Social IQ (formerly Soovox Inc.) was a San Diego-based influencer marketing platform that measured users' online social influence and connected them with brands for word-of-mouth marketing campaigns. The company was founded in 2009 by Akram Benmbarek and was headquartered in San Diego, California. == History == Akram Benmbarek, who had previously worked in technology finance at Advanced Equities Financial Corp and in wealth management at Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, and UBS, founded the company in mid-2009 under the name Soovox. In October 2011, Benmbarek rebranded the company as SocialIQ. At that time, the company was seeking a Series A round of venture capital, having raised under $1 million in angel seed funding. == Similar metrics == Klout PeerIndex
Optical granulometry
Optical granulometry is the process of measuring the different grain sizes in a granular material, based on a photograph. Technology has been created to analyze a photograph and create statistics based on what the picture portrays. This information is vital in maintaining machinery in various trades worldwide. Mining companies can use optical granulometry to analyze inactive or moving rock to quantify the size of these fragments. Forestry companies can zero in on wood chip sizes without stopping the production process, and minimize sizing errors. With more photoanalysis technologies being produced, mining companies have shown an increased interest in these types of systems because of their ability to maintain efficiency throughout the mining process. Companies are saving millions of dollars annually because of this new technology, and are cutting back on maintenance costs on equipment. In order for optical granulometry to be completely successful, an accurate photo must be taken – under sufficient lighting, and using proper technology – to obtain quantified results. If these requirements are met, an image analysis system can be implemented. == The process == Software uses four basic steps in determining the average size of material: See the Wikipedia article on Photoanalysis to see how mining, forestry and agricultural companies are using this technology to improve quality control techniques. == Smartphone-based, segmentation-free estimation of grain size distribution == Recently, a methodology has emerged by which soil grain size distribution can be inferred from optical images acquired with commodity smartphones by training convolutional neural networks to predict parameters of the distribution curve directly from the image, without explicit image segmentation . In this approach, a standardized image of a soil surface is captured under controlled conditions, preprocessed to reduce device-specific variability, and passed to a regression model that outputs the parameters of a cumulative distribution function e.g., a two-parameter Weibull curve. The resulting distribution can be used to derive geotechnical descriptors and class boundaries.
STIT logic
STIT logic (from seeing to it that) is a family of modal and branching-time logics for reasoning about agency and choice. A typical STIT operator has the form [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} , usually read as "agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ", and is interpreted in models where agents choose between alternative possible futures. STIT logics are used in action theory, deontic logic, epistemic logic, and the theory of intelligent agents to formalise notions such as "could have done otherwise", responsibility, joint action, and strategic ability in an indeterministic world. == Etymology == The acronym STIT comes from the English phrase "seeing to it that", introduced in influential work by Nuel Belnap and Michael Perloff on the logical analysis of agentive expressions. In this tradition, "to see to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } " is treated as a primitive agency operator, rather than being reduced to ordinary modal necessity. == History == Modern STIT logic arose in the 1980s in the context of branching-time semantics and formal theories of agency. Belnap and Perloff's article "Seeing to it that: A canonical form for agentives" introduced the idea of treating expressions of the form "agent i sees to it that φ" as a primitive modal operator, and analysed such sentences using a branching tree of moments and histories. This approach was further developed in a series of papers on indeterminism and agency and provided the conceptual core for later STIT formalisms. In the 1990s the basic formal systems of STIT logic were worked out. Horty and Belnap's influential paper on the deliberative STIT operator distinguished between