CENDI (Commerce, Energy, NASA, Defense Information Managers Group) is an interagency group of senior Scientific and Technical Information (STI) managers from 14 United States federal agencies. CENDI managers cooperate by exchanging information and ideas, collaborating to address common issues, and undertaking joint initiatives. CENDI's accomplishments range from impacting federal information policy to educating a broad spectrum of stakeholders on all aspects of federal STI systems, including its value to research and the taxpayer, and to operational improvements in agency and interagency STI operations. == History == CENDI traces its roots to the Committee on Scientific and Technical Information (COSATI) of the Federal Council on Science and Technology. COSATI was established in the early 1960s to coordinate the management of the results from the U.S. government's increasing commitment to scientific research and technology development. The scientific and technical information (STI) managers of the government's major research and development (R&D) agencies worked within COSATI to standardize guidelines for cataloging and indexing technical reports. COSATI ceased formal operations in the early 1970s. To continue the cooperation begun under COSATI, managers of agency STI programs from Commerce (National Technical Information Service), Energy (Office of Scientific and Technical Information), NASA (HQ/STI Division), and Defense (Defense Technical Information Center) began meeting periodically to discuss common topics and stimulate more effective cooperation. In 1985, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the four charter agencies and CENDI was established. From this small core of STI managers, CENDI has grown to its current membership, which represents the major science agencies, the national libraries, and agencies involved in the dissemination and long-term management of scientific and technical information. The vision of CENDI is to facilitate cooperative enterprise where capabilities are shared and challenges are faced together so that the sum of the accomplishments is greater than each individual agency can achieve on its own amongst federal STI agencies. The abbreviation CENDI refers to the "Commerce, Energy, NASA, Defense Information Managers Group". == Membership == New members from other federal R&D information organizations may be admitted by unanimous agreement of the members. However, it is the intent of the group that membership in CENDI should remain small and focus on organizations with STI or supporting responsibilities. Each agency provides funding to CENDI. == Members == The members of CENDI are: Defense Technical Information Center (United States Department of Defense) Office of Research and Development and Office of Environmental Information (United States Environmental Protection Agency) Government Printing Office Library of Congress NASA Scientific and Technical Information Program National Agricultural Library (United States Department of Agriculture) National Archives and Records Administration National Library of Education (United States Department of Education) National Library of Medicine (United States Department of Health and Human Services) National Science Foundation National Technical Information Service (United States Department of Commerce) National Transportation Library (United States Department of Transportation) Office of Scientific and Technical Information (United States Department of Energy) USGS/Biological Resources Discipline (United States Department of the Interior) == Mission and operation == CENDI's mission is to help improve the productivity of federal science- and technology-based programs through effective scientific, technical, and related information support systems. In fulfilling its mission, CENDI agencies play an important role in addressing science- and technology-based national priorities and strengthening U.S. competitiveness. === Goals === STI Coordination and Leadership: Provide coordination and leadership for information exchange on important STI policy issues. Improvement of STI Systems: Promote the development of improved STI systems through the productive interrelationship of content and technology. STI Understanding: Promote better understanding of STI and STI management. === Principals and Alternates === CENDI is made up of senior federal STI managers and each organization appoints a Principal representative. This person is the point of contact for that organization within CENDI. Each Principal has an Alternate. The Principals and Alternates comprise the main group that meets on a regular basis, usually every other month. === Secretariat === A Tennessee-based information management company, -- Information International Associates, Inc., currently serves as the CENDI Secretariat. The Secretariat provides day-to-day operations to CENDI. The Secretariat prepares the necessary materials for the Principals' meetings, provides support for the working group and task group meetings, assists in developing papers, and maintains the CENDI files and outreach tools. === Task Groups and Working Groups === The chair(s) of a working group is appointed by the Principals and has the overall responsibility for the group's activities. The Secretariat provides support at the request of the Working Group chair(s). The Working Groups and Task Groups that are currently operating are: Copyright and Intellectual Property Working Group Distribution Markings Task Group Digital Preservation Task Group Digitization Specifications Task Group Image Metadata Task Group Science.gov (see below) STI Policy Working Group Terminology Resources Task Group === Science.gov and Worldwidescience.org === In 2001, in response to the April 2001 workshop on "Strengthening the Public Information Infrastructure for Science", and taking into consideration a request from Firstgov (now USA.gov) to develop specialized topical portals, CENDI formed an alliance to develop an interagency website for access to STI. This website, called Science.gov, is a one-stop source of STI, including both selected, authoritative government websites and deep Web databases of technical reports, journal articles, conference proceedings, and other published materials. Through the volunteer efforts of members and involving over 100 staff, content and architecture is developed for the site. The Science.gov website is hosted by the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). The site was formally launched in December 2002. As a result of the success of Science.gov, under DOE leadership and in cooperation with the International Council of Scientific and Technical Information, a worldwide coordination across national portals called WorldWideScience was launched in 2008. === Work with non-member organizations === CENDI works with several cooperating non-member organizations on a regular basis. These agencies are in academia, federal government, legal and policy analysis, international, non-governmental, and private organizations.
