Geometric hashing

In computer science, geometric hashing is a method for efficiently finding two-dimensional objects represented by discrete points that have undergone an affine transformation, though extensions exist to other object representations and transformations. In an off-line step, the objects are encoded by treating each pair of points as a geometric basis. The remaining points can be represented in an invariant fashion with respect to this basis using two parameters. For each point, its quantized transformed coordinates are stored in the hash table as a key, and indices of the basis points as a value. Then a new pair of basis points is selected, and the process is repeated. In the on-line (recognition) step, randomly selected pairs of data points are considered as candidate bases. For each candidate basis, the remaining data points are encoded according to the basis and possible correspondences from the object are found in the previously constructed table. The candidate basis is accepted if a sufficiently large number of the data points index a consistent object basis. Geometric hashing was originally suggested in computer vision for object recognition in 2D and 3D, but later was applied to different problems such as structural alignment of proteins. == Geometric hashing in computer vision == Geometric hashing is a method used for object recognition. Let’s say that we want to check if a model image can be seen in an input image. This can be accomplished with geometric hashing. The method could be used to recognize one of the multiple objects in a base, in this case the hash table should store not only the pose information but also the index of object model in the base. === Example === For simplicity, this example will not use too many point features and assume that their descriptors are given by their coordinates only (in practice local descriptors such as SIFT could be used for indexing). ==== Training Phase ==== Find the model's feature points. Assume that 5 feature points are found in the model image with the coordinates ( 12 , 17 ) ; {\displaystyle (12,17);} ( 45 , 13 ) ; {\displaystyle (45,13);} ( 40 , 46 ) ; {\displaystyle (40,46);} ( 20 , 35 ) ; {\displaystyle (20,35);} ( 35 , 25 ) {\displaystyle (35,25)} , see the picture. Introduce a basis to describe the locations of the feature points. For 2D space and similarity transformation the basis is defined by a pair of points. The point of origin is placed in the middle of the segment connecting the two points (P2, P4 in our example), the x ′ {\displaystyle x'} axis is directed towards one of them, the y ′ {\displaystyle y'} is orthogonal and goes through the origin. The scale is selected such that absolute value of x ′ {\displaystyle x'} for both basis points is 1. Describe feature locations with respect to that basis, i.e. compute the projections to the new coordinate axes. The coordinates should be discretised to make recognition robust to noise, we take the bin size 0.25. We thus get the coordinates ( − 0.75 , − 1.25 ) ; {\displaystyle (-0.75,-1.25);} ( 1.00 , 0.00 ) ; {\displaystyle (1.00,0.00);} ( − 0.50 , 1.25 ) ; {\displaystyle (-0.50,1.25);} ( − 1.00 , 0.00 ) ; {\displaystyle (-1.00,0.00);} ( 0.00 , 0.25 ) {\displaystyle (0.00,0.25)} Store the basis in a hash table indexed by the features (only transformed coordinates in this case). If there were more objects to match with, we should also store the object number along with the basis pair. Repeat the process for a different basis pair (Step 2). It is needed to handle occlusions. Ideally, all the non-colinear pairs should be enumerated. We provide the hash table after two iterations, the pair (P1, P3) is selected for the second one. Hash Table: Most hash tables cannot have identical keys mapped to different values. So in real life one won’t encode basis keys (1.0, 0.0) and (-1.0, 0.0) in a hash table. ==== Recognition Phase ==== Find interesting feature points in the input image. Choose an arbitrary basis. If there isn't a suitable arbitrary basis, then it is likely that the input image does not contain the target object. Describe coordinates of the feature points in the new basis. Quantize obtained coordinates as it was done before. Compare all the transformed point features in the input image with the hash table. If the point features are identical or similar, then increase the count for the corresponding basis (and the type of object, if any). For each basis such that the count exceeds a certain threshold, verify the hypothesis that it corresponds to an image basis chosen in Step 2. Transfer the image coordinate system to the model one (for the supposed object) and try to match them. If successful, the object is found. Otherwise, go back to Step 2. === Finding mirrored pattern === It seems that this method is only capable of handling scaling, translation, and rotation. However, the input image may contain the object in mirror transform. Therefore, geometric