Articulatory speech recognition

Articulatory speech recognition means the recovery of speech (in forms of phonemes, syllables or words) from acoustic signals with the help of articulatory modeling or an extra input of articulatory movement data. Speech recognition (or automatic speech recognition, acoustic speech recognition) means the recovery of speech from acoustics (sound wave) only. Articulatory information is extremely helpful when the acoustic input is in low quality, perhaps because of noise or missing data. Measurable information from the articulatory system (e.g. tongue, jaw movements) can supplement acoustic signals to improve phone recognition accuracy by 2%. However, attempts to estimate articulatory data from acoustic signals alone have not significantly enhanced recognition performance.

JotterPad

JotterPad is a text editor app for Android, developed by Two App Studio. It is proprietary software that uses the freemium pricing strategy. == Features == Jotterpad supports the markdown and fountain markup languages. Among its features are themes, synchronisation with Google Drive and Dropbox, dictionary and thesaurus, and snapshots. JotterPad uses a freemium pricing model, which means that a restricted version of the app is offered for free, while access to additional functionality requires payment. About half of the features are available in the free version. The synchronisation feature was originally limited to one account, and in Jotterpad 12 the option to synchronise using multiple accounts was added as a monthly subscription service.

Least-squares support vector machine

Least-squares support-vector machines (LS-SVM) for statistics and in statistical modeling, are least-squares versions of support-vector machines (SVM), which are a set of related supervised learning methods that analyze data and recognize patterns, and which are used for classification and regression analysis. In this version one finds the solution by solving a set of linear equations instead of a convex quadratic programming (QP) problem for classical SVMs. Least-squares SVM classifiers were proposed by Johan Suykens and Joos Vandewalle. LS-SVMs are a class of kernel-based learning methods. == From support-vector machine to least-squares support-vector machine == Given a training set { x i , y i } i = 1 N {\displaystyle \{x_{i},y_{i}\}_{i=1}^{N}} with input data x i ∈ R n {\displaystyle x_{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} and corresponding binary class labels y i ∈ { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,+1\}} , the SVM classifier, according to Vapnik's original formulation, satisfies the following conditions: { w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ≥ 1 , if y i = + 1 , w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ≤ − 1 , if y i = − 1 , {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b\geq 1,&{\text{if }}\quad y_{i}=+1,\\w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b\leq -1,&{\text{if }}\quad y_{i}=-1,\end{cases}}} which is equivalent to y i [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] ≥ 1 , i = 1 , … , N , {\displaystyle y_{i}\left[{w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b}\right]\geq 1,\quad i=1,\ldots ,N,} where ϕ ( x ) {\displaystyle \phi (x)} is the nonlinear map from original space to the high- or infinite-dimensional space. === Inseparable data === In case such a separating hyperplane does not exist, we introduce so-called slack variables ξ i {\displaystyle \xi _{i}} such that { y i [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] ≥ 1 − ξ i , i = 1 , … , N , ξ i ≥ 0 , i = 1 , … , N . {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}y_{i}\left[{w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b}\right]\geq 1-\xi _{i},&i=1,\ldots ,N,\\\xi _{i}\geq 0,&i=1,\ldots ,N.