a "Chellas" STIT that merely records the result of an agent's present choice and a "deliberative" STIT that requires the agent's choice to make a difference, and connected STIT with issues of action, omission, ability and obligation. Around the same time, Ming Xu proved completeness and decidability results for basic STIT systems, including a single-agent logic with Kripke-style semantics and axiomatizations for multi-agent deliberative STIT, thereby establishing STIT as a well-behaved normal modal framework. This early work was systematised in Belnap, Perloff and Xu's monograph Facing the Future: Agents and Choices in Our Indeterminist World, which presents a general branching-time semantics for individual and group STIT operators, discusses independence-of-agents conditions and articulates the metaphysical picture of an indeterministic "tree" of moments. At roughly the same time, Horty's book Agency and Deontic Logic developed deontic STIT logics in which obligations are tied to agents' available choices rather than to static states of affairs, and used the resulting systems to analyse "ought implies can", contrary-to-duty obligations and deontic paradoxes. These works helped to position STIT at the intersection of action theory, temporal logic and deontic logic. From the late 1990s and 2000s onward, STIT logics were combined with epistemic, temporal and strategic modalities. Broersen introduced complete STIT logics for knowledge and action and deontic-epistemic STIT systems that distinguish different modes of mens rea, with applications to responsibility and the specification of multi-agent systems. Work on group and coalitional agency investigated axiomatisations and complexity results for group STIT logics, and related STIT-based analyses of agency to coalition logic and alternating-time temporal logic (ATL) by exhibiting formal embeddings between the frameworks. Explicit temporal operators were added to STIT in so-called temporal STIT logics. Lorini proposed a temporal STIT with "next" and "until" operators along histories and showed how it can be applied to normative reasoning about ongoing behaviour and commitments. Ciuni and Lorini compared different semantics for temporal STIT, clarifying the relationships between branching-time, game-based and epistemic approaches, while Boudou and Lorini gave a semantics for temporal STIT based on concurrent game structures, thus strengthening links with standard models of multi-agent interaction used for ATL and strategy logic. In parallel, complexity-theoretic work by Balbiani, Herzig and Troquard and by Schwarzentruber and co-authors investigated the satisfiability and model-checking problems for various STIT fragments, showing for instance that many expressive group STIT logics are undecidable or of high computational complexity. In the 2010s, STIT ideas were combined with justification logic, imagination operators and refined deontic notions. Justification STIT logics, developed by Olkhovikov and others, merge explicit justifications with STIT-style agency so that producing a proof can itself be treated as an action that brings about knowledge, and they come with completeness and decidability results. Olkhovikov and Wansing introduced STIT imagination logics, together with axiomatic systems and tableau calculi, to model acts of voluntary imagining and their role in doxastic control. Other authors have proposed STIT-based logics of responsibility, blameworthiness and intentionality for use in philosophical and AI settings. Xu's survey article "Combinations of STIT with Ought and Know" (2015) reviews many of these developments and emphasises the interplay between deontic and epistemic STIT logics. Current research on STIT focuses on proof theory, automated reasoning and richer expressive resources. Lyon and van Berkel, building on earlier work on labelled calculi for STIT, have developed cut-free sequent systems and proof-search algorithms that yield syntactic decision procedures for a range of deontic and non-deontic multi-agent STIT logics and support applications such as duty checking and compliance checking in autonomous systems. Sawasaki has proposed first-order cstit-based STIT logics that can distinguish de re and de dicto readings of agency statements and has proved strong completeness results for Hilbert systems over finite models, moving the STIT programme beyond the purely propositional level. Further work investigates interpreted-system and computationally grounded semantics for STIT and its extensions in order to model the behaviour of autonomous agents in multi-agent settings, and proposes STIT-based semantics for epistemic notions based on patterns of information