hashing should be able to find the object, too. There are two ways to detect mirrored objects. For the vector graph, make the left side positive, and the right side negative. Multiplying the x position by -1 will give the same result. Use 3 points for the basis. This allows detecting mirror images (or objects). Actually, using 3 points for the basis is another approach for geometric hashing. === Geometric hashing in higher-dimensions === Similar to the example above, hashing applies to higher-dimensional data. For three-dimensional data points, three points are also needed for the basis. The first two points define the x-axis, and the third point defines the y-axis (with the first point). The z-axis is perpendicular to the created axis using the right-hand rule. Notice that the order of the points affects the resulting basis

Condensation algorithm

The condensation algorithm (Conditional Density Propagation) is a computer vision algorithm. The principal application is to detect and track the contour of objects moving in a cluttered environment. Object tracking is one of the more basic and difficult aspects of computer vision and is generally a prerequisite to object recognition. Being able to identify which pixels in an image make up the contour of an object is a non-trivial problem. Condensation is a probabilistic algorithm that attempts to solve this problem. The algorithm itself is described in detail by Isard and Blake in a publication in the International Journal of Computer Vision in 1998. One of the most interesting facets of the algorithm is that it does not compute on every pixel of the image. Rather, pixels to process are chosen at random, and only a subset of the pixels end up being processed. Multiple hypotheses about what is moving are supported naturally by the probabilistic nature of the approach. The evaluation functions come largely from previous work in the area and include many standard statistical approaches. The original part of this work is the application of particle filter estimation techniques. The algorithm's creation was inspired by the inability of Kalman filtering to perform object tracking well in the presence of significant background clutter. The presence of clutter tends to produce probability distributions for the object state which are multi-modal and therefore poorly modeled by the Kalman filter. The condensation algorithm in its most general form requires no assumptions about the probability distributions of the object or measurements. == Algorithm overview == The condensation algorithm seeks to solve the problem of estimating the conformation of an object described by a vector x t {\displaystyle \mathbf {x_{t}} } at time t {\displaystyle t} , given observations z 1 , . . . , z t {\displaystyle \mathbf {z_{1},...,z_{t}} } of the detected features in the images up to and including the current time. The algorithm outputs an estimate to the state conditional probability density p ( x t | z 1 , . . . , z t ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {z_{1},...,z_{t}} )} by applying a nonlinear filter based on factored sampling and can be thought of as a development of a Monte-Carlo method. p ( x t | z 1 , . . . , z t ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {z_{1},...,z_{t}} )} is a representation of the probability of possible conformations for the objects based on previous conformations and measurements. The condensation algorithm is a generative model since it models the joint distribution of the object and the observer. The conditional density of the object at the current time p ( x t | z 1 , . . . , z t ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {z_{1},...,z_{t}} )} is estimated as a weighted, time-indexed sample set { s t ( n ) , n = 1 , . . . , N } {\displaystyle \{s_{t}^{(n)},n=1,...,N\}} with weights π t ( n ) {\displaystyle \pi _{t}^{(n)}} . N is a parameter determining the number of sample sets chosen. A realization of p ( x t | z 1 , . . . , z t ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {z_{1},...,z_{t}} )} is obtained by sampling with replacement from the set s t {\displaystyle s_{t}} with probability equal to the corresponding element of π t {\displaystyle \pi _{t}} . The assumptions that object dynamics form a temporal Markov chain and that observations are independent of each other and the dynamics facilitate the implementation of the condensation algorithm. The first assumption allows the dynamics of the object to be entirely determined by the conditional density p ( x t | x t − 1 ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {x_{t-1}} )} . The model of the system dynamics determined by p ( x t | x t − 1 ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {x_{t-1}} )} must also be selected for the algorithm, and generally includes both deterministic and stochastic dynamics. The algorithm can be summarized by initialization at time t = 0 {\displaystyle t=0} and