\end{cases}}} According to the structural risk minimization principle, the risk bound is minimized by the following minimization problem: min J 1 ( w , ξ ) = 1 2 w T w + c ∑ i = 1 N ξ i , {\displaystyle \min J_{1}(w,\xi )={\frac {1}{2}}w^{T}w+c\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\xi _{i},} Subject to { y i [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] ≥ 1 − ξ i , i = 1 , … , N , ξ i ≥ 0 , i = 1 , … , N , {\displaystyle {\text{Subject to }}{\begin{cases}y_{i}\left[{w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b}\right]\geq 1-\xi _{i},&i=1,\ldots ,N,\\\xi _{i}\geq 0,&i=1,\ldots ,N,\end{cases}}} To solve this problem, we could construct the Lagrangian function: L 1 ( w , b , ξ , α , β ) = 1 2 w T w + c ∑ i = 1 N ξ i − ∑ i = 1 N α i { y i [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] − 1 + ξ i } − ∑ i = 1 N β i ξ i , {\displaystyle L_{1}(w,b,\xi ,\alpha ,\beta )={\frac {1}{2}}w^{T}w+c\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}{\xi _{i}}-\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i}\left\{y_{i}\left[{w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b}\right]-1+\xi _{i}\right\}-\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\beta _{i}\xi _{i},} where α i ≥ 0 , β i ≥ 0 ( i = 1 , … , N ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}\geq 0,\ \beta _{i}\geq 0\ (i=1,\ldots ,N)} are the Lagrangian multipliers. The optimal point will be in the saddle point of the Lagrangian function, and then we obtain By substituting w {\displaystyle w} by its expression in the Lagrangian formed from the appropriate objective and constraints, we will get the following quadratic programming problem: max Q 1 ( α ) = − 1 2 ∑ i , j = 1 N α i α j y i y j K ( x i , x j ) + ∑ i = 1 N α i , {\displaystyle \max Q_{1}(\alpha )=-{\frac {1}{2}}\sum \limits _{i,j=1}^{N}{\alpha _{i}\alpha _{j}y_{i}y_{j}K(x_{i},x_{j})}+\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i},} where K ( x i , x j ) = ⟨ ϕ ( x i ) , ϕ ( x j ) ⟩ {\displaystyle K(x_{i},x_{j})=\left\langle \phi (x_{i}),\phi (x_{j})\right\rangle } is called the kernel function. Solving this QP problem subject to constraints in (1), we will get the hyperplane in the high-dimensional space and hence the classifier in the original space. === Least-squares SVM formulation === The least-squares version of the SVM classifier is obtained by reformulating the minimization problem as min J 2 ( w , b , e ) = μ 2 w T w + ζ 2 ∑ i = 1 N e i 2 , {\displaystyle \min J_{2}(w,b,e)={\frac {\mu }{2}}w^{T}w+{\frac {\zeta }{2}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}^{2},} subject to the equality constraints y i [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] = 1 − e i , i = 1 , … , N . {\displaystyle y_{i}\left[{w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b}\right]=1-e_{i},\quad i=1,\ldots ,N.} The least-squares SVM (LS-SVM) classifier formulation above implicitly corresponds to a regression interpretation with binary targets y i = ± 1 {\displaystyle y_{i}=\pm 1} . Using y i 2 = 1 {\displaystyle y_{i}^{2}=1} , we have ∑ i = 1 N e i 2 = ∑ i = 1 N ( y i e i ) 2 = ∑ i = 1 N e i 2 = ∑ i = 1 N ( y i − ( w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ) ) 2 , {\displaystyle \sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}^{2}=\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}(y_{i}e_{i})^{2}=\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}^{2}=\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\left(y_{i}-(w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b)\right)^{2},} with e i = y i − ( w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ) . {\displaystyle e_{i}=y_{i}-(w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b).} Notice, that this error would also make sense for least-squares data fitting, so that the same end results holds for the regression case. Hence the LS-SVM classifier formulation is equivalent to J 2 ( w , b , e ) = μ E W + ζ E D {\displaystyle J_{2}(w,b,e)=\mu E_{W}+\zeta E_{D}} with E W = 1 2 w T w {\displaystyle E_{W}={\frac {1}{2}}w^{T}w} and E D = 1 2 ∑ i = 1 N e i 2 = 1 2 ∑ i = 1 N ( y i − ( w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ) ) 2 . {\displaystyle E_{D}={\frac {1}{2}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}^{2}={\frac {1}{2}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\left(y_{i}-(w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b)\right)^{2}.