Controlled natural language
Controlled natural languages (CNLs) are subsets of natural languages that are obtained by restricting the grammar and vocabulary in order to reduce or eliminate ambiguity and complexity. Traditionally, controlled languages fall into two major types: those that improve readability for human readers (e.g. non-native speakers), and those that enable reliable automatic semantic analysis of the language. The first type of languages (often called "simplified" or "technical" languages), for example ASD Simplified Technical English, Caterpillar Technical English, IBM's Easy English, are used in the industry to increase the quality of technical documentation, and possibly simplify the semi-automatic translation of the documentation. These languages restrict the writer by general rules such as "Keep sentences short", "Avoid the use of pronouns", "Only use dictionary-approved words", and "Use only the active voice". The second type of languages have a formal syntax and formal semantics, and can be mapped to an existing formal language, such as first-order logic. Thus, those languages can be used as knowledge representation languages, and writing of those languages is supported by fully automatic consistency and redundancy checks, query answering, etc. == Languages == Existing controlled natural languages include: == Encoding == IETF has reserved simple as a BCP 47 variant subtag for simplified versions of languages.
Common Voice
Common Voice is a crowdsourcing project started by Mozilla to create a free and open speech corpus. The project is supported by volunteers who record sample sentences with a microphone and review recordings of other users. The transcribed sentences are collected in a voice database available under the public domain license CC0. This license ensures that developers can use the database for voice-to-text and text-to-voice applications without restrictions or costs. == Aims == Common Voice aims to provide diverse voice samples. According to Mozilla's Katharina Borchert, many existing projects took datasets from public radio or otherwise had datasets that underrepresented both women and people with pronounced accents. == Voice database == The first dataset was released in November 2017. More than 20,000 users worldwide had recorded 500 hours of English sentences. In February 2019, the first batch of languages was released for use. This included 18 languages such as English, French, German and Mandarin Chinese, but also less prevalent languages like Welsh and Kabyle. In total, this included almost 1,400 hours of recorded voice data from more than 42,000 contributors. By July 2020 the database had amassed 7,226 hours of voice recordings in 54 languages, 5,591 hours of which had been verified by volunteers. In May 2021, following the work to add Kinyarwanda, the project received a grant to add Kiswahili. At the beginning of 2022, Bengali.AI partnered with Common Voice to launch the "Bangla Speech Recognition" project that aims to make machines understand the Bangla language. 2000 hours of voice was collected. In September 2022, it was announced that the Twi language of Ghana was the 100th language to be added to the database. As of December 2025, Mozilla Common Voice collects voice data for over 250 languages, with the most hours having been collected in English, Catalan, Kinyarwanda, Belarusian and Esperanto.
