Instantaneously trained neural networks

Instantaneously trained neural networks

Instantaneously trained neural networks are feedforward artificial neural networks that create a new hidden neuron node for each novel training sample. The weights to this hidden neuron separate out not only this training sample but others that are near it, thus providing generalization. This separation is done using the nearest hyperplane that can be written down instantaneously. In the two most important implementations the neighborhood of generalization either varies with the training sample (CC1 network) or remains constant (CC4 network). These networks use unary coding for an effective representation of the data sets. This type of network was first proposed in a 1993 paper of Subhash Kak. Since then, instantaneously trained neural networks have been proposed as models of short term learning and used in web search, and financial time series prediction applications. They have also been used in instant classification of documents and for deep learning and data mining. As in other neural networks, their normal use is as software, but they have also been implemented in hardware using FPGAs and by optical implementation. == CC4 network == In the CC4 network, which is a three-stage network, the number of input nodes is one more than the size of the training vector, with the extra node serving as the biasing node whose input is always 1. For binary input vectors, the weights from the input nodes to the hidden neuron (say of index j) corresponding to the trained vector is given by the following formula: w i j = { − 1 , for x i = 0 + 1 , for x i = 1 r − s + 1 , for i = n + 1 {\displaystyle w_{ij}={\begin{cases}-1,&{\mbox{for }}x_{i}=0\\+1,&{\mbox{for }}x_{i}=1\\r-s+1,&{\mbox{for }}i=n+1\end{cases}}} where r {\displaystyle r} is the radius of generalization and s {\displaystyle s} is the Hamming weight (the number of 1s) of the binary sequence. From the hidden layer to the output layer the weights are 1 or -1 depending on whether the vector belongs to a given output class or not. The neurons in the hidden and output layers output 1 if the weighted sum to the input is 0 or positive and 0, if the weighted sum to the input is negative: y = { 1 if ∑ x i ≥ 0 0 if ∑ x i < 0 {\displaystyle y=\left\{{\begin{matrix}1&{\mbox{if }}\sum x_{i}\geq 0\\0&{\mbox{if }}\sum x_{i}<0\end{matrix}}\right.} == Other networks == The CC4 network has also been modified to include non-binary input with varying radii of generalization so that it effectively provides a CC1 implementation. In feedback networks the Willshaw network as well as the Hopfield network are able to learn instantaneously.

