Kernel-phases are observable quantities used in high resolution astronomical imaging used for superresolution image creation. It can be seen as a generalization of closure phases for redundant arrays. For this reason, when the wavefront quality requirement are met, it is an alternative to aperture masking interferometry that can be executed without a mask while retaining phase error rejection properties. The observables are computed through linear algebra from the Fourier transform of direct images. They can then be used for statistical testing, model fitting, or image reconstruction. == Prerequisites == In order to extract kernel-phases from an image, some requirements must be met: Images are nyquist-sampled (at least 2 pixels per resolution element ( λ D {\displaystyle {\frac {\lambda }{D}}} )) Images are taken in near monochromatic light Exposure time is shorter than the timescale of aberrations Strehl ratio is high (good adaptive optics) Linearity of the pixel response (i.e. no saturation) Deviations from these requirements are known to be acceptable, but lead to observational bias that should be corrected by the observation of calibrators. == Definition == The method relies on a discrete model of the instrument's pupil plane and the corresponding list of baselines to provide corresponding vectors φ {\displaystyle \varphi } of pupil plane errors and Φ {\displaystyle \Phi } of image plane Fourier Phases. When the wavefront error in the pupil plane is small enough (i.e. when the Strehl ratio of the imaging system is sufficiently high), the complex amplitude associated to the instrumental phase in one point of the pupil φ k {\displaystyle \varphi _{k}} , can be approximated by e i φ k ≈ 1 + i φ k {\displaystyle e^{i\varphi _{k}}\approx 1+{\mathit {i}}\varphi _{k}} . This permits the expression of the pupil-plane phase aberrations φ {\displaystyle \varphi } to the image plane Fourier phase as a linear transformation described by the matrix A {\displaystyle A} : Φ = Φ 0 + A ⋅ φ {\displaystyle \Phi =\Phi _{0}+A\cdot \varphi } Where Φ 0 {\displaystyle \Phi _{0}} is the theoretical Fourier phase vector of the object. In this formalism, singular value decomposition can be used to find a matrix K {\displaystyle K} satisfying K ⋅ A = 0 {\displaystyle K\cdot A=0} . The rows of K {\displaystyle K} constitute a basis of the kernel of A T {\displaystyle A^{T}} . K ⋅ Φ = K ⋅ Φ 0 + K ⋅ A ⋅ φ {\displaystyle K\cdot \Phi =K\cdot \Phi _{0}+{\cancel {K\cdot A\cdot \varphi }}} The vector K . Φ {\displaystyle K.\Phi } is called the kernel-phase vector of observables. This equation can be used for model-fitting as it represents the interpretation of a sub-space of the Fourier phase that is immune to the instrumental phase errors to the first order. == Applications == The technique was first used in the re-analysis of archival images from the Hubble Space Telescope where it enabled the discovery of a number of brown dwarf in close binary systems. The technique is used as an alternative to aperture masking interferometry, especially for fainter stars because it does not require the use of masks that typically block 90% of the light, and therefore allows higher throughput. It is also considered to be an alternative to coronagraphy for direct detection of exoplanets at very small separations (below 2 λ D {\displaystyle 2{\frac {\lambda }{D}}} ) where coronagraphs are limited by the wavefront errors of adaptive optics. The same framework can be used for wavefront sensing. In the case of an asymmetric aperture, a pseudo-inverse of A {\displaystyle A} can be used to reconstruct the wavefront errors directly from the image. A Python library called xara is available on GitHub and maintained by Frantz Martinache to facilitate the extraction and interpretation of kernel-phases. The KERNEL project, has received funding from the European Research Council to explore the potential of these observables for a number of use-cases, including direct detection of exoplanets, image reconstruction, and image plane wavefront sensing for adaptive optics.