three steps at each time t: === Initialization === Form the initial sample set and weights by sampling according to the prior distribution. For example, specify as Gaussian and set the weights equal to each other. === Iterative procedure === Sample with replacement N {\displaystyle N} times from the set { s 0 ( n ) , n = 1 , . . . , N } {\displaystyle \{s_{0}^{(n)},n=1,...,N\}} with probability { π 0 ( n ) , n = 1 , . . . , N } {\displaystyle \{\pi _{0}^{(n)},n=1,...,N\}} to generate a realization of p ( x t | z 1 , . . . , z t ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {z_{1},...,z_{t}} )} . Apply the learned dynamics p ( x t | x t − 1 ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {x_{t-1}} )} to each element of this new set, to generate a new set { s t ( n ) } {\displaystyle \{s_{t}^{(n)}\}} . To take into account the current observation z t {\displaystyle \mathbf {z_{t}} } , set π t ( n ) = p ( z t | s ( n ) ) ∑ j = 1 N p ( z t | s ( j ) ) {\displaystyle \pi _{t}^{(n)}={\frac {p(\mathbf {z_{t}} |s^{(n)})}{\sum _{j=1}^{N}p(\mathbf {z_{t}} |s^{(j)})}}} for each element { s t ( n ) } {\displaystyle \{s_{t}^{(n)}\}} . This algorithm outputs the probability distribution p ( x t | z 1 , . . . , z t ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {z_{1},...,z_{t}} )} which can be directly used to calculate the mean position of the tracked object, as well as the other moments of the tracked object. Cumulative weights can instead be used to achieve a more efficient sampling. == Implementation considerations == Since object-tracking can be a real-time objective, consideration of algorithm efficiency becomes important. The condensation algorithm is relatively simple when compared to the computational intensity of the Ricatti equation required for Kalman filtering. The parameter N {\displaystyle N} , which determines the number of samples in the sample set, will clearly hold a trade-off in efficiency versus performance. One way to increase efficiency of the algorithm is by selecting a low degree of freedom model for representing the shape of the object. The model used by Isard 1998 is a linear parameterization of B-splines in which the splines are limited to certain configurations. Suitable configurations were found by analytically determining combinations of contours from multiple views, of the object in different poses, and through principal component analysis (PCA) on the deforming object. Isard and Blake model the object dynamics p ( x t | x t − 1 ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {x_{t-1}} )} as a second order difference equation with deterministic and stochastic components: p ( x t | x t − 1 ) ∝ e − 1 2 | | B − 1 ( ( x t − x ¯ ) − A ( x t − 1 − x ¯ ) ) | | 2 ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x_{t}} |\mathbf {x_{t-1}} )\propto e^{-{\frac {1}{2}}||B^{-1}((\mathbf {x_{t}} -\mathbf {\bar {x}} )-A(\mathbf {x_{t-1}} -\mathbf {\bar {x}} ))||^{2})}} where x ¯ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\bar {x}} } is the mean value of the state, and A {\displaystyle A} , B {\displaystyle B} are matrices representing the deterministic and stochastic components of the dynamical model respectively. A {\displaystyle A} , B {\displaystyle B} , and x ¯ {\displaystyle \mathbf {\bar {x}} } are estimated via Maximum Likelihood Estimation while the object performs typical movements. The observation model p ( z | x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {z} |\mathbf {x} )} cannot be directly estimated from the data, requiring assumptions to be made in order to estimate it. Isard 1998 assumes that the clutter which may make the object not visible is a Poisson random process with spatial density λ {\displaystyle \lambda } and that any true target measurement is unbiased and normally distributed with standard deviation σ {\displaystyle \sigma } . The basic condensation algorithm is used to track a single object in time. It is possible to extend the condensation algorithm using a single probability distribution to describe the likely states of multiple objects to track multiple objects in a scene at the same time. Since clutter can cause the object probability distribution to split into multiple peaks, each peak represents a hypothesis about the object configuration. Smoothing is a statistical technique of conditioning the distribution based on both past and future measurements once the tracking is complete in order to reduce the effects of multiple peaks. Smoothing cannot be directly done in real-time since it requires information of future measurements. == Applications == The algorithm can be used for vision-based robot localization of mobile robots. Instead of tracking the position of an object in the scene, however, the position of the camera platform is tracked. This allows the camera platform to be globally localized given a visual map of the environment. Extensions of the condensation algorithm have also been used to recognize human gestures in image sequences. This application of the condensation algorithm impacts the ran