Simulation noise

Simulation noise is a function that creates a divergence-free vector field. This signal can be used in artistic simulations for the purpose of increasing the perception of extra detail. The function can be calculated in three dimensions by dividing the space into a regular lattice grid. With each edge is associated a random value, indicating a rotational component of material revolving around the edge. By following rotating material into and out of faces, one can quickly sum the flux passing through each face of the lattice. Flux values at lattice faces are then interpolated to create a field value for all positions. Perlin noise is the earliest form of lattice noise, which has become very popular in computer graphics. Perlin Noise is not suited for simulation because it is not divergence-free. Noises based on lattices, such as simulation noise and Perlin noise, are often calculated at different frequencies and summed together to form band-limited fractal signals. Other approaches developed later that use vector calculus identities to produce divergence free fields, such as "Curl-Noise" as suggested by Rook Bridson, and "Divergence-Free Noise" due to Ivan DeWolf. These often require calculation of lattice noise gradients, which sometimes are not readily available. A naive implementation would call a lattice noise function several times to calculate its gradient, resulting in more computation than is strictly necessary. Unlike these noises, simulation noise has a geometric rationale in addition to its mathematical properties. It simulates vortices scattered in space, to produce its pleasing aesthetic. == Curl noise == The vector field is created as follows, for every point (x,y,z) in the space a vector field G is created, every component x, y and z of the vector field (Gx, Gy, Gz) is defined by a 3D perlin or simplex noise function with x, y and z as parameters. The partial derivative of Gx, Gy, and Gz respect to x, y and z is obtained with the gradient of the perlin or simplex noise by finite differences of implicit calculation inside the simplex noise. The partial derivatives are used to calculate F as the curl of G given by F = ( ∂ G z ∂ y − ∂ G y ∂ z , ∂ G x ∂ z − ∂ G z ∂ x , ∂ G y ∂ x − ∂ G x ∂ y ) {\displaystyle F=({\frac {\partial Gz}{\partial y}}-{\frac {\partial Gy}{\partial z}},{\frac {\partial Gx}{\partial z}}-{\frac {\partial Gz}{\partial x}},{\frac {\partial Gy}{\partial x}}-{\frac {\partial Gx}{\partial y}})} == Bitangent noise == This method is based in the fact that the curl of the gradient of scalar field is zero and the identity that expand the divergence of a cross product of two vectors A and B as the difference of the dot products of each vector with the curl of the other: ∇ × ( ∇ φ ) = 0 . {\displaystyle \nabla \times (\nabla \varphi )=\mathbf {0} .} ∇ ⋅ ( A × B ) = ( ∇ × A ) ⋅ B − A ⋅ ( ∇ × B ) {\displaystyle \nabla \cdot (\mathbf {A} \times \mathbf {B} )=\ (\nabla {\times }\mathbf {A} )\cdot \mathbf {B} \,-\,\mathbf {A} \cdot (\nabla {\times }\mathbf {B} )} which means that if the curl of both vector fields is zero then the divergence of the product of two vectors that are the gradients of scalar fields is zero too. This result in a divergence free vector field by construction only calling two noise functions to create the scalar fields. The vector field es created as follows, two scalar fields are calculated ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } and ψ {\displaystyle \psi } using 3D perlin or simplex noise functions, then the gradients A and B of each of this fields is calculated, the cross product of A and B gives a divergence free vector field. == Signed distance noise == The vector field is created based on a closed and differentiable implicit surface S = F(x,y,z) = 0. For every point in the space, frequently outside or near the surface, we get a vector g that is normal to the surface, this is the gradient of S or the partial derivatives respect to x, y and z, this vector is not unitary, but we can get a unitary normal n by dividing each component of the point by the magnitude of the gradient g. Outside of the surface all these normals point away from the surface. g = ∇ F ( x , y , z ) = ( ∂ F ∂ x , ∂ F ∂ y , ∂ F ∂ z ) {\displaystyle g=\nabla F(x,y,z)=\left({\frac {\partial F}{\partial x}},{\frac {\partial F}{\partial y}},{\frac {\partial F}{\partial z}}\right)} n = g ( x , y , z ) ‖ ∇ F ( x , y , z ) ‖ {\displaystyle \mathbf {n} ={\frac {g(x,y,z)}{\|\nabla F(x,y,z)\|}}} ‖ ∇ F ( x , y , z ) ‖ = ( ∂ F ∂ x ) 2 + ( ∂ F ∂ y ) 2 + ( ∂ F ∂ z ) 2 {\displaystyle \|\nabla F(x,y,z)\|={\sqrt {\left({\frac {\partial F}{\partial x}}\right)^{2}+\left({\frac {\partial F}{\partial y}}\right)^{2}+\left({\frac {\partial F}{\partial z}}\right)^{2}}}} Afterwards we calculate a scalar value p for that point in the space using a 3D perlin or simplex noise function. Now we create a vector field V = pn pointing outside of the surface. The curl of this vector field gives the direction in every point in the space where the particles should move. S D N = ( ∂ V z ∂ y − ∂ V y ∂ z , ∂ V x ∂ z − ∂ V z ∂ x , ∂ V y ∂ x − ∂ V x ∂ y ) {\displaystyle SDN=({\frac {\partial Vz}{\partial y}}-{\frac {\partial Vy}{\partial z}},{\frac {\partial Vx}{\partial z}}-{\frac {\partial Vz}{\partial x}},{\frac {\partial Vy}{\partial x}}-{\frac {\partial Vx}{\partial y}})} By construction this vector SDN will point in a tangent direction to an isosurface at the level of the signed distance to the original surface and can be used to confine the movements of the particles to stay in that surface.

JasPer

JasPer is a computer software project to create a reference implementation of the codec specified in the JPEG-2000 Part-1 standard (i.e. ISO/IEC 15444-1) - started in 1997 at Image Power Inc. and at the University of British Columbia. It consists of a C library and some sample applications useful for testing the codec. The copyright owner began licensing the code to the public under an MIT License-style license in 2004 in response to requests from the open-source community. As of 2011 JasPer operated as a component of many software projects, both free and proprietary, including (but not limited to) netpbm (as of release 10.12), ImageMagick and KDE (as of version 3.2). As of 22 June 2010 the GEGL graphics library supported JasPer in its latest Git versions. In a series of objective JPEG-2000-compression quality tests conducted in 2004, "JasPer was the best codec, closely followed by IrfanView and Kakadu". However, Jasper remains one of the slowest implementations of the JPEG-2000 codec, as it was designed for reference, not performance. == Etymology == The name "JasPer" has simultaneous connotations with Canada's Jasper National Park, with the semi-precious gemstone, jasper, and with "JP" as an abbreviation of the JPEG-2000 standard.

