A pixel aspect ratio (PAR) is a mathematical ratio that describes how the width of a pixel in a digital image compares to the height of that pixel. Most digital imaging systems display an image as a grid of tiny, square pixels. However, some imaging systems, especially those that must be compatible with standard-definition television motion pictures, display an image as a grid of rectangular pixels, in which the pixel width and height are different. Pixel aspect ratio describes this difference. Use of pixel aspect ratio mostly involves pictures pertaining to standard-definition television and some other exceptional cases. Most other imaging systems, including those that comply with SMPTE standards and practices, use square pixels. PAR is also known as sample aspect ratio and abbreviated SAR, though it can be confused with storage aspect ratio. == Introduction == The ratio of the width to the height of an image is known as the aspect ratio, or more precisely the display aspect ratio (DAR) – the aspect ratio of the image as displayed; for TV, DAR was traditionally 4:3 (a.k.a. fullscreen), with 16:9 (a.k.a. widescreen) now the standard for HDTV. In digital images, there is a distinction with the storage aspect ratio (SAR), which is the ratio of pixel dimensions. If an image is displayed with square pixels, then these ratios agree; if not, then non-square, "rectangular" pixels are used, and these ratios disagree. The aspect ratio of the pixels themselves is known as the pixel aspect ratio (PAR) – for square pixels this is 1:1 – and these are related by the identity: Rearranging (solving for PAR) yields: For example: A 640 × 480 VGA image has a SAR of 640/480 = 4:3, and if displayed on a 4:3 display (DAR = 4:3) has square pixels, hence a PAR of 1:1. By contrast, a 720 × 576 D-1 PAL image has a SAR of 720/576 = 5:4, but if displayed on a 4:3 display (DAR = 4:3) the PAR is 4/3 : 5/4 = 16:15 ≈ 1.066. This means that the pixels of the PAL picture must be "stretched" by this amount to fit in the 4:3 display. In analog images such as film there is no notion of pixel, nor notion of SAR or PAR, but in the digitization of analog images the resulting digital image has pixels, hence SAR (and accordingly PAR, if displayed at the same aspect ratio as the original). Non-square pixels arise often in early digital TV standards, related to digitalization of analog TV signals – whose vertical and "effective" horizontal resolutions differ and are thus best described by non-square pixels – and also in some digital video cameras and computer display modes, such as Color Graphics Adapter (CGA). Today they arise also in transcoding between resolutions with different SARs. Actual displays do not generally have non-square pixels, though digital sensors might; they are rather a mathematical abstraction used in resampling images to convert between resolutions. There are several complicating factors in understanding PAR, particularly as it pertains to digitization of analog video: First, analog video does not have pixels, but rather a raster scan, and thus has a well-defined vertical resolution (the lines of the raster), but not a well-defined horizontal resolution, since each line is an analog signal. However, by a standardized sampling rate, the effective horizontal resolution can be determined by the sampling theorem, as is done below. Second, due to overscan, some of the lines at the top and bottom of the raster are not visible, as are some of the possible image on the left and right – see Overscan: Analog to digital resolution issues. Also, the resolution may be rounded (DV NTSC uses 480 lines, rather than the 486 that are possible). Third, analog video signals are interlaced – each image (frame) is sent as two "fields", each with half the lines. Thus either the pixels are twice as tall as they would be without interlacing, or the image is deinterlaced. == Background == Video is presented as a sequential series of images called video frames. Historically, video frames were created and recorded in analog form. As digital display technology, digital broadcast technology, and digital video compression evolved separately, it resulted in video frame differences that must be addressed using pixel aspect ratio. Digital video frames are generally defined as a grid of pixels used to present each sequential image. The horizontal component is defined by pixels (or samples), and is known as a video line. The vertical component is defined by the number of lines, as in 480 lines. Standard-definition television standards and practices were developed as broadcast technologies and intended for terrestrial broadcasting, and were therefore not designed for digital video presentation. Such standards define an image as an array of well-defined horizontal "Lines", well-defined vertical "Line Duration" and a well-defined picture center. However, there is not a standard-definition television standard that properly defines image edges or explicitly demands a certain number of picture elements per line. Furthermore, analog video systems such as NTSC 480i and PAL 576i, instead of employing progressively displayed frames, employ fields or interlaced half-frames displayed in an interwoven manner to reduce flicker and double the image rate for smoother motion. === Analog-to-digital conversion === As a result of computers becoming powerful enough to serve as video editing tools, video digital-to-analog converters and analog-to-digital converters were made to overcome this incompatibility. To convert analog video lines into a series of square pixels, the industry adopted a default sampling rate at which luma values were extracted into pixels. The luma sampling rate for 480i pictures was 12+3⁄11 MHz and for 576i pictures was 14+3⁄4 MHz. The term pixel aspect ratio was first coined when ITU-R BT.601 (commonly known as Rec. 601) specified that standard-definition television pictures are made of lines of exactly 720 non-square pixels. ITU-R BT.601 did not define the exact pixel aspect ratio but did provide enough information to calculate the exact pixel aspect ratio based on industry practices: The standard luma sampling rate of precisely 13+1⁄2 MHz. Based on this information: The pixel aspect ratio for 480i would be 10:11 as: 12 3 11 ÷ 13 1 2 = 10 11 {\displaystyle 12{\tfrac {3}{11}}\div 