disclosure in interactive systems. == Branching-time semantics == STIT logics are usually interpreted over branching-time models. A standard STIT frame consists of: a non-empty set of moments T {\displaystyle T} , partially ordered by < {\displaystyle <} so that ( T , < ) {\displaystyle (T,<)} forms a tree (every pair of moments with a common predecessor has a greatest lower bound); a set of histories, each history being a maximal linearly ordered subset of T {\displaystyle T} ; a non-empty set of agents A g {\displaystyle Ag} ; for each agent i ∈ A g {\displaystyle i\in Ag} and moment m {\displaystyle m} , a choice function c h o i c e i m {\displaystyle {\mathsf {choice}}_{i}^{m}} that partitions the set of histories passing through m {\displaystyle m} into choice cells. The idea is that a moment represents a time at which choices are made, and histories represent complete possible future courses of events. At each moment, each agent's choice corresponds to selecting one of the available cells of histories determined by their choice function. Formulas are evaluated at pairs ( m , h ) {\displaystyle (m,h)} of a moment and a history through that moment (sometimes written m / h {\displaystyle m/h} ). A valuation assigns truth-values to atomic propositions at such indices; Boolean connectives are interpreted pointwise as in Kripke-style modal logic. == Chellas and deliberative STIT operators == Several STIT operators have been distinguished in the literature. A common approach uses two closely related operators, often called Chellas STIT and deliberative STIT. Let H m {\displaystyle H_{m}} be the set of histories passing through a moment m {\displaystyle m} , and write H m {\displaystyle H_{m}} ⟦ φ ⟧ m = { h ∈ H m ∣ M , m / h ⊨ φ } {\displaystyle {\text{⟦}}\varphi {\text{⟧}}_{m}=\{h\in H_{m}\mid M,m/h\models \varphi \}} for the set of histories at m {\displaystyle m} where φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds. The Chellas STIT operator, often written [ i c s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]} , is given by M , m / h ⊨ [ i c s t i t : φ ] iff c h o i c e i m ( h ) ⊆ ⟦ φ ⟧ m . {\displaystyle M,m/h\models [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]\quad {\text{iff}}\quad {\mathsf {choice}}_{i}^{m}(h)\subseteq {\text{⟦}}\varphi {\text{⟧}}_{m}.} Intuitively, agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } if φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds at all histories compatible with their present choice. The deliberative STIT operator, [ i d s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {dstit}}:\varphi ]} , adds
Intelligent control
Intelligent control is a class of control techniques that use various artificial intelligence computing approaches like neural networks, Bayesian probability, fuzzy logic, machine learning, reinforcement learning, evolutionary computation and genetic algorithms. == Overview == Intelligent control can be divided into the following major sub-domains: Neural network control Machine learning control Reinforcement learning Bayesian control Fuzzy control Neuro-fuzzy control Expert Systems Genetic control New control techniques are created continuously as new models of intelligent behavior are created and computational methods developed to support them. === Neural network controller === Neural networks have been used to solve problems in almost all spheres of science and technology. Neural network control basically involves two steps: System identification Control It has been shown that a feedforward network with nonlinear, continuous and differentiable activation functions have universal approximation capability. Recurrent networks have also been used for system identification. Given, a set of input-output data pairs, system identification aims to form a mapping among these data pairs. Such a network is supposed to capture the dynamics of a system. For the control part, deep reinforcement learning has shown its ability to control complex systems. === Bayesian controllers === Bayesian probability has produced a number of algorithms that are in common use in many advanced control systems, serving as state space estimators of some variables that are used in the controller. The Kalman filter and the Particle filter are two examples of popular Bayesian control components. The Bayesian approach to controller design often requires an important effort in deriving the so-called system model and measurement model, which are the mathematical relationships linking the state variables to the sensor measurements available in the controlled system. In this respect, it is very closely linked to the system-theoretic approach to control design.