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

Rhetorical structure theory

Rhetorical structure theory (RST) is a theory of text organization that describes relations that hold between parts of text. It was originally developed by William Mann, Sandra Thompson, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen and others at the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute (ISI) and defined in a 1988 paper. The theory was developed as part of studies of computer-based text generation. Natural language processing researchers later began using RST in automatic summarization and other applications. It explains coherence by postulating a hierarchical, connected structure of texts, which are labeled using a small, predefined inventory of relation types - for example, one part of a text may provide an elaboration on another part, provide background or specify a cause for another. In the 2000s, following the release of the first large-scale dataset implementing the theory, the RST Discourse Treebank (RST-DT), Daniel Marcu demonstrated the feasibility of practical applications of RST to discourse parsing and summarization at ISI. Originally limited to written text, subsequent work in the 2010s expanded RST to spoken language analysis, and the framework has been applied to a variety of languages including Farsi, German, Mandarin Chinese, Russian and Spanish. Following the introduction of Transformers, LLMs have been applied to automatic RST parsing, with results approaching human performance on parsing text in English. == Rhetorical relations == Rhetorical relations, also called coherence or discourse relations, are paratactic (coordinate) or hypotactic (subordinate) relations that hold across two or more text spans. The logical arrangement of relations in a text contributes to its coherence by connecting different propositions in a relational structure. RST using rhetorical relations provides a systematic way for an analyst to analyze the underlying intention of a text. The analysis is usually built by reading the text and constructing a tree using the relations. The following example is a title and summary, appearing at the top of an article in Scientific American magazine (adapted from Ramachandran and Anstis, 1986). The original text, broken into numbered units, is: [Title:] The Perception of Apparent Motion [Abstract:] When the motion of an intermittently seen object is ambiguous the visual system resolves confusion by applying some tricks that reflect a built-in knowledge of properties of the physical world. In the figure, the numbers 1-5 show the corresponding units from the text above. Unit 5 provides an "elaboration" on unit 4, and therefore constitutes a less prominent satellite of unit 4, which acts as a nucleus for the relation. Units 4-5 form a relation "Means", explaining the means by which the visual system resolves confusion. Unit 3 is the Central Discourse Unit (CDU) of the text, since all units point to it directly or indirectly. Similarly units 1 and 2 form "preparation" and "circumstance" relations relative to their nuclei. Groups of units which serve as a satellite or nucleus together are called complex discourse units, and always span a set of adjacent EDUs. == Nuclearity in discourse == RST establishes two different types of units. Nuclei are considered as the most important parts of text whereas satellites contribute to the nuclei and are secondary. Nucleus contains basic information and satellite contains additional information about nucleus. The satellite is often incomprehensible without nucleus, whereas a text where satellites have been deleted can be understood to a certain extent. == Hierarchy in the analysis == RST relations are applied recursively in a text, until all units in that text are constituents in an RST relation. The result of such analyses is that RST structure are typically represented as trees, with one top level relation that encompasses other relations at lower levels. == Why RST? == From linguistic point of view, RST proposes a different view of text organization than most linguistic theories. RST points to a tight relation between relations and coherence in text From a computational point of view, it provides a characterization of text relations that has been implemented in different systems and for applications as text generation and summarization. == In design rationale == Computer scientists Ana Cristina Bicharra Garcia and Clarisse Sieckenius de Souz have used RST as the basis of a design rationale system called ADD+. In ADD+, RST is used as the basis for the rhetorical organization of a knowledge base, in a way comparable to other knowledge representation systems such as issue-based information system (IBIS). Similarly, RST has been used in representation schemes for argumentation.