Odor source localization

Odor source localization (OSL) is the problem of locating the origin of an airborne or waterborne chemical plume using one or more mobile sensors, typically robots equipped with chemical sensors. The task sits at the intersection of robotics, fluid dynamics and machine olfaction. Chemical plumes in turbulent flows are intermittent and patchy, and most chemical sensors respond slowly and have limited selectivity, so the instantaneous reading available to a moving sensor is a poor proxy for the underlying time-averaged concentration field. Robotic OSL has been studied since the late 1980s and has applications including the detection of gas leaks, search and rescue after industrial accidents, and environmental monitoring of industrial emissions. == History == Robotic odor search emerged in the late 1980s and 1990s, drawing on earlier work in chemical ecology that had described how moths and other insects locate distant pheromone sources. R. A. Russell at Monash University was among the first to build mobile robots that followed chemical trails on the floor and tracked airborne odor plumes. Distributed and multi-robot odor search were investigated by Hayes, Martinoli and Goodman at the California Institute of Technology and EPFL, who studied cooperative plume-tracing on simulated and physical robot swarms. In 2007 Vergassola, Villermaux and Shraiman introduced infotaxis, an information-theoretic search strategy in which a sensor moves so as to maximize the expected information gain about source location, rather than following a chemical concentration gradient; the paper appeared in Nature and prompted substantial follow-up work in the robotics community. From the mid-2010s, multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicles carrying lightweight chemical sensors became a common experimental platform for OSL research. == Problem formulation == OSL is generally decomposed into three sub-problems: plume detection (deciding whether a chemical signal is present), plume traversal (moving so as to remain in contact with the plume), and source declaration (deciding when the source has been reached). The mathematical difficulty depends strongly on the assumed dispersion model. In laminar or low-Reynolds number flows a Gaussian advection–diffusion model gives a smooth concentration field with a well-defined gradient. In turbulent flows, which dominate most realistic environments, the plume is filamentary: the sensor receives short, randomly spaced bursts of chemical separated by periods of zero signal, and the time-averaged field is not a useful guide on the time scales at which a robot must act. Source-term estimation, surveyed by Hutchinson and colleagues, additionally aims to recover both the position and the release rate of the source from the observed concentrations, often using probabilistic filters. == Biological inspiration == Many OSL strategies are explicitly modeled on the behavior of male moths flying upwind toward a pheromone source. As reviewed by Cardé and Willis, moths combine an upwind surge whenever they detect a filament of pheromone with a wider crosswind cast when contact is lost, producing a characteristic zig-zag trajectory that has been transposed onto mobile robots by several groups. Other biological models draw on the search behavior of dogs and of marine animals such as blue crabs and lobsters, which integrate chemical and bilateral hydrodynamic cues over much shorter ranges. == Algorithms and strategies == === Reactive strategies === Reactive strategies select the next motion as a direct function of the current sensor reading. Chemotaxis steers along the locally estimated concentration gradient, which is effective in laminar plumes but degrades severely in turbulence. Anemotaxis exploits a measured wind direction by surging upwind when chemical contact is made. The bio-inspired cast-and-surge family combines anemotaxis with a deterministic crosswind cast on contact loss, and is the dominant reactive approach for turbulent environments. === Probabilistic and information-theoretic strategies === Probabilistic methods maintain a posterior distribution over possible source locations and choose actions that improve that distribution. The infotaxis strategy of Vergassola, Villermaux and Shraiman selects the move that maximizes the expected reduction in entropy of the source-location posterior, and is effective in regimes where the spatial gradient is unusable. Bayesian source-term estimation extends this idea by inferring both source position and release rate, typically using particle filters or sequential Monte Carlo. === Map-based strategies === Map-based methods build a spatial model of the time-averaged gas distribution from sensor readings collected along the robot's trajectory and search for local maxima in that model. Lilienthal and colleagues describe a family of kernel-based gas distribution mapping techniques in which point measurements are convolved with a Gaussian kernel to produce a spatially extrapolated estimate. Such methods are most useful when the source can be assumed quasi-stationary and the robot is able to revisit locations. === Multi-robot and swarm strategies === Multiple robots searching cooperatively can shorten search times. Cooperative formations spread the sensors across the crosswind axis, making detection of an intermittent plume more likely. Swarm-based approaches, reviewed by Wang and colleagues, deploy larger numbers of simpler agents and rely on collective behavior rather than centralized planning; reported advantages include improved coverage of the search area and the possibility of locating multiple sources in parallel. == Sensors and platforms == Most OSL systems use metal-oxide semiconductor (MOX) sensors, photoionization detectors or electrochemical cells, which trade off sensitivity, selectivity, response time and power consumption. Ishida and colleagues describe how these sensors interact with airflow around the robot body, an effect that motivates careful aerodynamic design and active sampling. Mobile platforms include wheeled ground robots for indoor and structured outdoor environments, multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicles for open spaces and elevated sources, and autonomous underwater vehicles for chemical plumes in the marine environment. == Notable systems == Among the early demonstrations, R. A. Russell's series of differential-drive robots at Monash University localized volatile sources in still and ventilated rooms during the 1990s. The Smelling Nano Aerial Vehicle reported by Burgués and colleagues used a Crazyflie nano-quadcopter (approximately 27 grams in mass and 10 cm across) carrying a custom MOX gas sensing board, and built three-dimensional gas distribution maps of indoor releases from sweeping flights of less than three minutes. The GADEN simulator, released by Monroy and colleagues, couples three-dimensional dispersion computed from an OpenFOAM CFD solver with models of MOX and photo-ionization gas sensors, and is widely used to test mobile-robot olfaction algorithms in simulation. == Applications == Reported applications include the localization of natural-gas and methane leaks in urban infrastructure, search for chemical contamination after industrial accidents, search and rescue, and environmental monitoring of industrial emissions. Drug- and explosives-detection robots are an adjacent application area, although these typically rely on close-range sniffing rather than long-range plume tracking. == Open challenges == Open challenges identified in recent reviews include the limited speed, selectivity and stability of available chemical sensors; the scarcity of standardized, large-scale benchmarks comparable to those available in computer vision; reliable handling of multi-source environments, where standard single-source assumptions fail; and the integration of OSL with other autonomous-vehicle subsystems such as obstacle avoidance and navigation in three-dimensional turbulent flow.