Semidefinite embedding
Maximum Variance Unfolding (MVU), also known as Semidefinite Embedding (SDE), is an algorithm in computer science that uses semidefinite programming to perform non-linear dimensionality reduction of high-dimensional vectorial input data. It is motivated by the observation that kernel Principal Component Analysis (kPCA) does not reduce the data dimensionality, as it leverages the Kernel trick to non-linearly map the original data into an inner-product space. == Algorithm == MVU creates a mapping from the high dimensional input vectors to some low dimensional Euclidean vector space in the following steps: A neighbourhood graph is created. Each input is connected with its k-nearest input vectors (according to Euclidean distance metric) and all k-nearest neighbors are connected with each other. If the data is sampled well enough, the resulting graph is a discrete approximation of the underlying manifold. The neighbourhood graph is "unfolded" with the help of semidefinite programming. Instead of learning the output vectors directly, the semidefinite programming aims to find an inner product matrix that maximizes the pairwise distances between any two inputs that are not connected in the neighbourhood graph while preserving the nearest neighbors distances. The low-dimensional embedding is finally obtained by application of multidimensional scaling on the learned inner product matrix. The steps of applying semidefinite programming followed by a linear dimensionality reduction step to recover a low-dimensional embedding into a Euclidean space were first proposed by Linial, London, and Rabinovich. == Optimization formulation == Let X {\displaystyle X\,\!} be the original input and Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} be the embedding. If i , j {\displaystyle i,j\,\!} are two neighbors, then the local isometry constraint that needs to be satisfied is: | X i − X j | 2 = | Y i − Y j | 2 {\displaystyle |X_{i}-X_{j}|^{2}=|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\,\!} Let G , K {\displaystyle G,K\,\!} be the Gram matrices of X {\displaystyle X\,\!} and Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} (i.e.: G i j = X i ⋅ X j , K i j = Y i ⋅ Y j {\displaystyle G_{ij}=X_{i}\cdot X_{j},K_{ij}=Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}\,\!} ). We can express the above constraint for every neighbor points i , j {\displaystyle i,j\,\!} in term of G , K {\displaystyle G,K\,\!} : G i i + G j j − G i j − G j i = K i i + K j j − K i j − K j i {\displaystyle G_{ii}+G_{jj}-G_{ij}-G_{ji}=K_{ii}+K_{jj}-K_{ij}-K_{ji}\,\!} In addition, we also want to constrain the embedding Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} to center at the origin: 0 = | ∑ i Y i | 2 ⇔ ( ∑ i Y i ) ⋅ ( ∑ i Y i ) ⇔ ∑ i , j Y i ⋅ Y j ⇔ ∑ i , j K i j {\displaystyle 0=|\sum _{i}Y_{i}|^{2}\Leftrightarrow (\sum _{i}Y_{i})\cdot (\sum _{i}Y_{i})\Leftrightarrow \sum _{i,j}Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}\Leftrightarrow \sum _{i,j}K_{ij}} As described above, except the distances of neighbor points are preserved, the algorithm aims to maximize the pairwise distance of every pair of points. The objective function to be maximized is: T ( Y ) = 1 2 N ∑ i , j | Y i − Y j | 2 {\displaystyle T(Y)={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}} Intuitively, maximizing the function above is equivalent to pulling the points as far away from each other as possible and therefore "unfold" the manifold. The local isometry constraint Let τ = m a x { η i j | Y i − Y j | 2 } {\displaystyle \tau =max\{\eta _{ij}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\}\,\!} where η i j := { 1 if i is a neighbour of j 0 otherwise . {\displaystyle \eta _{ij}:={\begin{cases}1&{\mbox{if}}\ i{\mbox{ is a neighbour of }}j\\0&{\mbox{otherwise}}.\end{cases}}} prevents the objective function from diverging (going to infinity). Since the graph has N points, the distance between any two points | Y i − Y j | 2 ≤ N τ {\displaystyle |Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\leq N\tau \,\!} . We can then bound the objective function as follows: T ( Y ) = 1 2 N ∑ i , j | Y i − Y j | 2 ≤ 1 2 N ∑ i , j ( N τ ) 2 = N 3 τ 2 2 {\displaystyle T(Y)={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\leq {\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}(N\tau )^{2}={\dfrac {N^{3}\tau ^{2}}{2}}\,\!} The objective function can be rewritten purely in the form of the Gram matrix: T ( Y ) = 1 2 N ∑ i , j | Y i − Y j | 2 = 1 2 N ∑ i , j ( Y i 2 + Y j 2 − Y i ⋅ Y j − Y j ⋅ Y i ) = 1 2 N ( ∑ i , j Y i 2 + ∑ i , j Y j 2 − ∑ i , j Y i ⋅ Y j − ∑ i , j Y j ⋅ Y i ) = 1 2 N ( ∑ i , j Y i 2 + ∑ i , j Y j 2 − 0 − 0 ) = 1 N ( ∑ i Y i 2 ) = 1 N ( T r ( K ) ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}T(Y)&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}|Y_{i}-Y_{j}|^{2}\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}\sum _{i,j}(Y_{i}^{2}+Y_{j}^{2}-Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}-Y_{j}\cdot Y_{i})\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}(\sum _{i,j}Y_{i}^{2}+\sum _{i,j}Y_{j}^{2}-\sum _{i,j}Y_{i}\cdot Y_{j}-\sum _{i,j}Y_{j}\cdot Y_{i})\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{2N}}(\sum _{i,j}Y_{i}^{2}+\sum _{i,j}Y_{j}^{2}-0-0)\\&{}={\dfrac {1}{N}}(\sum _{i}Y_{i}^{2})={\dfrac {1}{N}}(Tr(K))\\\end{aligned}}\,\!