Mistral Vibe

Mistral Vibe or Vibe (Le Chat until May 2026), is a chatbot that uses generative artificial intelligence developed in France by Mistral AI. Mistral Vibe is available in iOS and Android. Its services are operated on a freemium model. == History == In February 2024, Mistral AI released Le Chat. In January 2025, Mistral AI made a content deal with Agence France-Presse (AFP) that lets Le Chat query AFP's entire archive dating back to 1983. On 6 February 2025, a mobile app for Le Chat was released for iOS and Android, and a subscription tier, Pro, was introduced at a cost of $14.99 per month. In July 2025, Mistral AI released Voxtral, an open-source language model that understands and generates audio. Mistral introduced a voice mode for chatting that uses Voxtral, and projects, which allows grouping chats and files. In September 2025, Le Chat introduced the capability to remember previous conversations. In May 2026, Mistral AI announced the rebrand from Le Chat to Mistral Vibe and new features were introduced at the same time.

Exploration–exploitation dilemma

The exploration–exploitation dilemma, also known as the explore–exploit tradeoff, is a fundamental concept in decision-making that arises in many domains. It is depicted as the balancing act between two opposing strategies. Exploitation involves choosing the best option based on current knowledge of the system (which may be incomplete or misleading), while exploration involves trying out new options that may lead to better outcomes in the future at the expense of an exploitation opportunity. Finding the optimal balance between these two strategies is a crucial challenge in many decision-making problems whose goal is to maximize long-term benefits. == Application in machine learning == In the context of machine learning, the exploration–exploitation tradeoff is fundamental in reinforcement learning (RL), a type of machine learning that involves training agents to make decisions based on feedback from the environment. Crucially, this feedback may be incomplete or delayed. The agent must decide whether to exploit the current best-known policy or explore new policies to improve its performance. === Multi-armed bandit methods === The multi-armed bandit (MAB) problem was a classic example of the tradeoff, and many methods were developed for it, such as epsilon-greedy, Thompson sampling, and the upper confidence bound (UCB). See the page on MAB for details. In more complex RL situations than the MAB problem, the agent can treat each choice as a MAB, where the payoff is the expected future reward. For example, if the agent performs an epsilon-greedy method, then the agent will often "pull the best lever" by picking the action that had the best predicted expected reward (exploit). However, it would pick a random action with probability epsilon (explore). Monte Carlo tree search, for example, uses a variant of the UCB method. === Exploration problems === There are some problems that make exploration difficult. Sparse reward. If rewards occur only once a long while, then the agent might not persist in exploring. Furthermore, if the space of actions is large, then the sparse reward would mean the agent would not be guided by the reward to find a good direction for deeper exploration. A standard example is Montezuma's Revenge. Deceptive reward. If some early actions give immediate small reward, but other actions give later large reward, then the agent might be lured away from exploring the other actions. Noisy TV problem. If certain observations are irreducibly noisy (such as a television showing random images), then the agent might be trapped exploring those observations (watching the television). === Exploration reward === This section based on. The exploration reward (also called exploration bonus) methods convert the exploration-exploitation dilemma into a balance of exploitations. That is, instead of trying to get the agent to balance exploration and exploitation, exploration is simply treated as another form of exploitation, and the agent simply attempts to maximize the sum of rewards from exploration and exploitation. The exploration reward can be treated as a form of intrinsic reward. We write these as r t i , r t e {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i},r_{t}^{e}} , meaning the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards at time step t {\displaystyle t} . However, exploration reward is different from exploitation in two regards: The reward of exploitation is not freely chosen, but given by the environment, but the reward of exploration may be picked freely. Indeed, there are many different ways to design r t i {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}} described below. The reward of exploitation is usually stationary (i.e. the same action in the same state