TensorFlow Hub (also styled TF Hub) is an open-source machine learning library and online repository that provides TensorFlow model components, called modules. It is maintained by Google as part of the TensorFlow ecosystem and allows developers to discover, publish, and reuse pretrained models for tasks such as computer vision, natural language processing, and transfer learning. == Overview == TensorFlow Hub provides a central platform where developers and researchers can access pre-trained models and integrate them directly into TensorFlow workflows. Each module encapsulates a computation graph and its trained weights, with standardized input and output signatures. Modules can be loaded using the hub.load() function or through Keras integration via hub.KerasLayer, enabling users to perform transfer learning or feature extraction. == History == TensorFlow Hub was announced by Google in March 2018, with the first public version released shortly after. Its introduction coincided with the growing adoption of transfer learning techniques and the need for standardized model packaging. Over time, the hub expanded to include models such as the BERT family, MobileNet, EfficientNet, and the Universal Sentence Encoder. In 2020, research on “Regret selection in TensorFlow Hub” explored the problem of identifying optimal models for downstream tasks given a large repository of alternatives. == Applications == TensorFlow Hub hosts a variety of models across machine learning domains: Natural language processing: BERT, ALBERT language model, and Universal Sentence Encoder. Computer vision: ResNet, Inception (deep learning), MobileNet, EfficientNet. Speech and audio: spectrogram feature extractors and automatic speech recognition models. Multilingual embeddings: cross-lingual and sentence-level representations for machine translation and semantic similarity. Modules are widely used in education, academic research, and industry for prototyping and production deployment.
Right to explanation
In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo
Harris corner detector
The Harris corner detector is a corner detection operator that is commonly used in computer vision algorithms to extract corners and infer features of an image. It was first introduced by Chris Harris and Mike Stephens in 1988 upon the improvement of Moravec's corner detector. Compared to its predecessor, Harris' corner detector takes the differential of the corner score into account with reference to direction directly, instead of using shifting patches for every 45 degree angles, and has been proved to be more accurate in distinguishing between edges and corners. Since then, it has been improved and adopted in many algorithms to preprocess images for subsequent applications. == Introduction == A corner is a point whose local neighborhood stands in two dominant and different edge directions. In other words, a corner can be interpreted as the junction of two edges, where an edge is a sudden change in image brightness. Corners are the important features in the image, and they are generally termed as interest points which are invariant to translation, rotation and illumination. Although corners are only a small percentage of the image, they contain the most important features in restoring image information, and they can be used to minimize the amount of processed data for motion tracking, image stitching, building 2D mosaics, stereo vision, image representation and other related computer vision areas. In order to capture the corners from the image, researchers have proposed many different corner detectors including the Kanade-Lucas-Tomasi (KLT) operator and the Harris operator which are most simple, efficient and reliable for use in corner detection. These two popular methodologies are both closely associated with and based on the local structure matrix. Compared to the Kanade-Lucas-Tomasi corner detector, the Harris corner detector provides good repeatability under changing illumination and rotation, and therefore, it is more often used in stereo matching and image database retrieval. Although there still exist drawbacks and limitations, the Harris corner detector is still an important and fundamental technique for many computer vision applications. == Development of Harris corner detection algorithm == Source: Without loss of generality, we will assume a grayscale 2-dimensional image is used. Let this image be given by I {\displaystyle I} . Consider taking an image patch ( x , y ) ∈ W {\displaystyle (x,y)\in W} (window) and shifting it by ( Δ x , Δ y ) {\displaystyle (\Delta x,\Delta y)} . The sum of squared differences (SSD) between these two patches, denoted f {\displaystyle f} , is given by: f ( Δ x , Δ y ) = ∑ ( x k , y k ) ∈ W ( I ( x k , y k ) − I ( x k + Δ x , y k + Δ y ) ) 2 {\displaystyle f(\Delta x,\Delta y)={\underset {(x_{k},y_{k})\in W}{\sum }}\left(I(x_{k},y_{k})-I(x_{k}+\Delta x,y_{k}+\Delta y)\right)^{2}} I ( x + Δ x , y + Δ y ) {\displaystyle I(x+\Delta x,y+\Delta y)} can be approximated by a Taylor expansion. Let I x {\displaystyle I_{x}} and I y {\displaystyle I_{y}} be the partial derivatives of I {\displaystyle I} , such that I ( x + Δ x , y + Δ y ) ≈ I ( x , y ) + I x ( x , y ) Δ x + I y ( x , y ) Δ y {\displaystyle I(x+\Delta x,y+\Delta y)\approx I(x,y)+I_{x}(x,y)\Delta x+I_{y}(x,y)\Delta y} This produces the approximation f ( Δ x , Δ y ) ≈ ∑ ( x , y ) ∈ W ( I x ( x , y ) Δ x + I y ( x , y ) Δ y ) 2 , {\displaystyle f(\Delta x,\Delta y)\approx {\underset {(x,y)\in W}{\sum }}\left(I_{x}(x,y)\Delta x+I_{y}(x,y)\Delta y\right)^{2},} which can be written in matrix form: f ( Δ x , Δ y ) ≈ ( Δ x Δ y ) M ( Δ x Δ y ) , {\displaystyle f(\Delta x,\Delta y)\approx {\begin{pmatrix}\Delta x&\Delta y\end{pmatrix}}M{\begin{pmatrix}\Delta x\\\Delta y\end{pmatrix}},} where M is the structure tensor, M = ∑ ( x , y ) ∈ W [ I x 2 I x I y I x I y I y 2 ] = [ ∑ ( x , y ) ∈ W I x 2 ∑ ( x , y ) ∈ W I x I y ∑ ( x , y ) ∈ W I x I y ∑ ( x , y ) ∈ W I y 2 ] {\displaystyle M={\underset {(x,y)\in W}{\sum }}{\begin{bmatrix}I_{x}^{2}&I_{x}I_{y}\\I_{x}I_{y}&I_{y}^{2}\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}{\underset {(x,y)\in W}{\sum }}I_{x}^{2}&{\underset {(x,y)\in W}{\sum }}I_{x}I_{y}\\{\underset {(x,y)\in W}{\sum }}I_{x}I_{y}&{\underset {(x,y)\in W}{\sum }}I_{y}^{2}\end{bmatrix}}} == Process of Harris corner detection algorithm == Commonly, Harris corner detector algorithm can be divided into five steps. Color to grayscale Spatial derivative calculation Structure tensor setup Harris response calculation Non-maximum suppression === Color to grayscale === If we use Harris corner detector in a color image, the first step is to convert it into a grayscale image, which will enhance the processing speed. The value of the gray scale pixel can be computed as a weighted sums of the values R, B and G of the color image, ∑ C ∈ { R , G , B } w C ⋅ C {\displaystyle \sum _{C\,\in \,\{R,G,B\}}w_{C}\cdot C} , where, e.g., w R = 0.299 , w G = 0.587 , w B = 1 − ( w R + w G ) = 0.114. {\displaystyle w_{R}=0.299,\ w_{G}=0.587,\ w_{B}=1-(w_{R}+w_{G})=0.114.} === Spatial derivative calculation === Next, we are going to find the derivative with respect to x and the derivative with respect to y, I x ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I_{x}(x,y)} and I y ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I_{y}(x,y)} . This can be approximated by applying Sobel operators. === Structure tensor setup === With I x ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I_{x}(x,y)} , I y ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I_{y}(x,y)} , we can construct the structure tensor M {\displaystyle M} . === Harris response calculation === For x ≪ y {\displaystyle x\ll y} , one has x ⋅ y x + y = x 1 1 + x / y ≈ x . {\displaystyle {\tfrac {x\cdot y}{x+y}}=x{\tfrac {1}{1+x/y}}\approx x.} In this step, we compute the smallest eigenvalue of the structure tensor using that approximation: λ min ≈ λ 1 λ 2 ( λ 1 + λ 2 ) = det ( M ) tr ( M ) {\displaystyle \lambda _{\min }\approx {\frac {\lambda _{1}\lambda _{2}}{(\lambda _{1}+\lambda _{2})}}={\frac {\det(M)}{\operatorname {tr} (M)}}} with the trace t r ( M ) = m 11 + m 22 {\displaystyle \mathrm {tr} (M)=m_{11}+m_{22}} . Another commonly used Harris response calculation is shown as below, R = λ 1 λ 2 − k ( λ 1 + λ 2 ) 2 = det ( M ) − k tr ( M ) 2 {\displaystyle R=\lambda _{1}\lambda _{2}-k(\lambda _{1}+\lambda _{2})^{2}=\det(M)-k\operatorname {tr} (M)^{2}} where k {\displaystyle k} is an empirically determined constant; k ∈ [ 0.04 , 0.06 ] {\displaystyle k\in [0.04,0.06]} . === Non-maximum suppression === In order to pick up the optimal values to indicate corners, we find the local maxima as corners within the window which is a 3 by 3 filter. == Improvement == Sources: Harris-Laplace Corner Detector Differential Morphological Decomposition Based Corner Detector Multi-scale Bilateral Structure Tensor Based Corner Detector == Applications == Image Alignment, Stitching and Registration 2D Mosaics Creation 3D Scene Modeling and Reconstruction Motion Detection Object Recognition Image Indexing and Content-based Retrieval Video Tracking
Weak supervision