Adobe Presenter Video Express
Adobe Presenter Video Express is screencasting and video editing software developed by Adobe Systems. == Description == Adobe Presenter Video Express is primarily used as a software by video creators, to record and mix webcam and screen video feeds. It allows users to simultaneously record video from their webcam and the screen, and easily mix the 2 tracks with a simple user interface. Users can change the background in their recorded video without needing equipment like a green screen. This is unlike other video tools which rely on chroma keying technology, and only work with green or blue screens. They can also add annotations and quizzes to their content and publish the video to MP4 or HTML5 formats. == List of notable features == === Record and mix, screen and webcam === Support for simultaneous recording of screen and webcam video feeds, with a simple editing interface to mix the two video streams. This lets the author rapidly create screencasts, software demos, etc. === Make my background awesome === This feature allows authors to change the background of their webcam recording without needing a green screen, provided they use a solid-colored backdrop which contrasts well against them. Authors can select images, videos or even the screen recording as their background. === In-video quizzing === Authors can insert quizzes within their video content. On success/failure attempts, the author can decide what message to display, and can also configure the video to jump to a certain point and play. Quizzes are published as part of the interactive HTML 5 player, which cannot be hosted on YouTube and Vimeo. === LMS Reporting === Authors can publish to any SCORM compliant LMS (Learning Management System) for quiz reporting, or to Adobe Captivate Prime. === In-app assets and branding === Adobe Presenter Video Express ships with a large number of branding videos, backgrounds and video filters to help authors create studio quality videos. === MP4 and HTML5 Output === The tool publishes a single MP4 video file containing all the video content, within an HTML 5 wrapper that contains the interactive player. The interactive HTML 5 player can be hosted on any website. == Common uses == === Screencasting === Screencasting is the process of recording one's computer screen as a video, usually with an audio voice over, to create a software demonstration, tutorial, presentation, etc. Adobe Presenter Video Express supports simultaneous recording of full screen video and microphone audio for creating screencasts. === Product marketing and demos === The ability to record the webcam video in addition to everything that is visible on the screen in Adobe Presenter Video Express, allows the author to add their personality to their screencasts. Features like video mixing and 'make my background awesome' further enhance the presentation, allowing effortless creation of marketing and demo videos. === Education === Adobe Presenter Video Express supports in-video quizzes and LMS reporting, along with screencasting and webcam recording. These features make it a powerful tool for creating educational content. == Differences from Adobe Presenter and Adobe Captivate == Adobe Presenter is a Microsoft PowerPoint plug-in for converting PowerPoint slides into interactive eLearning content, available only on Windows. Starting with Adobe Presenter 8, the video creation tool Adobe Presenter Video Express was bundled with every purchase of Adobe Presenter. From September 2015, Adobe Presenter Video Express 11 was also made available as a stand-alone product on Windows and Mac. A subscription license for Adobe Presenter Video Express, valid on Windows and Mac, is available for $9.99/month. Adobe Presenter Video Express continues to be bundled with purchases of Adobe Presenter on Windows as well. Adobe Captivate is an authoring tool for creating numerous forms of interactive eLearning content. Unlike Adobe Presenter, it uses a proprietary editing interface instead of Microsoft PowerPoint. While it is possible to create screen captures with Adobe Captivate, you cannot record the webcam feed. Adobe Captivate does not bundle Adobe Presenter or Adobe Presenter Video Express.
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
Agent verification
Agent verification is activity to gain assurances that purposeful artificial constructs act in accordance with their specifications. While primitive forms of inorganic agents have been used in manufacturing for centuries, the study of artificial agents did not begin until the mid 20th century. Foundational work on such agents was closely bound with the emergence of artificial intelligence as an academic discipline. Early agents deployed for industrial control systems and in computing were often controlled by quite simple logic however, not involving artificial intelligence as such. When deployed as part of a multi-agent system, even such simple agents could require special agent orientated testing methods, as their collective behaviour was challenging to verify with traditional testing techniques. Difficulties in providing assurances that agents will not behave in dangerous ways became more prevalent after the introduction of LLM agents, especially after the rapid acceleration of their deployment in 2025. The verification of agent behaviour can be conducted by formal or informal methods. Informal verification requires less mathematical skill. But when agents are part of systems where errors have significant risks — such as danger to human life, environmental damage or major financial loss — formal verification is preferred. Both regulators and system designers themselves like formal verification as it provides a high degree of mathematical certainty. It is not however always possible to formally test all aspects of an agent based system's behaviour, especially where newer LLM based agents are concerned, due in part to their high degree of autonomy. Accordingly, agent verification for low impact deployments might be carried out only with informal methods, while for high impact deployments, it may be performed with a mix of formal and informal techniques. == Terminology == In academia, the term agent verification is often defined to mean activity concerned with gaining assurance that the agent behaves in accordance with its specification - whether by processes such as testing or simulation. 