Kernel density estimation
In statistics, kernel density estimation (KDE) is the application of kernel smoothing for probability density estimation, i.e., a non-parametric method to estimate the probability density function of a random variable based on kernels as weights. KDE answers a fundamental data smoothing problem where inferences about the population are made based on a finite data sample. In some fields such as signal processing and econometrics it is also termed the Parzen–Rosenblatt window method, after Emanuel Parzen and Murray Rosenblatt, who are usually credited with independently creating it in its current form. One of the famous applications of kernel density estimation is in estimating the class-conditional marginal densities of data when using a naive Bayes classifier, which can improve its prediction accuracy. == Definition == Let x = ( x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , . . . ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} =\left(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},...\right)} be independent and identically distributed samples drawn from some univariate distribution with an unknown density f at any given point x. We are interested in estimating the shape of this function f. Its kernel density estimator is f ^ h ( x ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n K h ( x − x i ) = 1 n h ∑ i = 1 n K ( x − x i h ) , {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}_{h}(x)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}K_{h}(x-x_{i})={\frac {1}{nh}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}K{\left({\frac {x-x_{i}}{h}}\right)},} where K is the kernel — a non-negative function — and h > 0 is a smoothing parameter called the bandwidth or simply width. A kernel with subscript h is called the scaled kernel and defined as Kh(x) = 1/h K(x/h). Intuitively one wants to choose h as small as the data will allow; however, there is always a trade-off between the bias of the estimator and its variance. The choice of bandwidth is discussed in more detail below. A range of kernel functions are commonly used: uniform, triangular, biweight, triweight, Epanechnikov (parabolic), normal, and others. The Epanechnikov kernel is optimal in a mean square error sense, though the loss of efficiency is small for the kernels listed previously. Due to its convenient mathematical properties, the normal kernel is often used, which means K(x) = ϕ(x), where ϕ is the standard normal density function. The kernel density estimator then becomes f ^ h ( x ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n 1 h 2 π exp ( − ( x − x i ) 2 2 h 2 ) , {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}_{h}(x)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\frac {1}{h{\sqrt {2\pi }}}}\exp \left({\frac {-(x-x_{i})^{2}}{2h^{2}}}\right),} where h {\displaystyle h} is the standard deviation of the sample x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . The construction of a kernel density estimate finds interpretations in fields outside of density estimation. For example, in thermodynamics, this is equivalent to the amount of heat generated when heat kernels (the fundamental solution to the heat equation) are placed at each data point locations xi. Similar methods are used to construct discrete Laplace operators on point clouds for manifold learning (e.g. diffusion map). == Example == Kernel density estimates are closely related to histograms, but can be endowed with properties such as smoothness or continuity by using a suitable kernel. The diagram below based on these 6 data points illustrates this relationship: For the histogram, first, the horizontal axis is divided into sub-intervals or bins which cover the range of the data: In this case, six bins each of width 2. Whenever a data point falls inside this interval, a box of height 1/12 is placed there. If more than one data point falls inside the same bin, the boxes are stacked on top of each other. For the kernel density estimate, normal kernels with a standard deviation of 1.5 (indicated by the red dashed lines) are placed on each of the data points xi. The kernels are summed to make the kernel density estimate (solid blue curve). The smoothness of the kernel density estimate (compared to the discreteness of the histogram) illustrates how kernel density estimates converge faster to the true underlying density for continuous random variables. == Bandwidth selection == The bandwidth of the kernel is a free parameter which exhibits a strong