gives the same reward), but the reward of exploration is non-stationary (i.e. the same action in the same state should give less and less reward). Count-based exploration uses N n ( s ) {\displaystyle N_{n}(s)} , the number of visits to a state s {\displaystyle s} during the time-steps 1 : n {\displaystyle 1:n} , to calculate the exploration reward. This is only possible in small and discrete state space. Density-based exploration extends count-based exploration by using a density model ρ n ( s ) {\displaystyle \rho _{n}(s)} . The idea is that, if a state has been visited, then nearby states are also partly-visited. In maximum entropy exploration, the entropy of the agent's policy π {\displaystyle \pi } is included as a term in the intrinsic reward. That is, r t i = − ∑ a π ( a | s t ) ln ⁡ π ( a | s t ) + ⋯ {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=-\sum _{a}\pi (a|s_{t})\ln \pi (a|s_{t})+\cdots } . === Prediction-based === This section based on. The forward dynamics model is a function for predicting the next state based on the current state and the current action: f : ( s t , a t ) ↦ s t + 1 {\displaystyle f:(s_{t},a_{t})\mapsto s_{t+1}} . The forward dynamics model is trained as the agent plays. The model becomes better at predicting state transition for state-action pairs that had been done many times. A forward dynamics model can define an exploration reward by r t i = ‖ f ( s t , a t ) − s t + 1 ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=\|f(s_{t},a_{t})-s_{t+1}\|_{2}^{2}} . That is, the reward is the squared-error of the prediction compared to reality. This rewards the agent to perform state-action pairs that had not been done many times. This is however susceptible to the noisy TV problem. Dynamics model can be run in latent space. That is, r t i = ‖ f ( s t , a t ) − ϕ ( s t + 1 ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle r_{t}^{i}=\|f(s_{t},a_{t})-\phi (s_{t+1})\|_{2}^{2}} for some featurizer ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . The featurizer can be the identity function (i.e. ϕ ( x ) = x {\displaystyle \phi (x)=x} ), randomly generated, the encoder-half of a variational autoencoder, etc. A good featurizer improves forward dynamics exploration. The Intrinsic Curiosity Module (ICM) method trains simultaneously a forward dynamics model and a featurizer. The featurizer is trained by an inverse dynamics model, which is a function for predicting the current action based on the features of the current and the next state: g : ( ϕ ( s t ) , ϕ ( s t + 1 ) ) ↦ a t {\displaystyle g:(\phi (s_{t}),\phi (s_{t+1}))\mapsto a_{t}} . By optimizing the inverse dynamics, both the inverse dynamics model and the featurizer are improved. Then, the improved featurizer improves the forward dynamics model, which improves the exploration of the agent. Random Network Distillation (RND) method attempts to solve this problem by teacher–student distillation. Instead of a forward dynamics model, it has two models f , f ′ {\displaystyle f,f'} . The f ′ {\displaystyle f'} teacher model is fixed, and the f {\displaystyle f} student model is trained to minimize ‖ f ( s ) − f ′ ( s ) ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \|f(s)-f'(s)\|_{2}^{2}} on states s {\displaystyle s} . As a state is visited more and more, the student network becomes better at predicting the teacher. Meanwhile, the prediction error is also an exploration reward for the agent, and so the agent learns to perform actions that result in higher prediction error. Thus, we have a student network attempting to minimize the prediction error, while the agent attempting to maximize it, resulting in exploration. The states are normalized by subtracting a running average and dividing a running variance, which is necessary since the teacher model is frozen. The rewards are normalized by dividing with a running variance. Exploration by disagreement trains an ensemble of forward dynamics models, each on a random subset of all ( s t , a t , s t + 1 ) {\displaystyle (s_{t},a_{t},s_{t+1})} tuples. The exploration reward is the variance of the models' predictions. === Noise === For neural network–based agents, the NoisyNet method changes some of its neural network modules by noisy versions. That is, some network parameters are random variables from a probability distribution. The parameters of the distribution are themselves learnable. For example, in a linear layer y = W x + b {\displaystyle y=Wx+b} , both W , b {\displaystyle W,b} are sampled from Gaussian distributions N ( μ W , Σ W ) , N ( μ b , Σ b ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{W},\Sigma _{W}),{\mathcal {N}}(\mu _{b},\Sigma _{b})} at every step, and the parameters μ W , Σ W , μ b , Σ b {\displaystyle \mu _{W},\Sigma _{W},\mu _{b},\Sigma _{b}} are learned via the reparameterization trick.