Weak supervision (also known as semi-supervised learning) is a paradigm in machine learning, the relevance and notability of which increased with the advent of large language models due to the large amount of data required to train them. It is characterized by using a combination of a small amount of human-labeled data (exclusively used in more expensive and time-consuming supervised learning paradigm), followed by a large amount of unlabeled data (used exclusively in unsupervised learning paradigm). In other words, the desired output values are provided only for a subset of the training data. The remaining data is unlabeled or imprecisely labeled. Intuitively, it can be seen as an exam and labeled data as sample problems that the teacher solves for the class as an aid in solving another set of problems. In the transductive setting, these unsolved problems act as exam questions. In the inductive setting, they become practice problems of the sort that will make up the exam. == Problem == The acquisition of labeled data for a learning problem often requires a skilled human agent (e.g. to transcribe an audio segment) or a physical experiment (e.g. determining the 3D structure of a protein or determining whether there is oil at a particular location). The cost associated with the labeling process thus may render large, fully labeled training sets infeasible, whereas acquisition of unlabeled data is relatively inexpensive. In such situations, semi-supervised learning can be of great practical value. Semi-supervised learning is also of theoretical interest in machine learning and as a model for human learning. == Technique == More formally, semi-supervised learning assumes a set of l {\displaystyle l} independently identically distributed examples x 1 , … , x l ∈ X {\displaystyle x_{1},\dots ,x_{l}\in X} with corresponding labels y 1 , … , y l ∈ Y {\displaystyle y_{1},\dots ,y_{l}\in Y} and u {\displaystyle u} unlabeled examples x l + 1 , … , x l + u ∈ X {\displaystyle x_{l+1},\dots ,x_{l+u}\in X} are processed. Semi-supervised learning combines this information to surpass the classification performance that can be obtained either by discarding the unlabeled data and doing supervised learning or by discarding the labels and doing unsupervised learning. Semi-supervised learning may refer to either transductive learning or inductive learning. The goal of transductive learning is to infer the correct labels for the given unlabeled data x l + 1 , … , x l + u {\displaystyle x_{l+1},\dots ,x_{l+u}} only. The goal of inductive learning is to infer the correct mapping from X {\displaystyle X} to Y {\displaystyle Y} . It is unnecessary (and, according to Vapnik's principle, imprudent) to perform transductive learning by way of inferring a classification rule over the entire input space; however, in practice, algorithms formally designed for transduction or induction are often used interchangeably. == Assumptions == In order to make any use of unlabeled data, some relationship to the underlying distribution of data must exist. Semi-supervised learning algorithms make use of at least one of the following assumptions: === Continuity / smoothness assumption === Points that are close to each other are more likely to share a label. This is also generally assumed in supervised learning and yields a preference for geometrically simple decision boundaries. In the case of semi-supervised learning, the smoothness assumption additionally yields a preference for decision boundaries in low-density regions, so few points are close to each other but in different classes. === Cluster assumption === The data tend to form discrete clusters, and points in the same cluster are more likely to share a label (although data that shares a label may spread across multiple clusters). This is a special case of the smoothness assumption and gives rise to feature learning with clustering algorithms. === Manifold assumption === The data lie approximately on a manifold of much lower dimension than the input space. In this case learning the manifold using both the labeled and unlabeled data can avoid the curse of dimensionality. Then learning can proceed using distances and densities defined on the manifold. The manifold assumption is practical when high-dimensional data are generated by some process that may be hard to model directly, but which has only a few degrees of freedom. For instance, human voice is controlled by a few vocal folds, and images of various facial expressions are controlled by a few muscles. In these cases, it is better to consider distances and smoothness in the natural space of the generating problem, rather than in the space of all possible acoustic waves or images, respectively. == History == The heuristic approach of self-training (also known as self-learning or self-labeling) is historically the oldest approach to semi-supervised learning, with examples of applications starting in the 1960s. The transductive learning framework was formally introduced by