} Both μ {\displaystyle \mu } and ζ {\displaystyle \zeta } should be considered as hyperparameters to tune the amount of regularization versus the sum squared error. The solution does only depend on the ratio γ = ζ / μ {\displaystyle \gamma =\zeta /\mu } , therefore the original formulation uses only γ {\displaystyle \gamma } as tuning parameter. We use both μ {\displaystyle \mu } and ζ {\displaystyle \zeta } as parameters in order to provide a Bayesian interpretation to LS-SVM. The solution of LS-SVM regressor will be obtained after we construct the Lagrangian function: { L 2 ( w , b , e , α ) = J 2 ( w , e ) − ∑ i = 1 N α i { [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] + e i − y i } , = 1 2 w T w + γ 2 ∑ i = 1 N e i 2 − ∑ i = 1 N α i { [ w T ϕ ( x i ) + b ] + e i − y i } , {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}L_{2}(w,b,e,\alpha )\;=J_{2}(w,e)-\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i}\left\{{\left[{w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b}\right]+e_{i}-y_{i}}\right\},\\\quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \;={\frac {1}{2}}w^{T}w+{\frac {\gamma }{2}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}e_{i}^{2}-\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i}\left\{\left[w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b\right]+e_{i}-y_{i}\right\},\end{cases}}} where α i ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}\in \mathbb {R} } are the Lagrange multipliers. The conditions for optimality are { ∂ L 2 ∂ w = 0 → w = ∑ i = 1 N α i ϕ ( x i ) , ∂ L 2 ∂ b = 0 → ∑ i = 1 N α i = 0 , ∂ L 2 ∂ e i = 0 → α i = γ e i , i = 1 , … , N , ∂ L 2 ∂ α i = 0 → y i = w T ϕ ( x i ) + b + e i , i = 1 , … , N . {\displaystyle {\begin{cases}{\frac {\partial L_{2}}{\partial w}}=0\quad \to \quad w=\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i}\phi (x_{i}),\\{\frac {\partial L_{2}}{\partial b}}=0\quad \to \quad \sum \limits _{i=1}^{N}\alpha _{i}=0,\\{\frac {\partial L_{2}}{\partial e_{i}}}=0\quad \to \quad \alpha _{i}=\gamma e_{i},\;i=1,\ldots ,N,\\{\frac {\partial L_{2}}{\partial \alpha _{i}}}=0\quad \to \quad y_{i}=w^{T}\phi (x_{i})+b+e_{i},\,i=1,\ldots ,N.\end{cases}}} Elimination of w {\displaystyle w} and e {\displaystyle e} will yield a linear system instead of a quadratic programming problem: [ 0 1 N T 1 N Ω + γ − 1 I N ] [ b α ] = [ 0 Y ] , {\displaystyle \left[{\begin{matrix}0&1_{N}^{T}\\1_{N}&\Omega +\gamma ^{-1}I_{N}\end{matrix}}\right]\left[{\begin{matrix}b\\\alpha \end{matrix}}\right]=\left[{\begin{matrix}0\\Y\end{matrix}}\right],} with Y = [ y 1 , … , y N ] T {\displaystyle Y=[y_{1},\ldots ,y_{N}]^{T}} , 1 N = [ 1 , … , 1 ] T {\displaystyle 1_{N}=[1,\ldots ,1]^{T}} and α = [ α 1 , … , α N ] T {\displaystyle \alpha =[\alpha _{1},\ldots ,\alpha _{N}]^{T}} . Here, I N {\displaystyle I_{N}} is an N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} identity matrix, and Ω ∈ R N × N {\displaystyle \Omega \in \mathbb {R} ^{N\times N}} is the kernel matrix defined by Ω i j = ϕ ( x i ) T ϕ ( x j ) = K ( x i , x j ) {\displaystyle \Omega _{ij}=\phi (x_{i})^{T}\phi (x_{j})=K(x_{i},x_{j})} . === Kernel function K === For the kernel function K(•, •) one typically has the following choices: Linear kernel : K ( x , x i ) = x i T x , {\displaystyle K(x,x_{i})=x_{i}^{T}x,} Polynomial kernel of degree d {\displaystyle d} : K ( x , x i ) = ( 1 + x i T x / c ) d , {\displaystyle K(x,x_{i})=\left({1+x_{i}^{T}x/c}\right)^{d},} Radial basis function RBF kernel : K ( x , x i ) = exp ⁡ ( − ‖ x − x i ‖ 2 / σ 2 ) , {\displaystyle K(x,x_{i})=\exp \left({-\left\|{x-x_{i}}\right\|^{2}/\sigma ^{2}}\right),} MLP kernel : K ( x , x i ) = tanh ⁡ ( k x i T x + θ ) , {\displaystyle K(x,x_{i})=\tanh \left({k