} Finally, the optimization can be formulated as: Maximize T r ( K ) subject to K ⪰ 0 , ∑ i j K i j = 0 and G i i + G j j − G i j − G j i = K i i + K j j − K i j − K j i , ∀ i , j where η i j = 1 , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{\text{Maximize}}&&Tr(\mathbf {K} )\\&{\text{subject to}}&&\mathbf {K} \succeq 0,\sum _{ij}\mathbf {K} _{ij}=0\\&{\text{and}}&&G_{ii}+G_{jj}-G_{ij}-G_{ji}=K_{ii}+K_{jj}-K_{ij}-K_{ji},\forall i,j{\mbox{ where }}\eta _{ij}=1,\end{aligned}}} After the Gram matrix K {\displaystyle K\,\!} is learned by semidefinite programming, the output Y {\displaystyle Y\,\!} can be obtained via Cholesky decomposition. In particular, the Gram matrix can be written as K i j = ∑ α = 1 N ( λ α V α i V α j ) {\displaystyle K_{ij}=\sum _{\alpha =1}^{N}(\lambda _{\alpha }V_{\alpha i}V_{\alpha j})\,\!} where V α i {\displaystyle V_{\alpha i}\,\!} is the i-th element of eigenvector V α {\displaystyle V_{\alpha }\,\!} of the eigenvalue λ α {\displaystyle \lambda _{\alpha }\,\!} . It follows that the α {\displaystyle \alpha \,\!} -th element of the output Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}\,\!} is λ α V α i {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\lambda _{\alpha }}}V_{\alpha i}\,\!} .
Representer theorem
For computer science, in statistical learning theory, a representer theorem is any of several related results stating that a minimizer f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} of a regularized empirical risk functional defined over a reproducing kernel Hilbert space can be represented as a finite linear combination of kernel products evaluated on the input points in the training set data. == Formal statement == The following Representer Theorem and its proof are due to Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola: Theorem: Consider a positive-definite real-valued kernel k : X × X → R {\displaystyle k:{\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } on a non-empty set X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} with a corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} . Let there be given a training sample ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ∈ X × R {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\dotsc ,(x_{n},y_{n})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} } , a strictly increasing real-valued function g : [ 0 , ∞ ) → R {\displaystyle g\colon [0,\infty )\to \mathbb {R} } , and an arbitrary error function E : ( X × R 2 ) n → R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle E\colon ({\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} ^{2})^{n}\to \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace \infty \rbrace } , which together define the following regularized empirical risk functional on H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} : f ↦ E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) . {\displaystyle f\mapsto E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right).} Then, any minimizer of the empirical risk f ∗ = argmin f ∈ H k { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) } , ( ∗ ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f\in H_{k}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)\right\rbrace ,\quad ()} admits a representation of the form: f ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) , {\displaystyle f^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i}),} where α i ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}\in \mathbb {R} } for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n {\displaystyle 1\leq i\leq n} . Proof: Define a mapping φ : X → H k φ ( x ) = k ( ⋅ , x ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\varphi \colon {\mathcal {X}}&\to H_{k}\\\varphi (x)&=k(\cdot ,x)\end{aligned}}} (so that φ ( x ) = k ( ⋅ , x ) {\displaystyle \varphi (x)=k(\cdot ,x)} is itself a map X → R {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} } ). Since k {\displaystyle k} is a reproducing kernel, then φ ( x ) ( x ′ ) = k ( x ′ , x ) = ⟨ φ ( x ′ ) , φ ( x ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle \varphi (x)(x')=k(x',x)=\langle \varphi (x'),\varphi (x)\rangle ,} where ⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle } is the inner product on H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} . Given any x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} , one can use orthogonal projection to decompose any f ∈ H k {\displaystyle f\in H_{k}} into a sum of two functions, one lying in span { φ ( x 1 ) , … , φ ( x n ) } {\displaystyle \operatorname {span} \left\lbrace \varphi (x_{1}),\ldots ,\varphi (x_{n})\right\rbrace } , and the other lying in the orthogonal complement: f = ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v , {\displaystyle f=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v,} where ⟨ v , φ ( x i ) ⟩ = 0 {\displaystyle \langle v,\varphi (x_{i})\rangle =0} for all i {\displaystyle i} . The above orthogonal decomposition and the reproducing property together show that applying f {\displaystyle f} to any training point x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} produces f ( x j ) = ⟨ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v , φ ( x j ) ⟩ = ∑ i = 1 n α i ⟨ φ ( x i ) , φ ( x