutions. Note also that SPCA introduces hyperparameters quantifying in what capacity large parameter values are penalized. These might need tuning to achieve satisfactory performance, thereby adding to the total computational cost. == Algorithms for SPCA == Several alternative approaches (of Eq. 1) have been proposed, including a regression framework, a penalized matrix decomposition framework, a convex relaxation/semidefinite programming framework, a generalized power method framework an alternating maximization framework forward-backward greedy search and exact methods using branch-and-bound techniques, a certifiably optimal branch-and-bound approach Bayesian formulation framework. A certifiably optimal mixed-integer semidefinite branch-and-cut approach The methodological and theoretical developments of Sparse PCA as well as its applications in scientific studies are recently reviewed in a survey paper. === Notes on Semidefinite Programming Relaxation === It has been proposed that sparse PCA can be approximated by semidefinite programming (SDP). If one drops the rank constraint and relaxes the cardinality constraint by a 1-norm convex constraint, one gets a semidefinite programming relaxation, which can be solved efficiently in polynomial time: max T r ( Σ V ) subject to T r ( V ) = 1 1 T | V | 1 ≤ k V ⪰ 0. {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\max \quad &Tr(\Sigma V)\\{\text{subject to}}\quad &Tr(V)=1\\&\mathbf {1} ^{T}|V|\mathbf {1} \leq k\\&V\succeq 0.\end{aligned}}} Eq. 3 In the second constraint, 1 {\displaystyle \mathbf {1} } is a p×1 vector of ones, and |V| is the matrix whose elements are the absolute values of the elements of V. The optimal solution V {\displaystyle V} to the relaxed problem Eq. 3 is not guaranteed to have rank one. In that case, V {\displaystyle V} can be truncated to retain only the dominant eigenvector. While the semidefinite program does not scale beyond n=300 covariates, it has been shown that a second-order cone relaxation of the semidefinite relaxation is almost as tight and successfully solves problems with n=1000s of covariates == Applications == === Financial Data Analysis === Suppose ordinary PCA is applied to a dataset where each input variable represents a different asset, it may generate principal components that are weighted combination of all the assets. In contrast, sparse PCA would produce principal components that are weighted combination of only a few input assets, so one can easily interpret its meaning. Furthermore, if one uses a trading strategy based on these principal components, fewer assets imply less transaction costs. === Biology === Consider a dataset where each input variable corresponds to a specific gene. Sparse PCA can produce a principal component that involves only a few genes, so researchers can focus on these specific genes for further analysis. === High-dimensional Hypothesis Testing === Contemporary datasets often have the number of input variables ( p {\displaystyle p} ) comparable with or even much larger than the number of samples ( n {\displaystyle n} ). It has been shown that if p / n {\displaystyle p/n} does not converge to zero, the classical PCA is not consistent. In other words, if we let k = p {\displaystyle k=p} in Eq. 1, then the optimal value does not converge to the largest eigenvalue of data population when the sample size n → ∞ {\displaystyle n\rightarrow \infty } , and the optimal solution does not converge to the direction of maximum variance. But sparse PCA can retain consistency even if p ≫ n . {\displaystyle p\gg n.} The k-sparse largest eigenvalue (the optimal value of Eq. 1) can be used to discriminate an isometric model, where every direction has the same variance, from a spiked covariance model in high-dimensional setting. Consider a hypothesis test where the null hypothesis specifies that data X {\displaystyle X} are generated from a multivariate normal distribution with mean 0 and covariance equal to an identity matrix, and the alternative hypothesis specifies that data X {\displaystyle X} is generated from a spiked model with signal strength θ {\displaystyle \theta } : H 0 : X ∼ N ( 0 , I p ) , H 1 : X ∼ N ( 0 , I p + θ v v T ) , {\displaystyle H_{0}:X\sim N(0,I_{p}),\quad H_{1}:X\sim N(0,I_{p}+\theta vv^{T}),} where v ∈ R p {\displaystyle v\in \mathbb {R} ^{p}

Loebner Prize

The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt

Linear genetic programming

"Linear genetic programming" is unrelated to "linear programming". Linear genetic programming (LGP) is a particular method of genetic programming wherein computer programs in a population are represented as a sequence of register-based instructions from an imperative programming language or machine language. The adjective "linear" stems from the fact that each LGP program is a sequence of instructions and the sequence of instructions is normally executed sequentially. Like in other programs, the data flow in LGP can be modeled as a graph that will visualize the potential multiple usage of register contents and the existence of structurally noneffective code (introns) which are two main differences of this genetic representation from the more common tree-based genetic programming (TGP) variant. Like other Genetic Programming methods, Linear genetic programming requires the input of data to run the program population on. Then, the output of the program (its behaviour) is judged against some target behaviour, using a fitness function. However, LGP is generally more efficient than tree genetic programming due to its two main differences mentioned above: Intermediate results (stored in registers) can be reused and a simple intron removal algorithm exists that can be executed to remove all non-effective code prior to programs being run on the intended data. These two differences often result in compact solutions and substantial computational savings compared to the highly constrained data flow in trees and the common method of executing all tree nodes in TGP. Furthermore, LGP naturally has multiple outputs by defining multiple output registers and easily cooperates with control flow operations. Linear genetic programming has been applied in many domains, including system modeling and system control with considerable success. Linear genetic programming should not be confused with linear tree programs in tree genetic programming, program composed of a variable number of unary functions and a single terminal. Note that linear tree GP differs from bit string genetic algorithms since a population may contain programs of different lengths and there may be more than two types of functions or more than two types of terminals. == Examples of LGP programs == Because LGP programs are basically represented by a linear sequence of instructions, they are simpler to read and to operate on than their tree-based counterparts. For example, a simple program written to solve a Boolean function problem with 3 inputs (in R1, R2, R3) and one output (in R0), could read like this: R1, R2, R3 have to be declared as input (read-only) registers, while R0 and R4 are declared as calculation (read-write) registers. This program is very simple, having just 5 instructions. But mutation and crossover operators could work to increase the length of the program, as well as the content of each of its instructions. Note that one instruction is non-effective or an intron (marked), since it does not impact the output register R0. Recognition of those instructions is the basis for the intron removal algorithm which is used analyze code prior to execution. Technically, this happens by copying an individual and then run the intron removal once. The copy with removed introns is then executed as many times as dictated by the number of training cases. Notably, the original individual is left intact, so as to continue participating in the evolutionary process. It is only the copy that is executed that is compressed by removing these "structural" introns. Another simple program, this one written in the LGP language Slash/A looks like a series of instructions separated by a slash: By representing such code in bytecode format, i.e. as an array of bytes each representing a different instruction, one can make mutation operations simply by changing an element of such an array.