influence on the resulting estimate. To illustrate its effect, we take a simulated random sample from the standard normal distribution (plotted at the blue spikes in the rug plot on the horizontal axis). The grey curve is the true density (a normal density with mean 0 and variance 1). In comparison, the red curve is undersmoothed since it contains too many spurious data artifacts arising from using a bandwidth h = 0.05, which is too small. The green curve is oversmoothed since using the bandwidth h = 2 obscures much of the underlying structure. The black curve with a bandwidth of h = 0.337 is considered to be optimally smoothed since its density estimate is close to the true density. An extreme situation is encountered in the limit h → 0 {\displaystyle h\to 0} (no smoothing), where the estimate is a sum of n delta functions centered at the coordinates of analyzed samples. In the other extreme limit h → ∞ {\displaystyle h\to \infty } the estimate retains the shape of the used kernel, centered on the mean of the samples (completely smooth). The most common optimality criterion used to select this parameter is the expected L2 risk function, also termed the mean integrated squared error: MISE ( h ) = E [ ∫ ( f ^ h ( x ) − f ( x ) ) 2 d x ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {MISE} (h)=\operatorname {E} \!\left[\int \!{\left({\hat {f}}\!_{h}(x)-f(x)\right)}^{2}dx\right]} Under weak assumptions on f and K, (f is the, generally unknown, real density function), MISE ( h ) = AMISE ( h ) + o ( ( n h ) − 1 + h 4 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {MISE} (h)=\operatorname {AMISE} (h)+{\mathcal {o}}{\left((nh)^{-1}+h^{4}\right)}} where o is the little o notation, and n the sample size (as above). The AMISE is the asymptotic MISE, i. e. the two leading terms, AMISE ( h ) = R ( K ) n h + 1 4 m 2 ( K ) 2 h 4 R ( f ″ ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {AMISE} (h)={\frac {R(K)}{nh}}+{\frac {1}{4}}m_{2}(K)^{2}h^{4}R(f'')} where R ( g ) = ∫ g ( x ) 2 d x {\textstyle R(g)=\int g(x)^{2}\,dx} for a function g, m 2 ( K ) = ∫ x 2 K ( x ) d x {\textstyle m_{2}(K)=\int x^{2}K(x)\,dx} and f ″ {\displaystyle f''} is the second derivative of f {\displaystyle f} and K {\displaystyle K} is the kernel. The minimum of this AMISE is the solution to this differential equation ∂ ∂ h AMISE ( h ) = − R ( K ) n h 2 + m 2 ( K ) 2 h 3 R ( f ″ ) = 0 {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial }{\partial h}}\operatorname {AMISE} (h)=-{\frac {R(K)}{nh^{2}}}+m_{2}(K)^{2}h^{3}R(f'')=0} or h AMISE = R ( K ) 1 / 5 m 2 ( K ) 2 / 5 R ( f ″ ) 1 / 5 n − 1 / 5 = C n − 1 / 5 {\displaystyle h_{\operatorname {AMISE} }={\frac {R(K)^{1/5}}{m_{2}(K)^{2/5}R(f'')^{1/5}}}n^{-1/5}=Cn^{-1/5}} Neither the AMISE nor the hAMISE formulas can be used directly since they involve the unknown density function f {\displaystyle f} or its second derivative f ″ {\displaystyle f''} . To overcome that difficulty, a variety of automatic, data-based methods have been developed to select the bandwidth. Several review studies have been undertaken to compare their efficacies, with the general consensus that the plug-in selectors and cross validation selectors are the most useful over a wide range of data sets. Substituting any bandwidth h which has the same asymptotic order n−1/5 as hAMISE into the AMISE gives that AMISE(h) = O(n−4/5), where O is the big O notation. It can be shown that, under weak assumptions, there cannot exist a non-parametric estimator that converges at a faster rate than the kernel estimator. Note that the n−4/5 rate is slower than the typical n−1 convergence rate of parametric methods. If the bandwidth is not held fixed, but is varied depending upon the location of either the estimate (balloon estimator) or the samples (pointwise estimator), this produces a particularly powerful method termed adaptive or variable bandwidth kernel density estimation. Bandwidth selection for kernel density estimation of heavy-tailed distributions is relatively difficult. === A rule-of-thumb bandwidth estimator === If Gaussian basis functions are used to approximate univariate data, and the underlying density being estimated is Gaussian, the optimal choice for h (that is, the bandwidth that minimises the mean integrated squared error) is: h = ( 4 σ ^ 5 3 n ) 1 / 5 ≈ 1.06 σ ^ n − 1 / 5 , {\displaystyle h={\left({\frac {4{\hat {\sigma }}^{5}}{3n}}\right)}^{1/5}\approx 1.06\,{\hat {\sigma }}\,n^{-1/5},} An h {\displaystyle h} value is considered more robust when it improves the fit for long-tailed and skewed distributions or for bimodal mixture distributions. This is often done empirically by replacing the standard deviation σ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\sigma }}} by the parameter A {\displaystyle A} below: A = min ( σ ^ , I Q R 1.34 ) {\displaystyle A=\min \left({\hat {\sigma }},{\frac {\mathrm {IQR} }{1.34}}\right)} where IQR is the