j ) ⟩ , {\displaystyle f(x_{j})=\left\langle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v,\varphi (x_{j})\right\rangle =\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\langle \varphi (x_{i}),\varphi (x_{j})\rangle ,} which we observe is independent of v {\displaystyle v} . Consequently, the value of the error function E {\displaystyle E} in () is likewise independent of v {\displaystyle v} . For the second term (the regularization term), since v {\displaystyle v} is orthogonal to ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})} and g {\displaystyle g} is strictly monotonic, we have g ( ‖ f ‖ ) = g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) + v ‖ ) = g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) ‖ 2 + ‖ v ‖ 2 ) ≥ g ( ‖ ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) ‖ ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)&=g\left(\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})+v\rVert \right)\\&=g\left({\sqrt {\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})\rVert ^{2}+\lVert v\rVert ^{2}}}\right)\\&\geq g\left(\lVert \sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})\rVert \right).\end{aligned}}} Therefore, setting v = 0 {\displaystyle v=0} does not affect the first term of (), while it strictly decreases the second term. Consequently, any minimizer f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} in () must have v = 0 {\displaystyle v=0} , i.e., it must be of the form f ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i φ ( x i ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) , {\displaystyle f^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}\varphi (x_{i})=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i}),} which is the desired result. == Generalizations == The Theorem stated above is a particular example of a family of results that are collectively referred to as "representer theorems"; here we describe several such. The first statement of a representer theorem was due to Kimeldorf and Wahba for the special case in which E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( f ( x i ) − y i ) 2 , g ( ‖ f ‖ ) = λ ‖ f ‖ 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(f(x_{i})-y_{i})^{2},\\g(\lVert f\rVert )&=\lambda \lVert f\rVert ^{2}\end{aligned}}} for λ > 0 {\displaystyle \lambda >0} . Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola generalized this result by relaxing the assumption of the squared-loss cost and allowing the regularizer to be any strictly monotonically increasing function g ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle g(\cdot )} of the Hilbert space norm. It is possible to generalize further by augmenting the regularized empirical risk functional through the addition of unpenalized offset terms. For example, Schölkopf, Herbrich, and Smola also consider the minimization f ~ ∗ = argmin { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ~ ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ~ ( x n ) ) ) + g ( ‖ f ‖ ) ∣ f ~ = f + h ∈ H k ⊕ span { ψ p ∣ 1 ≤ p ≤ M } } , ( † ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}=\operatorname {argmin} \left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},{\tilde {f}}(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},{\tilde {f}}(x_{n}))\right)+g\left(\lVert f\rVert \right)\mid {\tilde {f}}=f+h\in H_{k}\oplus \operatorname {span} \lbrace \psi _{p}\mid 1\leq p\leq M\rbrace \right\rbrace ,\quad (\dagger )} i.e., we consider functions of the form f ~ = f + h {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}=f+h} , where f ∈ H k {\displaystyle f\in H_{k}} and h {\displaystyle h} is an unpenalized function lying in the span of a finite set of real-valued functions { ψ p : X → R ∣ 1 ≤ p ≤ M } {\displaystyle \lbrace \psi _{p}\colon {\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbb {R} \mid 1\leq p\leq M\rbrace } . Under the assumption that the n × M {\displaystyle n\times M} matrix ( ψ p ( x i ) ) i p {\displaystyle \left(\psi _{p}(x_{i})\right)_{ip}} has rank M {\displaystyle M} , they show that the minimizer f ~ ∗ {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}} in ( † ) {\displaystyle (\dagger )} admits a representation of the form f ~ ∗ ( ⋅ ) = ∑ i = 1 n α i k ( ⋅ , x i ) + ∑ p = 1 M β p ψ p ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {f}}^{}(\cdot )=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\alpha _{i}k(\cdot ,x_{i})+\sum _{p=1}^{M}\beta _{p}\psi _{p}(\cdot )} where α i , β p ∈ R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i},\beta _{p}\in \mathbb {R} } and the β p {\displaystyle \beta _{p}} are all uniquely determined. The conditions under which a representer theorem exists were investigated by Argyriou, Micchelli, and Pontil, who proved the following: Theorem: Let X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} be a nonempty set, k {\displaystyle k} a positive-definite real-valued kernel on X × X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}\times {\mathcal {X}}} with corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space H k {\displaystyle H_{k}} , and let R : H k → R {\displaystyle R\colon H_{k}\to \mathbb {R} } be a differentiable regularization function. Then given a training sample ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) ∈ X × R {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\in {\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} } and an arbitrary error function E : ( X × R 2 ) m → R ∪ { ∞ } {\displaystyle E\colon ({\mathcal {X}}\times \mathbb {R} ^{2})^{m}\to \mathbb {R} \cup \lbrace \infty \rbrace } , a minimizer f ∗ = argmin f ∈ H k { E ( ( x 1 , y 1 , f ( x 1 ) ) , … , ( x n , y n , f ( x n ) ) ) + R ( f ) } ( ‡ ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f\in H_{k}}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left\lbrace E\left((x_{1},y_{1},f(x_{1})),\ldots ,(x_{n},y_{n},f(x_{n}))\right)+R(f)\right\rbrace \quad (\ddagger )} of the regularized empirical risk admits a repr