Vladimir Vapnik in the 1970s. Interest in inductive learning using generative models also began in the 1970s. A probably approximately correct learning bound for semi-supervised learning of a Gaussian mixture was demonstrated by Ratsaby and Venkatesh in 1995. == Methods == === Generative models === Generative approaches to statistical learning first seek to estimate p ( x | y ) {\displaystyle p(x|y)} , the distribution of data points belonging to each class. The probability p ( y | x ) {\displaystyle p(y|x)} that a given point x {\displaystyle x} has label y {\displaystyle y} is then proportional to p ( x | y ) p ( y ) {\displaystyle p(x|y)p(y)} by Bayes' rule. Semi-supervised learning with generative models can be viewed either as an extension of supervised learning (classification plus information about p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} ) or as an extension of unsupervised learning (clustering plus some labels). Generative models assume that the distributions take some particular form p ( x | y , θ ) {\displaystyle p(x|y,\theta )} parameterized by the vector θ {\displaystyle \theta } . If these assumptions are incorrect, the unlabeled data may actually decrease the accuracy of the solution relative to what would have been obtained from labeled data alone. However, if the assumptions are correct, then the unlabeled data necessarily improves performance. The unlabeled data are distributed according to a mixture of individual-class distributions. In order to learn the mixture distribution from the unlabeled data, it must be identifiable, that is, different parameters must yield different summed distributions. Gaussian mixture distributions are identifiable and commonly used for generative models. The parameterized joint distribution can be written as p ( x , y | θ ) = p ( y | θ ) p ( x | y , θ ) {\displaystyle p(x,y|\theta )=p(y|\theta )p(x|y,\theta )} by using the chain rule. Each parameter vector θ {\displaystyle \theta } is associated with a decision function f θ ( x ) = argmax y p ( y | x , θ ) {\displaystyle f_{\theta }(x)={\underset {y}{\operatorname {argmax} }}\ p(y|x,\theta )} . The parameter is then chosen based on fit to both the labeled and unlabeled data, weighted by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } : argmax Θ ( log p ( { x i , y i } i = 1 l | θ ) + λ log p ( { x i } i = l + 1 l + u | θ ) ) {\displaystyle {\underset {\Theta }{\operatorname {argmax} }}\left(\log p(\{x_{i},y_{i}\}_{i=1}^{l}|\theta )+\lambda \log p(\{x_{i}\}_{i=l+1}^{l+u}|\theta )\right)} === Low-density separation === Another major class of methods attempts to place boundaries in regions with few data points (labeled or unlabeled). One of the most commonly used algorithms is the transductive support vector machine, or TSVM (which, despite its name, may be used for inductive learning as well). Whereas support vector machines for supervised learning seek a decision boundary with maximal margin over the labeled data, the goal of TSVM is a labeling of the unlabeled data such that the decision boundary has maximal margin over all of the data. In addition to the standard hinge loss ( 1 − y f ( x ) ) + {\displaystyle (1-yf(x))_{+}} for labeled data, a loss function ( 1 − | f ( x ) | ) + {\displaystyle (1-|f(x)|)_{+}} is introduced over the unlabeled data by letting y = sign f ( x ) {\displaystyle y=\operatorname {sign} {f(x)}} . TSVM then selects f ∗ ( x ) = h ∗ ( x ) + b {\displaystyle f^{}(x)=h^{}(x)+b} from a reproducing kernel Hilbert space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} by minimizing the regularized empirical risk: f ∗ = argmin f ( ∑ i = 1 l ( 1 − y i f ( x i ) ) + + λ 1 ‖ h ‖ H 2 + λ 2 ∑ i = l + 1 l + u ( 1 − | f ( x i ) | ) + ) {\displaystyle f^{}={\underset {f}{\operatorname {argmin} }}\left(\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{l}(1-y_{i}f(x_{i}))_{+}+\lambda _{1}\|h\|_{\mathcal {H}}^{2}+\lambda _{2}\sum _{i=l+1}^{l+u}(1-|f(x_{i})|)_{+}\right)} An exact solution is intractable due to the non-convex term ( 1 − | f ( x ) | ) + {\displayst
Colloquis