Phase stretch transform
Phase stretch transform (PST) is a computational approach to signal and image processing. One of its utilities is for feature detection and classification. PST is related to time stretch dispersive Fourier transform. It transforms the image by emulating propagation through a diffractive medium with engineered 3D dispersive property (refractive index). The operation relies on symmetry of the dispersion profile and can be understood in terms of dispersive eigenfunctions or stretch modes. PST performs similar functionality as phase-contrast microscopy, but on digital images. PST can be applied to digital images and temporal (time series) data. It is a physics-based feature engineering algorithm. == Operation principle == Here the principle is described in the context of feature enhancement in digital images. The image is first filtered with a spatial kernel followed by application of a nonlinear frequency-dependent phase. The output of the transform is the phase in the spatial domain. The main step is the 2-D phase function which is typically applied in the frequency domain. The amount of phase applied to the image is frequency dependent, with higher amount of phase applied to higher frequency features of the image. Since sharp transitions, such as edges and corners, contain higher frequencies, PST emphasizes the edge information. Features can be further enhanced by applying thresholding and morphological operations. PST is a pure phase operation whereas conventional edge detection algorithms operate on amplitude. == Physical and mathematical foundations of phase stretch transform == Photonic time stretch technique can be understood by considering the propagation of an optical pulse through a dispersive fiber. By disregarding the loss and non-linearity in fiber, the non-linear Schrödinger equation governing the optical pulse propagation in fiber upon integration reduces to: E o ( z , t ) = 1 2 π ∫ − ∞ ∞ E ~ i ( 0 , ω ) ⋅ e − i β 2 z ω 2 2 ⋅ e i ω t d ω {\displaystyle E_{o}(z,t)={\frac {1}{2\pi }}\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }{\tilde {E}}_{i}(0,\omega )\cdot e^{\frac {-i\beta _{2}z\omega ^{2}}{2}}\cdot e^{i\omega {t}}\,d\omega } (1) where β 2 {\displaystyle \beta _{2}} = GVD parameter, z is propagation distance, E o ( z , t ) {\displaystyle E_{o}(z,t)} is the reshaped output pulse at distance z and time t. The response of this dispersive element in the time-stretch system can be approximated as a phase propagator as presented in H ( ω ) = e i φ ( ω ) = e i ∑ m = 0 ∞ φ m ( ω ) = ∏ m = 0 ∞ H m ( ω ) {\displaystyle H(\omega )=e^{i\varphi (\omega )}=e^{i\sum _{m=0}^{\infty }\varphi _{m}(\omega )}=\prod _{m=0}^{\infty }H_{m}(\omega )} (2) Therefore, Eq. 1 can be written as following for a pulse that propagates through the time-stretch system and is reshaped into a temporal signal with a complex envelope given by E o ( t ) = 1 2 π ∫ − ∞ ∞ E ~ i ( ω ) ⋅ H ( ω ) ⋅ e i ω t d ω {\displaystyle E_{o}(t)={\frac {1}{2\pi }}\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }{\tilde {E}}_{i}(\omega )\cdot H(\omega )\cdot e^{i\omega t}\,d\omega } (3) The time stretch operation is formulated as generalized phase and amplitude operations, S { E i ( t ) } = ∫ − ∞ + ∞ F { E i ( t ) } ⋅ e i φ ( ω ) ⋅ L ~ ( ω ) ⋅ e i ω t d ω {\displaystyle \mathbb {S} \{E_{i}(t)\}=\int _{-\infty }^{+\infty }{\mathcal {F}}\{E_{i}(t)\}\cdot e^{i\varphi (\omega )}\cdot {\tilde {L}}(\omega )\cdot e^{i\omega {t}}d\omega } (4) where e i φ ( ω ) {\displaystyle e^{i\varphi (\omega )}} is the phase filter and L ~ ( ω ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {L}}(\omega )} is the amplitude filter. Next the operator is converted to discrete domain, S { E i [ n ] } = 1 N ∑ u = 0 N − 1 F F T { E i ( n ) } ⋅ K ~ ( u ) ⋅ L ~ ( u ) ⋅ e i 2 π N u n {\displaystyle \mathbb {S} \{E_{i}[n]\}={\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{u=0}^{N-1}FFT\{E_{i}(n)\}\cdot {\tilde {K}}(u)\cdot {\tilde {L}}(u)\cdot e^{i{\frac {2\pi }{N}}un}} (5) where u {\displaystyle u} is the discrete frequency, K ~ ( u ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {K}}(u)} is the