'Verification' is typically contrasted with 'validation', the latter meaning activity concerned with checking that the specification itself meets user or real world needs. Such definitions are not universally adhered to however - for example, in some workplaces and documents, the words 'verification' and 'validation' can be used synonymously. Efforts to gain confidence in Agents have intensified sharply since 2025 due to the rapid roll out of LLM agents; different terms are sometimes used in the commercial sector. Here the term 'agent verification' can be used in the same sense as it is in academia, but sometimes the same activity can be covered by more ambiguous and wider ranging terms such as 'Agent governance' , 'Agent observability' or 'AI agent policing'. == History == === Classical agents === The theoretical underpinnings for artificial (inorganic) agents emerged in the mid 20th century, with establishment of cybernetics and artificial intelligence. Oliver Selfridge's 1958 Pandemonium - A Paradigm for Learning paper was an important early theoretical contribution in establishing agent oriented architecture. Practical implementations of agents for real world applications began to become widespread in the 1990s, after the introduction of the belief–desire–intention software model (BDI), and agent-oriented programming. Pure digital agents were deployed in computer infrastructure for purposes such as monitoring, while agents connected to real-world sensors and actuators were increasingly used in industrial control systems. While the concept of artificial agents was interwoven with early artificial intelligence studies right from the start, early agents lacked general purpose reasoning capabilities, often only having simple if then logic. Even a device as simple as a thermostat, which has a sensor and a means of acting, can be considered a proto agent in this sense. Verifying the behaviours of a simple single agent system is not generally especially difficult, but it can be a different matter when several simple agents coexist in the same system. Craig Reynolds's work on boids showed that relatively complex, "intelligent" behaviour can emerge from a number of such simple agents working together in a Multi-agent system (MAS). By the 1990s, even the behaviour of a single agent system could sometimes be quite complex; in accordance with the Belief–desire–intention software model, agents could have believes that might evolve over time. Agents were increasingly introduced that were controlled by quite large decision tree models, which had new vulnerabilities to adversarial attack. It was becoming increasingly apparent that traditional software verification methods had limitations for testing such agents, or even for the more primitive type of agents when they were deployed as part of a MAS. It was the use of agents for industrial control systems, sometimes associated with robotics, that lent urgency to the practice of agent verification. Informal testing might be acceptable for digital agents used say to monitor whether each of an organisation's computers are properly licensed. But with an increasing potential for faulty agents to result in a failure that might cause a large fire to break out at a chemical manufacturing plant, a botched medical operation, or even a crashed aircraft, the need to develop reliable means of verifying behaviour of such agents was considered urgent. The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents was established in 1996. From the late 90s, a growing number of industry and university based scientists began working on the problem, with researchers publishing papers on the verification of both single and multi agent systems. Much of this work showed how formal verification techniques like model checking could be used to gain a high level of assurance that agent based systems would conform with their specification. A 2018 systematic review covering 231 studies found that model checking was the most common technique for agent verification, with theorem proving the second most commonly used formal verification method. In the first two decades of the 20th century, agents run by AI became more common, with Siri and Alexa being well known examples. But such agents still lacked general reasoning capabilities and did not pose new pressing problems for agent verification. === General purpose reasoning agents === The advent of LLMs created huge potential for further use of artificial agents, as agents based on them could have general purpose cognitive abilities. Agents run by LLMs (and occasionally non-LLM foundation models) have similar vulnerability to adversarial attack as those run by decision tree models. The wider scope of actions for LLM agents has created new challenges for their verification, over and above those present for classical agents. For example, the LLM's neural network endows it with infinite domains, an especial challenge for traditional formal verification techniques. Academics began to study the problems involved in verifying LLM agents from 2018. Deployment of such agents began to accelerate in late 2023 after OpenAI's "function-calling" API was made available, and especially after Anthropic's late 2024 introduction of Model Context Protocol (MCP), a standardised way for LLM agents to gain contextual awareness, and to act on the world by calling various external tools. The rapid rollout of LLM agents following MCP's release has seen the task of agent verification receive increased attention within academia, and also from the private sector. In 2024 and 2025 several startups focusing on LLM agent verification have been founded in both Europe and the US to meet growing demand. == Approaches == === Formal verification === Formal verification involves proving the correctness of some or all aspects of a system using mathematical methods. Such methods can range from manual formal proof, to verification assisted with automated theorem provers like Isabelle. For agent verification, model checking is by far the most frequently used formal verification method; for pre-LLM models it was often complemented with techniques using computation tree logic. Another common method is theorem proving. Formal verification provides a higher degree of confidence than informal methods, but it is not always used, even when it is possible. Sometimes a person or organisation developing software agents won't have the necessary skills, or may not see it as worth the effort if the agent(s) will not have the ability to cause much harm even if they malfunction. When agents are deployed in systems where errors could have serious consequences, the ability of formal verification methods to provide mathematical certainty tends to be strongly preferred by both regulators and designers themselves. But even for high impact systems, formal verificatio