Light scanning photomacrography
Light Scanning Photomacrography (LSP), also known as Scanning Light Photomacrography (SLP) or Deep-Field Photomacrography, is a photographic film technique that allows for high magnification light imaging with exceptional depth of field (DOF). This method overcomes the limitations of conventional macro photography, which typically only keeps a portion of the subject in acceptable focus at high magnifications. == Historical background == The principles of LSP were first documented in the early 1960s by Dan McLachlan Jr., who highlighted its capability for extreme focal depth in microscopy and in 1968 patented the process. The technique was revived and further developed in the 1980s by photographers such as Darwin Dale and Nile Root, a faculty member at the Rochester Institute of Technology. In the early 1990s, William Sharp and Charles Kazilek, both researchers at Arizona State University, also published articles describing their technique and system setup for capturing SLP images. == Predecessor to stack image photography == Light Scanning Photomacrography offered a powerful analog tool for high-detail imaging in the age of film photography. It provided a comprehensive depth of field, making it invaluable in scientific and biomedical photography. As technology and techniques continue to evolve, LSP has been replaced by digital image focus stacking. This technique uses a collection of images captured in series at different focal depths, which are then processed using computer software to create a single image with a greater focus depth than any single image. == LSP technique and results == LSP involves the use of a thin plane of light that scans across the subject, which is mounted on a stage moving perpendicular to the film plane. The technique utilizes traditional optics and is governed by the physical laws of depth of field. By moving the subject through a narrow band of illumination, the entire subject can be recorded in sharp focus from the nearest details to the farthest ones. This analog process produces sharp and detailed images by slowly recording the image on film as the specimen passes through the sheet of light that is thinner than the effective DOF. Because the image is captured at the same relative distance from the camera lens, the resulting images are axonometric rather than perspective projection, which is what the human eye sees and is typically captured by a film camera. Because all parts of an LSP image are captured at the same distance from the lens, relative measurements can be taken from an LSP photograph and can be used for comparison. == Equipment and setup == A typical LSP setup includes: A stage that can move the subject perpendicular to the film plane. Light sources, in some cases modified projectors, are used to project a thin plane of light. A camera mounted on a stable stand such as a tabletop copy stand. In 1991, Sharp and Kazilek described their SLP system that used three Kodak Ektagraphic slide projectors with zoom lenses to create a thin plane of light. The projectors each had a slide mount with two razor blades placed edge-to-edge to create a thin slit for the light to pass through. The image was captured using a Nikon FE-2 SLR camera mounted above the specimen. Kodachrome 25 slide film was used to record the image and to minimize film grain size and maximize image sharpness == Commercial systems == A commercial SLP instrument was produced by the Irvine Optical Corp. Their DYNAPHOT system was based on a photomacroscope and could capture images on 4x5 film. The instrument came with two or three illumination sources and a motorized specimen stage. The system advertised a 2X – 40X magnification range and the ability to capture images in black and white and color. Other systems have been developed by Nile Root and Theodore Clarke and reported higher magnification (up to 100X). == LSP process == Alignment and Focusing: The light sources are aligned and focused to project a thin, consistent plane of light across the subject. Stage Movement: The subject stage moves at a controlled speed, scanning through the plane of light. Image Capture: The camera shutter is set to a long exposure or can be opened and closed manually. As the subject moves through the illuminated plane, it is recorded on the film. This process is very much like painting an image onto the film using photons instead of paint. == Applications == LSP was particularly useful in biomedical photography, where it was used to document magnified subjects with increased depth of field over traditional macro and micro photography. It has been employed to