Colloquis, previously known as ActiveBuddy and Conversagent, was a company that created conversation-based interactive agents originally distributed via instant messaging platforms. The company had offices in New York, New York, and Sunnyvale, California. == History == Founded in 2000, the company was the brainchild of Robert Hoffer, Timothy Kay, and Peter Levitan. The idea for interactive agents (also known as Internet bots) came from the team's vision to add functionality to increasingly popular instant messaging services. The original implementation took shape as a word-based adventure game but quickly grew to include a wide range of database applications, including access to news, weather, stock information, movie times, Yellow Pages listings, and detailed sports data, as well as a variety of tools (calculators, translator, etc.). These various applications were bundled into one entity and launched as SmarterChild in 2001. SmarterChild acted as a showcase for the quick data access and possibilities for fun conversation that the company planned to turn into customized, niche-specific products. The rapid success of SmarterChild led to targeted promotional products for Radiohead, Austin Powers, The Sporting News, and others. ActiveBuddy sought to strengthen its hold on the interactive agent market for the future by filing for, and receiving, a controversial patent on their creation in 2002. The company also released the BuddyScript SDK, a free developer kit that allow programmers to design and launch their own interactive agents using ActiveBuddy's proprietary scripting language, in 2002. Ultimately, however, the decline in ad spending in 2001 and 2002 led to a shift in corporate strategy towards business focused Automated Service Agents, building products for clients including Cingular, Comcast and Cox Communications. The company subsequently changed its name from ActiveBuddy to Conversagent in 2003, and then again to Colloquis in 2006. Colloquis was purchased by Microsoft in October 2006.
Computer Graphics International
Computer Graphics International (CGI) is one of the oldest annual international conferences on computer graphics. It is organized by the Computer Graphics Society (CGS). Researchers across the whole world are invited to share their experiences and novel achievements in various fields - like computer graphics and human-computer interaction. Former conferences have been held recently in Hong Kong (China), Geneva (Switzerland), Shanghai (China), Geneva (virtually), Calgary (Canada), Bintan (Indonesia) and Yokohama (Japan). == Awards == Starting in the year of 2013, CGI has given yearly a Best Paper Award and a Career Achievement Award. == Venues ==
Concept mining
Concept mining is an activity that results in the extraction of concepts from artifacts. Solutions to the task typically involve aspects of artificial intelligence and statistics, such as data mining and text mining. Because artifacts are typically a loosely structured sequence of words and other symbols (rather than concepts), the problem is nontrivial, but it can provide powerful insights into the meaning, provenance and similarity of documents. == Methods == Traditionally, the conversion of words to concepts has been performed using a thesaurus, and for computational techniques the tendency is to do the same. The thesauri used are either specially created for the task, or a pre-existing language model, usually related to Princeton's WordNet. The mappings of words to concepts are often ambiguous. Typically each word in a given language will relate to several possible concepts. Humans use context to disambiguate the various meanings of a given piece of text, where available machine translation systems cannot easily infer context. For the purposes of concept mining, however, these ambiguities tend to be less important than they are with machine translation, for in large documents the ambiguities tend to even out, much as is the case with text mining. There are many techniques for disambiguation that may be used. Examples are linguistic analysis of the text and the use of word and concept association frequency information that may be inferred from large text corpora. Recently, techniques that base on semantic similarity between the possible concepts and the context have appeared and gained interest in the scientific community. == Applications == === Detecting and indexing similar documents in large corpora === One of the spin-offs of calculating document statistics in the concept domain, rather than the word domain, is that concepts form natural tree structures based on hypernymy and meronymy. These structures can be used to generate simple tree membership statistics, that can be used to locate any document in a Euclidean concept space. If the size of a document is also considered as another dimension of this space then an extremely efficient indexing system can be created. This technique is currently in commercial use locating similar legal documents in a 2.5 million document corpus. === Clustering documents by topic === Standard numeric clustering techniques may be used in "concept space" as described above to locate and index documents by the inferred topic. These are numerically far more efficient than their text mining cousins, and tend to behave more intuitively, in that they map better to the similarity measures a human would generate.