phase filter, L ~ ( u ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {L}}(u)} is the amplitude filter and FFT is fast Fourier transform. The stretch operator S { } {\displaystyle \mathbb {S} \{\}} for a digital image is then S { E i [ n , m ] } = 1 M N ∑ v = 0 N − 1 ∑ u = 0 M − 1 F F T 2 { E i ( n , m ) } ⋅ K ~ ( u , v ) ⋅ L ~ ( u , v ) ⋅ e i 2 π M u m ⋅ e i 2 π N v n {\displaystyle \mathbb {S} \{E_{i}[n,m]\}={\frac {1}{MN}}\sum _{v=0}^{N-1}\sum _{u=0}^{M-1}FFT^{2}\{E_{i}(n,m)\}\cdot {\tilde {K}}(u,v)\cdot {\tilde {L}}(u,v)\cdot e^{i{\frac {2\pi }{M}}um}\cdot e^{i{\frac {2\pi }{N}}vn}} (6) In the above equations, E i [ n , m ] {\displaystyle E_{i}[n,m]} is the input image, n {\displaystyle n} and m {\displaystyle m} are the spatial variables, F F T 2 {\displaystyle FFT^{2}} is the two-dimensional fast Fourier transform, and u {\displaystyle u} and v {\displaystyle v} are spatial frequency variables. The function K ~ ( u , v ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {K}}(u,v)} is the warped phase kernel and the function L ~ ( u , v ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {L}}(u,v)} is a localization kernel implemented in frequency domain. PST operator is defined as the phase of the Warped Stretch Transform output as follows P S T { E i [ n , m ] } ≜ ∡ { S { E i [ x , y ] } } {\displaystyle PST\{E_{i}[n,m]\}\triangleq \measuredangle \{\mathbb {S} \{E_{i}[x,y]\}\}} (7) where ∡ { } {\displaystyle \measuredangle \{\}} is the angle operator. == PST kernel implementation == The warped phase kernel K ~ ( u , v ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {K}}(u,v)} can be described by a nonlinear frequency dependent phase K ~ ( u , v ) = e i φ ( u , v ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {K}}(u,v)=e^{i\varphi (u,v)}} While arbitrary phase kernels can be considered for PST operation, here we study the phase kernels for which the kernel phase derivative is a linear or sublinear function with respect to frequency variables. A simple example for such phase derivative profiles is the inverse tangent function. Consider the phase profile in the polar coordinate system φ ( u , v ) = φ polar ( r , θ ) = φ polar ( r ) {\displaystyle \varphi (u,v)=\varphi _{\text{polar}}(r,\theta )=\varphi _{\text{polar}}(r)} From d φ ( r ) d r = tan − 1 ( r ) {\displaystyle {\frac {d\varphi (r)}{dr}}=\tan ^{-1}(r)} we have φ ( r ) = r tan − 1 ( r ) − 1 2 log ( r 2 + 1 ) {\displaystyle \varphi (r)=r\tan ^{-1}(r)-{\frac {1}{2}}\log(r^{2}+1)} Therefore, the PST kernel is implemented as φ ( r ) = S ⋅ ( W r ) ⋅ tan − 1 ( W r ) − 1 2 log ( 1 + ( W r ) 2 ) ( W r max ) ⋅ tan − 1 ( W r max ) − 1 2 log ( 1 + ( W r max ) 2 ) {\displaystyle \varphi (r)=S\cdot {\frac {(Wr)\cdot \tan ^{-1}(Wr)-{\frac {1}{2}}\log(1+(Wr)^{2})}{(Wr_{\max })\cdot \tan ^{-1}(Wr_{\max })-{\frac {1}{2}}\log(1+(Wr_{\max })^{2})}}} where S {\displaystyle S} and W {\displaystyle W} are real-valued numbers related to the strength and warp of the phase profile == Applications == PST has been used for edge detection in biological and biomedical images as well as synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) image processing, as well as detail and feature enhancement for digital images. PST has also been applied to improve the point spread function for single molecule imaging in order to achieve super-resolution. The transform exhibits intrinsic superior properties compared to conventional edge detectors for feature detection in low contrast visually impaired images. The PST function can also be performed on 1-D temporal waveforms in the analog domain to reveal transitions and anomalies in real time. == Open source code release == On February 9, 2016, a UCLA Engineering research group has made public the computer code for PST algorithm that helps computers process images at high speeds and "see" them in ways that human eyes cannot. The researchers say the code could eventually be used in face, fingerprint, and iris recognition systems for high-tech security, as well as in self-driving cars' navigation systems or for inspecting industrial products. The Matlab implementation for PST can also be downloaded from Matlab Files Exchange. However, it is provided for research purposes only, and a license must be obtained for any commercial applications. The software is protected under a US patent. The code was then significantly refactored and improved to support GPU acceleration. In May 2022, it became one algorithm in PhyCV: the first physics-inspired computer vision library.