Dynamic Bayesian network

A dynamic Bayesian network (DBN) is a Bayesian network (BN) which relates variables to each other over adjacent time steps. == History == A dynamic Bayesian network (DBN) is often called a "two-timeslice" BN (2TBN) because it says that at any point in time T, the value of a variable can be calculated from the internal regressors and the immediate prior value (time T-1). DBNs were developed by Paul Dagum in the early 1990s at Stanford University's Section on Medical Informatics. Dagum developed DBNs to unify and extend traditional linear state-space models such as Kalman filters, linear and normal forecasting models such as ARMA and simple dependency models such as hidden Markov models into a general probabilistic representation and inference mechanism for arbitrary nonlinear and non-normal time-dependent domains. Today, DBNs are common in robotics, and have shown potential for a wide range of data mining applications. For example, they have been used in speech recognition, digital forensics, protein sequencing, and bioinformatics. DBN is a generalization of hidden Markov models and Kalman filters. DBNs are conceptually related to probabilistic Boolean networks and can, similarly, be used to model dynamical systems at steady-state.

Mean squared error

In statistics, the mean squared error (MSE) or mean squared deviation (MSD) of an estimator (of a procedure for estimating an unobserved quantity) measures the average of the squares of the errors—that is, the average squared difference between the estimated values and the true value. MSE is a risk function, corresponding to the expected value of the squared error loss. The fact that MSE is almost always strictly positive (and not zero) is because of randomness or because the estimator does not account for information that could produce a more accurate estimate. In machine learning, specifically empirical risk minimization, MSE may refer to the empirical risk (the average loss on an observed data set), as an estimate of the true MSE (the true risk: the average loss on the actual population distribution). The MSE is a measure of the quality of an estimator. As it is derived from the square of Euclidean distance, it is always a positive value that decreases as the error approaches zero. The MSE is the second moment (about the origin) of the error, and thus incorporates both the variance of the estimator (how widely spread the estimates are from one data sample to another) and its bias (how far off the average estimated value is from the true value). For an unbiased estimator, the MSE is the variance of the estimator. Like the variance, MSE has the same units of measurement as the square of the quantity being estimated. In an analogy to standard deviation, taking the square root of MSE yields the root-mean-square error or root-mean-square deviation (RMSE or RMSD), which has the same units as the quantity being estimated; for an unbiased estimator, the RMSE is the square root of the variance, known as the standard error. == Definition and basic properties == The MSE either assesses the quality of a predictor (i.e., a function mapping arbitrary inputs to a sample of values of some random variable), or of an estimator (i.e., a mathematical function mapping a sample of data to an estimate of a parameter of the population from which the data is sampled). In the context of prediction, understanding the prediction interval can also be useful as it provides a range within which a future observation will fall, with a certain probability. The definition of an MSE differs according to whether one is describing a predictor or an estimator. === Predictor === If a vector of n {\displaystyle n} predictions is generated from a sample of n {\displaystyle n} data points on all variables, and Y {\displaystyle Y} is the vector of observed values of the variable being predicted, with Y ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {Y}}} being the predicted values (e.g. as from a least-squares fit), then the within-sample MSE of the predictor is computed as MSE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( Y i − Y i ^ ) 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}\right)^{2}} In other words, the MSE is the mean ( 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ) {\textstyle \left({\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\right)} of the squares of the errors ( Y i − Y i ^ ) 2 {\textstyle \left(Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}\right)^{2}} . This is an easily computable quantity for a particular sample (and hence is sample-dependent). In matrix notation, MSE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( e i ) 2 = 1 n e T e {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(e_{i})^{2}={\frac {1}{n}}\mathbf {e} ^{\mathsf {T}}\mathbf {e} } where e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} is Y i − Y i ^ {\displaystyle Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}} and e {\displaystyle \mathbf {e} } is a n × 1 {\displaystyle n\times 1} column vector. The MSE can also be computed on q data points that were not used in estimating the model, either because they were held back for this purpose, or because these data have been newly obtained. Within this process, known as cross-validation, the MSE is often called the test MSE, and is computed as MSE = 1 q ∑ i = n + 1 n + q ( Y i − Y i ^ ) 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ={\frac {1}{q}}\sum _{i=n+1}^{n+q}\left(Y_{i}-{\hat {Y_{i}}}\right)^{2}} === Estimator === The MSE of an estimator θ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}} with respect to an unknown parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } is defined as MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] . {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[({\hat {\theta }}-\theta )^{2}\right].} This definition depends on the unknown parameter, therefore the MSE is a priori property of an estimator. The MSE could be a function of unknown parameters, in which case any estimator of the MSE based on estimates of these parameters would be a function of the data (and thus a random variable). If the estimator θ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\theta }}} is derived as a sample statistic and is used to estimate some population parameter, then the expectation is with respect to the sampling distribution of the sample statistic. The MSE can be written as the sum of the variance of the estimator and the squared bias of the estimator, providing a useful way to calculate the MSE and implying that in the case of unbiased estimators, the MSE and variance are equivalent. MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = Var θ ⁡ ( θ ^ ) + Bias ⁡ ( θ ^ , θ ) 2 . {\displaystyle \operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})=\operatorname {Var} _{\theta }({\hat {\theta }})+\operatorname {Bias} ({\hat {\theta }},\theta )^{2}.} ==== Proof of variance and bias relationship ==== MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] + E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 + 2 ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + E θ ⁡ [ 2 ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) ] + E θ ⁡ [ ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 ] = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + 2 ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ] + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ = constant = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + 2 ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] = constant = E θ ⁡ [ ( θ ^ − E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] ) 2 ] + ( E θ ⁡ [ θ ^ ] − θ ) 2 = Var θ ⁡ ( θ ^ ) + Bias θ ⁡ ( θ ^ , θ ) 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[({\hat {\theta }}-\theta )^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]+\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}+2\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[2\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)\right]+\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\right]\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+2\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[{\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right]+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}&&\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta ={\text{constant}}\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+2\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}&&\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]={\text{constant}}\\&=\operatorname {E} _{\theta }\left[\left({\hat {\theta }}-\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]\right)^{2}\right]+\left(\operatorname {E} _{\theta }[{\hat {\theta }}]-\theta \right)^{2}\\&=\operatorname {Var} _{\theta }({\hat {\theta }})+\operatorname {Bias} _{\theta }({\hat {\theta }},\theta )^{2}\end{aligned}}} An even shorter proof can be achieved using the well-known formula that for a random variable X {\textstyle X} , E ( X 2 ) = Var ⁡ ( X ) + ( E ( X ) ) 2 {\textstyle \mathbb {E} (X^{2})=\operatorname {Var} (X)+(\mathbb {E} (X))^{2}} . By substituting X {\textstyle X} with, θ ^ − θ {\textstyle {\hat {\theta }}-\theta } , we have MSE ⁡ ( θ ^ ) = E [ ( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] = Var ⁡ ( θ ^ − θ ) + ( E [ θ ^ − θ ] ) 2 = Var ⁡ ( θ ^ ) + Bias 2 ⁡ ( θ ^ , θ ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\operatorname {MSE} ({\hat {\theta }})&=\mathbb {E} [({\hat {\theta }}-\theta )^{2}]\\&=\operator