Feature (machine learning)
In machine learning and pattern recognition, a feature is an individual measurable property or characteristic of a data set. Choosing informative, discriminating, and independent features is crucial to producing effective algorithms for pattern recognition, classification, and regression tasks. Features are usually numeric, but other types such as strings and graphs are used in syntactic pattern recognition, after some pre-processing step such as one-hot encoding. The concept of "features" is related to that of explanatory variables used in statistical techniques such as linear regression. == Feature types == In feature engineering, two types of features are commonly used: numerical and categorical. Numerical features are continuous values that can be measured on a scale. Examples of numerical features include age, height, weight, and income. Numerical features can be used in machine learning algorithms directly. Categorical features are discrete values that can be grouped into categories. Examples of categorical features include gender, color, and zip code. Categorical features typically need to be converted to numerical features before they can be used in machine learning algorithms. This can be done using a variety of techniques, such as one-hot encoding, label encoding, and ordinal encoding. The type of feature that is used in feature engineering depends on the specific machine learning algorithm that is being used. Some machine learning algorithms, such as decision trees, can handle both numerical and categorical features. Other machine learning algorithms, such as linear regression, can only handle numerical features. == Classification == A numeric feature can be conveniently described by a feature vector. One way to achieve binary classification is using a linear predictor function (related to the perceptron) with a feature vector as input. The method consists of calculating the scalar product between the feature vector and a vector of weights, qualifying those observations whose result exceeds a threshold. Algorithms for classification from a feature vector include nearest neighbor classification, neural networks, and statistical techniques such as Bayesian approaches. == Examples == In character recognition, features may include histograms counting the number of black pixels along horizontal and vertical directions, number of internal holes, stroke detection and many others. In speech recognition, features for recognizing phonemes can include noise ratios, length of sounds, relative power, filter matches, logarithmic Mel-scale spectral vectors and Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients, which represent the frequency characteristics of audio signals. In spam detection algorithms, features may include the presence or absence of certain email headers, the email structure, the language, the frequency of specific terms, the grammatical correctness of the text. In computer vision, there are a large number of possible features, such as edges and objects. == Feature vectors == In pattern recognition and machine learning, a feature vector is an n-dimensional vector of numerical features that represent some object. Many algorithms in machine learning require a numerical representation of objects, since such representations facilitate processing and statistical analysis. When representing images, the feature values might correspond to the pixels of an image, while when representing texts the features might be the frequencies of occurrence of textual terms. Feature vectors are equivalent to the vectors of explanatory variables used in statistical procedures such as linear regression. Feature vectors are often combined with weights using a dot product in order to construct a linear predictor function that is used to determine a score for making a prediction. The vector space associated with these vectors is often called the feature space. In order to reduce the dimensionality of the feature space, a number of dimensionality reduction techniques can be employed. Higher-level features can be obtained from already available features and added to the feature vector; for example, for the study of diseases the feature 'Age' is useful and is defined as Age = 'Year of death' minus 'Year of birth' . This process is referred to as feature construction. Feature construction is the application of a set of constructive operators to a set of existing features resulting in construction of new features. Examples of such constructive operators include checking for the equality conditions {=, ≠}, the arithmetic operators {+,−,×, /}, the array operators {max(S), min(S), average(S)} as well as other more sophisticated operators, for example count(S, C) that counts the number of features in the feature vector S satisfying some condition C or, for example, distances to other recognition classes generalized by some accepting device. Feature construction has long been considered a powerful tool for increasing both accuracy and understanding of structure, particularly in high-dimensional problems. Applications include studies of disease and emotion recognition from speech. == Selection and extraction == The initial set of raw features can be redundant and large enough that estimation and optimization is made difficult or ineffective. Therefore, a preliminary step in many applications of machine learning and pattern recognition consists of selecting a subset of features, or constructing a new and reduced set of features to facilitate learning, and to improve generalization and interpretability. Extracting or selecting features is a combination of art and science; developing systems to do so is known as feature engineering. It requires the experimentation of multiple possibilities and the combination of automated techniques with the intuition and knowledge of the domain expert. Automating this process is feature learning, where a machine not only uses features for learning, but learns the features itself.
Artificial intelligence in spirituality
Some users of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, especially chatbots, may develop beliefs that AI has or can attain supernatural or spiritual powers. AI models such as ChatGPT are turned to for fortune telling, mysticism and remote viewing. Recent and sudden advances in large language models have led to folk myths about their origin or capabilities, as well as their deification or worship by some users. Tucker Carlson has made similar claims, including directly to Sam Altman. Pope Leo XIV advised priests against using LLM models when it came to the creation of sermons.