Pattern playback

The pattern playback is an early talking device that was built by Dr. Franklin S. Cooper and his colleagues, including John M. Borst and Caryl Haskins, at Haskins Laboratories in the late 1940s and completed in 1950. There were several different versions of this hardware device. Only one currently survives. The machine converts pictures of the acoustic patterns of speech in the form of a spectrogram back into sound. Using this device, Alvin Liberman, Frank Cooper, and Pierre Delattre (later joined by Katherine Safford Harris, Leigh Lisker, and others) were able to discover acoustic cues for the perception of phonetic segments (consonants and vowels). This research was fundamental to the development of modern techniques of speech synthesis, reading machines for the blind, the study of speech perception and speech recognition, and the development of the motor theory of speech perception. To create sound, the pattern playback machine uses an arc light source which is directed against a rotating disk with 50 concentric tracks whose transparencies vary systematically in order to produce 50 harmonics of a fundamental frequency. The light is further projected against a spectrogram, whose reflectance corresponds to the sound pressure level of the partial of the signal, and is then directed towards a photovoltaic cell by which the light variation is converted into sound pressure variations. The pattern playback was last used in an experimental study by Robert Remez in 1976. The pattern playback now resides in the Museum at Haskins Laboratories in New Haven, Connecticut. The technique of pattern playback also now refers, more generally, to algorithms or techniques for converting spectrograms, cochleagrams, and correlograms from pictures back into sounds. A demonstration is in the TV show Adventure. Pioneering technology in psycholinguistics (CBS Television. 1953). == Digital pattern playback == In the 1970s, digital pattern playbacks began to supplant the earlier version. An early prototype was developed by Patrick Nye, Philip Rubin, and colleagues at Haskins Laboratories. It combined a "Ubiquitous Spectrum Analyzer"[1] for automatic spectral analysis, along with a VAX GT-40 display processor for graphic manipulation of the displayed spectrogram, a form of "synthesis by art", and subsequent re-synthesis using a 40 channel filter bank. This hybrid hardware/software digital pattern playback was eventually replaced at Haskins Laboratories by the HADES analysis and display system, designed by Philip Rubin, and implemented in Fortran on the VAX family of computers. A more modern version has been described by Arai and colleagues [2]. An on-line demonstration is available [3].

Eager learning

In artificial intelligence, eager learning is a learning method in which the system tries to construct a general, input-independent target function during training of the system, as opposed to lazy learning, where generalization beyond the training data is delayed until a query is made to the system. The main advantage gained in employing an eager learning method, such as an artificial neural network, is that the target function will be approximated globally during training, thus requiring much less space than using a lazy learning system. Eager learning systems also deal much better with noise in the training data. Eager learning is an example of offline learning, in which post-training queries to the system have no effect on the system itself, and thus the same query to the system will always produce the same result. The main disadvantage with eager learning is that it is generally unable to provide good local approximations in the target function.