capture detailed images of biological specimens, such as imaging small insects and their parts. SLP has been used to document shell collections for scientific documentation and research. Other applications include forensic science, mineralogy, and the imaging of fractured surfaces and parts == Advantages and challenges of LSP imaging == === Advantages === Exceptional depth of field: Subjects are rendered in sharp focus throughout. High magnification: Detailed images at significant magnification without sacrificing DOF. Analog precision: Provides a non-digital solution with accurate image representation. Versatility: Can be used for a range of subject sizes, from macro to non-macro scales. === Challenges === Technical complexity: Requires precise setup and alignment. Exposure time: Typically requires long exposure times due to the scanning process. Contrast control: The highly directional lighting can create harsh shadows and high contrast, which may need to be managed. Digital competition: Focus stacking has largely replaced LSP in the digital era due to convenience and flexibility. == DIY contributions == Enthusiasts and researchers have contributed to the development and accessibility of LSP by creating and sharing DIY guides. These contributions have enabled others to build their own LSP systems using readily available materials and components. Nile Root's publications provide detailed instructions and recommendations for constructing an LSP setup. These DIY systems have allowed a wider audience to explore and utilize the benefits of LSP imaging in various fields.
Nearest neighbor search
Nearest neighbor search (NNS), as a form of proximity search, is the optimization problem of finding the point in a given set that is closest (or most similar) to a given point. Closeness is typically expressed in terms of a dissimilarity function: the less similar the objects, the larger the function values. Formally, the nearest neighbor (NN) search problem is defined as follows: given a set S of points in a space M and a query point q ∈ M {\displaystyle q\in M} , find the closest point in S to q. Donald Knuth in volume 3 of The Art of Computer Programming (1973) called it the post-office problem, referring to an application of assigning to a residence the nearest post office. A direct generalization of this problem is a k-NN search, where we need to find the k closest points. Most commonly M is a metric space and dissimilarity is expressed as a distance metric, which is symmetric and satisfies the triangle inequality. Even more common, M is taken to be the d-dimensional vector space where dissimilarity is measured using the Euclidean distance, Manhattan distance or other distance metric. However, the dissimilarity function can be arbitrary. One example is asymmetric Bregman divergence, for which the triangle inequality does not hold. == Applications == The nearest neighbor search problem arises in numerous fields of application, including: Pattern recognition – in particular for optical character recognition Statistical classification – see k-nearest neighbor algorithm Computer vision – for point cloud registration Computational geometry – see Closest pair of points problem Cryptanalysis – for lattice problem Databases – e.g. content-based image retrieval Coding theory – see maximum likelihood decoding Semantic search Vector databases, where nearest-neighbor lookup over embeddings is used to retrieve semantically similar records Retrieval-augmented generation systems, where nearest-neighbor retrieval over embeddings is used to fetch candidate passages or documents before generation Data compression – see MPEG-2 standard Robotic sensing Recommendation systems, e.g. see Collaborative filtering Internet marketing – see contextual advertising and behavioral targeting DNA sequencing Spell checking – suggesting correct spelling Plagiarism detection Similarity scores for predicting career paths of professional athletes. Cluster analysis – assignment of a set of observations into subsets (called clusters) so that observations in the same cluster are similar in some sense, usually based on Euclidean distance Chemical similarity Sampling-based motion planning == Methods == Various solutions to the NNS problem have been proposed. The quality and usefulness of the algorithms are determined by the time complexity of queries as well as the space complexity of any search data structures that must be maintained. The informal observation usually referred to as the curse of dimensionality states that there is no general-purpose exact solution for NNS in high-dimensional Euclidean space using polynomial preprocessing and polylogarithmic search time. === Exact methods === ==== Linear search ==== The simplest solution to the NNS problem is to compute the distance from the query point to every other point in the database, keeping track of the "best so far". This algorithm, sometimes referred to as the naive approach, has a running time of O(dN), where N is the cardinality of S and d is the dimensionality of S. There are no search data structures to maintain, so the linear search has no space complexity beyond the storage of the database. Naive search can, on average, outperform space partitioning approaches on higher dimensional spaces. The absolute distance is not