Kernel embedding of distributions
In machine learning, the kernel embedding of distributions (also called the kernel mean or mean map) comprises a class of nonparametric methods in which a probability distribution is represented as an element of a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS). A generalization of the individual data-point feature mapping done in classical kernel methods, the embedding of distributions into infinite-dimensional feature spaces can preserve all of the statistical features of arbitrary distributions, while allowing one to compare and manipulate distributions using Hilbert space operations such as inner products, distances, projections, linear transformations, and spectral analysis. This learning framework is very general and can be applied to distributions over any space Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } on which a sensible kernel function (measuring similarity between elements of Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } ) may be defined. For example, various kernels have been proposed for learning from data which are: vectors in R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} , discrete classes/categories, strings, graphs/networks, images, time series, manifolds, dynamical systems, and other structured objects. The theory behind kernel embeddings of distributions has been primarily developed by Alex Smola, Le Song, Arthur Gretton, and Bernhard Schölkopf. A review of recent works on kernel embedding of distributions can be found in. The analysis of distributions is fundamental in machine learning and statistics, and many algorithms in these fields rely on information theoretic approaches such as entropy, mutual information, or Kullback–Leibler divergence. However, to estimate these quantities, one must first either perform density estimation, or employ sophisticated space-partitioning/bias-correction strategies which are typically infeasible for high-dimensional data. Commonly, methods for modeling complex distributions rely on parametric assumptions that may be unfounded or computationally challenging (e.g. Gaussian mixture models), while nonparametric methods like kernel density estimation (Note: the smoothing kernels in this context have a different interpretation than the kernels discussed here) or characteristic function representation (via the Fourier transform of the distribution) break down in high-dimensional settings. Methods based on the kernel embedding of distributions sidestep these problems and also possess the following advantages: Data may be modeled without restrictive assumptions about the form of the distributions and relationships between variables Intermediate density estimation is not needed Practitioners may specify the properties of a distribution most relevant for their problem (incorporating prior knowledge via choice of the kernel) If a characteristic kernel is used, then the embedding can uniquely preserve all information about a distribution, while thanks to the kernel trick, computations on the potentially infinite-dimensional RKHS can be implemented in practice as simple Gram matrix operations Dimensionality-independent rates of convergence for the empirical kernel mean (estimated using samples from the distribution) to the kernel embedding of the true underlying distribution can be proven. Learning algorithms based on this framework exhibit good generalization ability and finite sample convergence, while often being simpler and more effective than information theoretic methods Thus, learning via the kernel embedding of distributions offers a principled drop-in replacement for information theoretic approaches and is a framework which not only subsumes many popular methods in machine learning and statistics as special cases, but also can lead to entirely new learning algorithms. == Definitions == Let X {\displaystyle X} denote a random variable with domain Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } and distribution P {\displaystyle P} . Given a symmetric, positive-definite kernel k : Ω × Ω → R {\displaystyle k:\Omega \times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb {R} } the Moore–Aronszajn theorem asserts the existence of a unique RKHS H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} on Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } (a Hilbert space of functions f : Ω → R {\displaystyle f:\Omega \to \mathbb {R} } equipped with an inner product ⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ H {\displaystyle \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle _{\mathcal {H}}} and a norm ‖ ⋅ ‖ H {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{\mathcal {H}}} ) for which k {\displaystyle k} is a reproducing kernel, i.e., in which the element k ( x , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle k(x,\cdot )} satisfies the reproducing property ⟨ f , k ( x , ⋅ ) ⟩ H = f ( x ) ∀ f ∈ H , ∀ x ∈ Ω . {\displaystyle \langle f,k(x,\cdot )\rangle _{\mathcal {H}}=f(x)\qquad \forall f\in {\mathcal {H}},\quad \forall x\in \Omega .