Indic computing

Indic Computing means "computing in Indic", i.e., Indian Scripts and Languages. It involves developing software in Indic Scripts/languages, Input methods, Localization of computer applications, web development, Database Management, Spell checkers, Speech to Text and Text to Speech applications and OCR in Indian languages. Unicode standard version 15.0 specifies codes for 9 Indic scripts in Chapter 12 titled "South and Central Asia-I, Official Scripts of India". The 9 scripts are Bengali, Devanagari, Gujarati, Gurmukhi, Kannada, Malayalam, Oriya, Tamil and Telugu. A lot of Indic Computing projects are going on. They involve some government sector companies, some volunteer groups and individual people. == Government sector == Indian Union Government made it mandatory for Mobile phone companies whose handsets manufactured, stored, sold and distributed in India to have support for displaying and typing text using fonts for all 22 languages. This move has seen rise in use of Indian languages by millions of users. === TDIL === The Department of Electronics and Information Technology, India initiated the TDIL (Technology Development for Indian Languages) with the objective of developing Information Processing Tools and Techniques to facilitate human-machine interaction without a language barrier; creating and accessing multilingual knowledge resources; and integrating them to develop innovative user products and services. In 2005, it started distributing language software tools developed by Government/Academic/Private companies in the form of CD for non commercial use. Some of the outcomes of TDIL program have been deployed on Indian Language Technology Proliferation & Deployment Centre. This Centre disseminates all the linguistic resources, tools & applications which have been developed under TDIL funding. This programme took to exponential expansion under the leadership of Dr. Swaran Lata who also created international foot-print of the programme. She has now retired. === C-DAC === C-DAC is an India based government software company which is involved in developing language related software. It is best known for developing InScript Keyboard, the standard keyboard for Indian languages. It has also developed lot of Indic language solutions including Word Processors, typing tools, text to speech software, OCR in Indian languages etc. ==== BharateeyaOO.org ==== The work developed out of CDAC, Bangalore (earlier known as NCST, Bangalore) became BharateeyaOO. OpenOffice 2.1 had support for over 10 Indian languages. ==== BOSS ==== BOSS linux was developed by the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC) to promote use of open-source software in India. == NGO and Volunteer groups == === Indlinux === Indlinux organisation helped organise the individual volunteers working on different indic language versions of Linux and its applications. === Sarovar === Sarovar.org is India's first portal to host projects under Free/Open source licenses. It is located in Trivandrum, India and hosted at Asianet data center. Sarovar.org is customised, installed and maintained by Linuxense as part of their community services and sponsored by River Valley Technologies. Sarovar.org is built on Debian Etch and GForge and runs off METTLE. === Pinaak === Pinaak is a non-government charitable society devoted to Indic language computing. It works for software localization, developing language software, localizing open source software, enriching online encyclopedias etc. In addition to this Pinaak works for educating people about computing, ethical use of Internet and use of Indian languages on Internet. === Ankur Group === Ankur Group is working toward supporting Bengali language (Bengali) on Linux operating system including localized Bengali GUI, Live CD, English-to-Bengali translator, Bengali OCR and Bengali Dictionary etc. === BhashaIndia === === SMC === SMC is a free software group, working to bridge the language divide in Kerala in the technology front and is today the biggest language computing community in India. == Input methods == === Full size keyboards === With the advent of Unicode inputting Indic text on computer has become very easy. A number of methods exist for this purpose, but the main ones are:- ==== InScript ==== Inscript is the standard keyboard for Indian languages. Developed by C-DAC and standardized by Government of India. Nowadays it comes inbuilt in all major operating systems including Microsoft Windows (2000, XP, Vista, 7), Linux and Macintosh. ==== Phonetic transliteration ==== This is a typing method in which, for instance, the user types text in an Indian language using Roman characters and it is phonetically converted to equivalent text in Indian script in real time. This type of conversion is done by phonetic text editors, word processors and software plugins. Building up on the idea, one can use phonetic IME tools that allow Indic text to be input in any application. Some examples of phonetic transliterators are Xlit, Google Indic Transliteration, BarahaIME, Indic IME, Rupantar, SMC's Indic Keyboard and Microsoft Indic Language Input Tool. SMC's Indic Keyboard has support for as many as 23 languages whereas Google Indic Keyboard only supports 11 Indian languages. They can be broadly classified as: Fixed transliteration scheme based tools – They work using a fixed transliteration scheme to convert text. Some examples are Indic IME, Rupantar and BarahaIME. Intelligent/Learning based transliteration tools – They compare the word with a dictionary and then convert it to the equivalent words in the target language. Some of the popular ones are Google Indic Transliteration, Xlit, Microsoft Indic Language Input Tool and QuillPad. ==== Remington (typewriter) ==== This layout was developed when computers had not been invented or deployed with Indic languages, and typewriters were the only means to type text in Indic scripts. Since typewriters were mechanical and could not include a script processor engine, each character had to be placed on the keyboard separately, which resulted in a very complex and difficult to learn keyboard layout. With the advent of Unicode, the Remington layout was added to various typing tools for sake of backward compatibility, so that old typists did not have to learn a new keyboard layout. Nowadays this layout is only used by old typists who are used to this layout due to several years of usage. One tool to include Remington layout is Indic IME. A font that is based on the Remington keyboard layout is Kruti Dev. Another online tool that very closely supports the old Remington keyboard layout using Kruti Dev is the Remington Typing tool. === Braille === IBus Sharada Braille, which supports seven Indian languages was developed by SMC. === Mobile phones with Numeric keyboards === Mobile/Hand/cell phone basic models have 12 keys like the plain old telephone keypad. Each key is mapped to 3 or 4 English letters to facilitate data entry in English. For inputting Indian languages with this kind of keypad, there are two ways to do so. First is the Multi-tap Method and second uses visual help from the screen like Panini Keypad. The primary usage is SMS. 140 characters size used for English/Roman languages can be used to accommodate only about 70 language characters when Unicode Proprietary compression is used some times to increase the size of single message for Complex script languages like Hindi. A research study of the available methods and recommendations of proposed standard was released by Broadband Wireless Consortium of India (BWCI). ==== Transliteration/Phonetic methods ==== English is used to type in Indian languages. QuillPad IndiSMS ==== Native methods ==== In native methods, the letters of the language are displayed on the screen corresponding to the numeral keys based on the probabilities of those letters for that language. Additional letters can be accessed by using a special key. When a word is partially typed, options are presented from which the user can make a selection. === Smart phones with Qwerty keyboards === Most smart phones have about 35 keys catering primarily to the English language. Numerals and some symbols are accessed with a special key called Alt. Indic input methods are yet to evolve for these types of phones, as support of Unicode for rendering is not widely available. === For Smart Phones with Soft/Virtual keyboards === Inscript is being adopted for smart phone usage. For Android phones which can render Indic languages, Swalekh Multilingual Keypad Multiling Keyboard app are available. Gboard offers support for several Indian languages. == Localization == Localization means translating software, operating systems, websites etc. various applications in Indian language. Various volunteers groups are working in this direction. === Mandrake Tamil Version === A notable example is the Tamil version of Mandrake linux(defunct since 2011). Tamil speakers in Toronto (Canada) released Mandrake,