Computational heuristic intelligence
Computational heuristic intelligence (CHI) refers to specialized programming techniques in computational intelligence (also called artificial intelligence, or AI). These techniques have the express goal of avoiding complexity issues, also called NP-hard problems, by using human-like techniques. They are best summarized as the use of exemplar-based methods (heuristics), rather than rule-based methods (algorithms). Hence the term is distinct from the more conventional computational algorithmic intelligence, or symbolic AI. An example of a CHI technique is the encoding specificity principle of Tulving and Thompson. In general, CHI principles are problem solving techniques used by people, rather than programmed into machines. It is by drawing attention to this key distinction that the use of this term is justified in a field already replete with confusing neologisms. Note that the legal systems of all modern human societies employ both heuristics (generalisations of cases) from individual trial records as well as legislated statutes (rules) as regulatory guides. Another recent approach to the avoidance of complexity issues is to employ feedback control rather than feedforward modeling as a problem-solving paradigm. This approach has been called computational cybernetics, because (a) the term 'computational' is associated with conventional computer programming techniques which represent a strategic, compiled, or feedforward model of the problem, and (b) the term 'cybernetic' is associated with conventional system operation techniques which represent a tactical, interpreted, or feedback model of the problem. Of course, real programs and real problems both contain both feedforward and feedback components. A real example which illustrates this point is that of human cognition, which clearly involves both perceptual (bottom-up, feedback, sensor-oriented) and conceptual (top-down, feedforward, motor-oriented) information flows and hierarchies. The AI engineer must choose between mathematical and cybernetic problem solution and machine design paradigms. This is not a coding (program language) issue, but relates to understanding the relationship between the declarative and procedural programming paradigms. The vast majority of STEM professionals never get the opportunity to design or implement pure cybernetic solutions. When pushed, most responders will dismiss the importance of any difference by saying that all code can be reduced to a mathematical model anyway. Unfortunately, not only is this belief false, it fails most spectacularly in many AI scenarios. Mathematical models are not time agnostic, but by their very nature are pre-computed, i.e. feedforward. Dyer [2012] and Feldman [2004] have independently investigated the simplest of all somatic governance paradigms, namely control of a simple jointed limb by a single flexor muscle. They found that it is impossible to determine forces from limb positions- therefore, the problem cannot have a pre-computed (feedforward) mathematical solution. Instead, a top-down command bias signal changes the threshold feedback level in the sensorimotor loop, e.g. the loop formed by the afferent and efferent nerves, thus changing the so-called ‘equilibrium point’ of the flexor muscle/ elbow joint system. An overview of the arrangement reveals that global postures and limb position are commanded in feedforward terms, using global displacements (common coding), with the forces needed being computed locally by feedback loops. This method of sensorimotor unit governance, which is based upon what Anatol Feldman calls the ‘equilibrium Point’ theory, is formally equivalent to a servomechanism such as a car's ‘cruise control’.