} One may alternatively consider x ↦ k ( x , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle x\mapsto k(x,\cdot )} as an implicit feature mapping φ : Ω → H {\displaystyle \varphi :\Omega \rightarrow {\mathcal {H}}} (which is therefore also called the feature space), so that k ( x , x ′ ) = ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⟩ H {\displaystyle k(x,x')=\langle \varphi (x),\varphi (x')\rangle _{\mathcal {H}}} can be viewed as a measure of similarity between points x , x ′ ∈ Ω . {\displaystyle x,x'\in \Omega .} While the similarity measure is linear in the feature space, it may be highly nonlinear in the original space depending on the choice of kernel. === Kernel embedding === The kernel embedding of the distribution P {\displaystyle P} in H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} (also called the kernel mean or mean map) is given by: μ X := E [ k ( X , ⋅ ) ] = E [ φ ( X ) ] = ∫ Ω φ ( x ) d P ( x ) {\displaystyle \mu _{X}:=\mathbb {E} [k(X,\cdot )]=\mathbb {E} [\varphi (X)]=\int _{\Omega }\varphi (x)\ \mathrm {d} P(x)} If P {\displaystyle P} allows a square integrable density p {\displaystyle p} , then μ X = E k p {\displaystyle \mu _{X}={\mathcal {E}}_{k}p} , where E k {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}_{k}} is the Hilbert–Schmidt integral operator. A kernel is characteristic if the mean embedding μ : { family of distributions over Ω } → H {\displaystyle \mu :\{{\text{family of distributions over }}\Omega \}\to {\mathcal {H}}} is injective. Each distribution can thus be uniquely represented in the RKHS and all statistical features of distributions are preserved by the kernel embedding if a characteristic kernel is used. === Empirical kernel embedding === Given n {\displaystyle n} training examples { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} drawn independently and identically distributed (i.i.d.) from P , {\displaystyle P,} the kernel embedding of P {\displaystyle P} can be empirically estimated as μ ^ X = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n φ ( x i ) {\displaystyle {\widehat {\mu }}_{X}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\varphi (x_{i})} === Joint distribution embedding === If Y {\displaystyle Y} denotes another random variable (for simplicity, assume the co-domain of Y {\displaystyle Y} is also Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } with the same kernel k {\displaystyle k} which satisfies ⟨ φ ( x ) ⊗ φ ( y ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⊗ φ ( y ′ ) ⟩ = k ( x , x ′ ) k ( y , y ′ ) {\displaystyle \langle \varphi (x)\otimes \varphi (y),\varphi (x')\otimes \varphi (y')\rangle =k(x,x')k(y,y')} ), then the joint distribution P ( x , y ) ) {\displaystyle P(x,y))} can be mapped into a tensor product feature space H ⊗ H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}\otimes {\mathcal {H}}} via C X Y = E [ φ ( X ) ⊗ φ ( Y ) ] = ∫ Ω × Ω φ ( x ) ⊗ φ ( y ) d P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}_{XY}=\mathbb {E} [\varphi (X)\otimes \varphi (Y)]=\int _{\Omega \times \Omega }\varphi (x)\otimes \varphi (y)\ \mathrm {d} P(x,y)} By the equivalence between a tensor and a linear map, this joint embedding may be interpreted as an uncentered cross-covariance operator C X Y : H → H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}_{XY}:{\mathcal {H}}\to {\mathcal {H}}} from which the cross-covariance of functions f , g ∈ H {\displaystyle f,g\in {\mathcal {H}}} can be computed as Cov ( f ( X ) , g ( Y ) ) := E [ f ( X ) g ( Y ) ] − E [ f ( X ) ] E [ g ( Y ) ] = ⟨ f , C X Y g ⟩ H = ⟨ f ⊗ g , C X Y ⟩ H ⊗ H {\displaystyle \operatorname {Cov} (f(X),g(Y)):=\mathbb {E} [f(X)g(Y)]-\mathbb {E} [f(X)]\mathbb {E} [g(Y)]=\langle f,{\mathcal {C}}_{XY}g\rangle _{\mathcal {H}}=\langle f\otimes g,{\mathcal {C}}_{XY}\rangle _{{\mathcal {H}}\otimes {\mathcal {H}}}} Given n {\displaystyle n} pairs of training examples { ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) } {\displaystyle \{(x_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\}} drawn i.i.d. from P {\displaystyle P} , we can also empirically estimate the joint distribution kernel embedding via C ^ X Y = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n φ ( x i ) ⊗ φ ( y i ) {\displaystyle {\widehat {\mathcal {C}}}_{XY}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\varphi (x_{i})\otimes \varphi (y_{i})} === Conditional distribution embedding === Given a conditional distribution P ( y ∣ x ) , {\displaystyle P(y\mid x),} one can define the corresponding RKHS embedding as μ Y ∣ x = E [ φ ( Y ) ∣ X ] = ∫ Ω φ ( y ) d P ( y ∣ x ) {\displaystyle \mu _{Y\mid x}=\mathbb {E} [\varphi (Y)\mid X]=\int _{\Omega