Landweber iteration

The Landweber iteration or Landweber algorithm is an algorithm to solve ill-posed linear inverse problems, and it has been extended to solve non-linear problems that involve constraints. The method was first proposed in the 1950s by Louis Landweber, and it can be now viewed as a special case of many other more general methods. == Basic algorithm == The original Landweber algorithm attempts to recover a signal x from (noisy) measurements y. The linear version assumes that y = A x {\displaystyle y=Ax} for a linear operator A. When the problem is in finite dimensions, A is just a matrix. When A is nonsingular, then an explicit solution is x = A − 1 y {\displaystyle x=A^{-1}y} . However, if A is ill-conditioned, the explicit solution is a poor choice since it is sensitive to any noise in the data y. If A is singular, this explicit solution doesn't even exist. The Landweber algorithm is an attempt to regularize the problem, and is one of the alternatives to Tikhonov regularization. We may view the Landweber algorithm as solving: min x ‖ A x − y ‖ 2 2 / 2 {\displaystyle \min _{x}\|Ax-y\|_{2}^{2}/2} using an iterative method. The algorithm is given by the update x k + 1 = x k − ω A ∗ ( A x k − y ) . {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\omega A^{}(Ax_{k}-y).} where the relaxation factor ω {\displaystyle \omega } satisfies 0 < ω < 2 / σ 1 2 {\displaystyle 0<\omega <2/\sigma _{1}^{2}} . Here σ 1 {\displaystyle \sigma _{1}} is the largest singular value of A {\displaystyle A} . If we write f ( x ) = ‖ A x − y ‖ 2 2 / 2 {\displaystyle f(x)=\|Ax-y\|_{2}^{2}/2} , then the update can be written in terms of the gradient x k + 1 = x k − ω ∇ f ( x k ) {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\omega \nabla f(x_{k})} and hence the algorithm is a special case of gradient descent. For ill-posed problems, the iterative method needs to be stopped at a suitable iteration index, because it semi-converges. This means that the iterates approach a regularized solution during the first iterations, but become unstable in further iterations. The reciprocal of the iteration index 1 / k {\displaystyle 1/k} acts as a regularization parameter. A suitable parameter is found, when the mismatch ‖ A x k − y ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \|Ax_{k}-y\|_{2}^{2}} approaches the noise level. Using the Landweber iteration as a regularization algorithm has been discussed in the literature. == Nonlinear extension == In general, the updates generated by x k + 1 = x k − τ ∇ f ( x k ) {\displaystyle x_{k+1}=x_{k}-\tau \nabla f(x_{k})} will generate a sequence f ( x k ) {\displaystyle f(x_{k})} that converges to a minimizer of f whenever f is convex and the stepsize τ {\displaystyle \tau } is chosen such that 0 < τ < 2 / ( ‖ ∇ f ‖ 2 ) {\displaystyle 0<\tau <2/(\|\nabla f\|^{2})} where ‖ ⋅ ‖ {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|} is the spectral norm. Since this is special type of gradient descent, there currently is not much benefit to analyzing it on its own as the nonlinear Landweber, but such analysis was performed historically by many communities not aware of unifying frameworks. The nonlinear Landweber problem has been studied in many papers in many communities; see, for example. == Extension to constrained problems == If f is a convex function and C is a convex set, then the problem min x ∈ C f ( x ) {\displaystyle \min _{x\in C}f(x)} can be solved by the constrained, nonlinear Landweber iteration, given by: x k + 1 = P C ( x k − τ ∇ f ( x k ) ) {\displaystyle x_{k+1}={\mathcal {P}}_{C}(x_{k}-\tau \nabla f(x_{k}))} where P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} is the projection onto the set C. Convergence is guaranteed when 0 < τ < 2 / ( ‖ A ‖ 2 ) {\displaystyle 0<\tau <2/(\|A\|^{2})} . This is again a special case of projected gradient descent (which is a special case of the forward–backward algorithm) as discussed in. == Applications == Since the method has been around since the 1950s, it has been adopted and rediscovered by many scientific communities, especially those studying ill-posed problems. In X-ray computed tomography it is called simultaneous iterative reconstruction technique (SIRT). It has also been used in the computer vision community and the signal restoration community. It is also used in image processing, since many image problems, such as deconvolution, are ill-posed. Variants of this method have been used also in sparse approximation problems and compressed sensing settings.