required for distance comparison, only the relative distance. In geometric coordinate systems the distance calculation can be sped up considerably by omitting the square root calculation from the distance calculation between two coordinates. The distance comparison will still yield identical results. ==== Space partitioning ==== Since the 1970s, the branch and bound methodology has been applied to the problem. In the case of Euclidean space, this approach encompasses spatial index or spatial access methods. Several space-partitioning methods have been developed for solving the NNS problem. Perhaps the simplest is the k-d tree, which iteratively bisects the search space into two regions containing half of the points of the parent region. Queries are performed via traversal of the tree from the root to a leaf by evaluating the query point at each split. Depending on the distance specified in the query, neighboring branches that might contain hits may also need to be evaluated. For constant dimension query time, average complexity is O(log N) in the case of randomly distributed points, worst case complexity is O(kN^(1-1/k)) Alternatively the R-tree data structure was designed to support nearest neighbor search in dynamic context, as it has efficient algorithms for insertions and deletions such as the R tree. R-trees can yield nearest neighbors not only for Euclidean distance, but can also be used with other distances. In the case of general metric space, the branch-and-bound approach is known as the metric tree approach. Particular examples include vp-tree and BK-tree methods. Using a set of points taken from a 3-dimensional space and put into a BSP tree, and given a query point taken from the same space, a possible solution to the problem of finding the nearest point-cloud point to the query point is given in the following description of an algorithm. (Strictly speaking, no such point may exist, because it may not be unique. But in practice, usually we only care about finding any one of the subset of all point-cloud points that exist at the shortest distance to a given query point.) The idea is, for each branching of the tree, guess that the closest point in the cloud resides in the half-space containing the query point. This may not be the case, but it is a good heuristic. After having recursively gone through all the trouble of solving the problem for the guessed half-space, now compare the distance returned by this result with the shortest distance from the query point to the partitioning plane. This latter distance is that between the query point and the closest possible point that could exist in the half-space not searched. If this distance is greater than that returned in the earlier result, then clearly there is no need to search the other half-space. If there is such a need, then you must go through the trouble of solving the problem for the other half space, and then compare its result to the former result, and then return the proper result. The performance of this algorithm is nearer to logarithmic time than linear time when the query point is near the cloud, because as the distance between the query point and the closest point-cloud point nears zero, the algorithm needs only perform a look-up using the query point as a key to get the correct result. === Approximation methods === An approximate nearest neighbor search algorithm is allowed to return points whose distance from the query is at most c {\displaystyle c} times the distance from the query to its nearest points. The appeal of this approach is that, in many cases, an approximate nearest neighbor is almost as good as the exact one. In particular, if the distance measure accurately captures the notion of user quality, then small differences in the distance should not matter. ==== Greedy search in proximity neighborhood graphs ==== Proximity graph methods (such as navigable small world graphs and HNSW) are considered the current state-of-the-art for the approximate nearest neighbors search. The methods are based on greedy traversing in proximity neighborhood graphs G ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G(V,E)} in which every point x i ∈ S {\displaystyle x_{i}\in S} is uniquely associated with vertex v i ∈ V {\displaystyle v_{i}\in V} . The search for the nearest neighbors to a query q in the set S takes the form of searching for the vertex in the graph G ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G(V,E)} . The basic algorithm – greedy search – works as follows: search starts from an enter-point vertex v i ∈ V {\displaystyle v_{i}\in V} by computing the distances from the query q to each vertex of its neighborhood { v j : ( v i , v j ) ∈ E } {\displaystyle \{v_{j}:(v_{i},v_{j})\in E\}} , and then finds a vertex with the minimal distance value. If the distance value between the query and the selected vertex is smaller than the one between the query and the current element, then the algorithm moves to the selected vertex, and it becomes new enter-point. The algorithm stops when it reaches a local minimum: a vertex whose neighborhood does not contain a vertex that is closer to the query than the vertex itself. The idea of proximity neighborhood graphs was exploited in multiple publications, including the seminal paper by Arya and Mount, in the VoroNet syst