Desktop video

Desktop video refers to a phenomenon lasting from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s when the graphics capabilities of personal computers such as the Amiga, Macintosh II, and specially-upgraded IBM PC compatibles had advanced to the point where individuals and local broadcasters could use them for analog non-linear editing and vision mixing in video production. Despite the use of computers, desktop video should not be confused with digital video since the video data remained analog, and it uses items like a VCR and a camcorder to record the video. Full-screen, full-motion video's vast storage requirements meant that the promise of digital encoding would not be realized on desktop computers for at least another decade. == Description == There were multiple models of genlock cards available to synchronize the content; the Newtek Video Toaster was commonly used in Amiga in countries that used NTSC (PAL-M in Brazil), while PCs had Truevision and Matrox Illuminator cards and Mac systems had the SuperMac Video Spigot and Radius VideoVision cards. Apple later introduced the Macintosh Quadra 840AV and Centris 660AV systems to specifically address this market. Desktop video was a parallel development to desktop publishing and enabled many small production houses and local TV stations to produce their own original content for the first time. Along with the advent of public-access cable channels, desktop video meant that television advertising became affordable for local businesses such as retailers, restaurants, real estate agents, contractors and auto dealers. As with the phrase desktop publishing, use of the term died out as the technologies to which it referred become the norm for any kind of video production.

Pruning (artificial neural network)

In deep learning, pruning is the practice of removing parameters from an existing artificial neural network. The goal of this process is to reduce the size (parameter count) of the neural network (and therefore the computational resources required to run it) whilst maintaining accuracy. This can be compared to the biological process of synaptic pruning which takes place in mammalian brains during development. == Node (neuron) pruning == A basic algorithm for pruning is as follows: Evaluate the importance of each neuron. Rank the neurons according to their importance (assuming there is a clearly defined measure for "importance"). Remove the least important neuron. Check a termination condition (to be determined by the user) to see whether to continue pruning. == Edge (weight) pruning == Most work on neural network pruning does not remove full neurons or layers (structured pruning). Instead, it focuses on removing the most insignificant weights (unstructured pruning), namely, setting their values to zero. This can either be done globally by comparing weights from all layers in the network or locally by comparing weights in each layer separately. Different metrics can be used to measure the importance of each weight. Weight magnitude as well as combinations of weight and gradient information are commonly used metrics. Early work suggested also to change the values of non-pruned weights. == When to prune the neural network? == Pruning can be applied at three different stages: before training, during training, or after training. When pruning is performed during or after training, additional fine-tuning epochs are typically required. Each approach involves different trade-offs between accuracy and computational cost.