13{\tfrac {1}{2}}={\tfrac {10}{11}}} The pixel aspect ratio for 576i would be 59:54 as: 14 3 4 ÷ 13 1 2 = 59 54 {\displaystyle 14{\tfrac {3}{4}}\div 13{\tfrac {1}{2}}={\tfrac {59}{54}}} SMPTE RP 187 further attempted to standardize the pixel aspect ratio values for 480i and 576i. It designated 177:160 for 480i or 1035:1132 for 576i. However, due to significant difference with practices in effect by industry and the computational load that they imposed upon the involved hardware, SMPTE RP 187 was simply ignored. SMPTE RP 187 information annex A.4 further suggested the use of 10:11 for 480i. As of this writing, ITU-R BT.601-6, which is the latest edition of ITU-R BT.601, still implies that the pixel aspect ratios mentioned above are correct. === Digital video processing === As stated above, ITU-R BT.601 specified that standard-definition television pictures are made of lines of 720 non-square pixels, sampled with a precisely specified sampling rate. A simple mathematical calculation reveals that a 704 pixel width would be enough to contain a 480i or 576i standard 4:3 picture: A 4:3 480-line picture, digitized with the Rec. 601-recommended sampling rate, would be 704 non-square pixels wide. x 480 × 10 11 = 4 3 ⇒ x = 480 × 11 × 4 10 × 3 = 704 {\displaystyle {\frac {x}{480}}\times {\frac {10}{11}}={\frac {4}{3}}\Rightarrow x={\frac {480\times 11\times 4}{10\times 3}}=704} A 4:3 576-line picture, digitized with the Rec. 601-recommended sampling rate, would be 702+54⁄59 non-square pixels wide. x 576 × 59 54 = 4 3 ⇒ x = 576 × 54 × 4 59 × 3 = 702 54 59 {\displaystyle {\frac {x}{576}}\times {\frac {59}{54}}={\frac {4}{3}}\Rightarrow x={\frac {576\times 54\times 4}{59\times 3}}=702{\tfrac {54}{59}}} Unfortunately, not all standard TV pictures are exactly 4:3: As mentioned earlier, in analog video, the center of a picture is well-defined but the edges of the picture are not standardized. As a result, some analog devices (mostly PAL devices but also some NTSC devices) generated motion pictures that were horizontally (slightly) wider. This also proportionately applies to anamorphic widescreen (16:9) pictures. Therefore, to maintain a safe margin of error, ITU-R BT.601 required sampling 16 more non-square pixels per line (8 more at each edge) to ensure saving all video data near the margins. This requirement, however, had implications for PAL motion pictures. PAL pixel aspect ratios for standard (4:3) and anamorphic wide screen (16:9), respectively 59:54 and 118:81, were awkward for digital image processing, especially for mixing PAL and NTSC video clips. Therefore, video editing products chose the almost equivalent value
Groover
Groover is an online platform, record label and distributor, connecting artists and musicians with music professionals and media outlets. The service was founded in 2018 in France and operates from offices in Paris and New York. The platform has over 3,000 active contacts, including SPIN Magazine and Sofar Sounds. Groover uses a micro-payment model. Among the platform's over 500,000 regular users are record labels such as Ninja Tune, Ba Da Bing Records, Dance To The Radio, Roche Musique, Wagram Music, Secret City Records, and artists including Bonobo, Michael Bolton, Aloe Blacc, Haddaway, Passenger, La Femme and Chinese Man. == History == Groover was launched at the MaMA Music Convention in October 2018. It was co-founded by Dorian Perron, Romain Palmieri, and Rafaël Cohen while they were students at UC Berkeley. Initially growing in France, the company has expanded to the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Italy, and elsewhere in Europe. In March 2019, Groover was part of the Business France delegation at the South by Southwest (SXSW) festival. In June 2019, Groover raised €1.3 million from various angel investors. In April 2021, Groover acquired the platform Soonvibes, which had 70,000 users at the time, in order to strengthen its community in the electronic music space. In November 2021, Groover announced a €6 million funding round from Bpifrance Creative Industries and Partech. Between 2023 and 2025, Groover entered strategic partnerships with major artist service providers, including CD Baby, TuneCore, SoundCloud, UnitedMasters, Symphonic Distribution, Audiomack and SACEM. In February 2024, Groover announced a Series A funding round of $8 million from OneRagTime, Trind, Techmind, and Mozza Angels. == Function == Using a micro-payment system, professionals listen to tracks and provide written feedback. These professionals retain full editorial independence and are under no obligation to share the track or contact the artist. == Awards == 2nd Prize for Music Innovation 2023 from the Centre national de la musique (France) "Future Creator" Award at the Petit Poucet Competition 2019 Jury's Special Mention at the MaMA Invent 2019 competition 1st Prize for Digital Initiative in Culture, Communication & Media 2019 awarded by Audiens "Start-up of the Year" at the Social Music Awards 2020 French American Entrepreneurship Award 2022 at the French Consulate in New York
Memetic algorithm
In computer science and operations research, a memetic algorithm (MA) is an extension of an evolutionary algorithm (EA) that aims to accelerate the evolutionary search for the optimum. An EA is a metaheuristic that reproduces the basic principles of biological evolution as a computer algorithm in order to solve challenging optimization or planning tasks, at least approximately. An MA uses one or more suitable heuristics or local search techniques to improve the quality of solutions generated by the EA and to speed up the search. The effects on the reliability of finding the global optimum depend on both the use case and the design of the MA. Memetic algorithms represent one of the recent growing areas of research in evolutionary computation. The term MA is now widely used as a synergy of evolutionary or any population-based approach with separate individual learning or local improvement procedures for problem search. Quite often, MAs are also referred to in the literature as Baldwinian evolutionary algorithms, Lamarckian EAs, cultural algorithms, or genetic local search. == Introduction == Inspired by both Darwinian principles of natural evolution and Dawkins' notion of a meme, the term memetic algorithm (MA) was introduced by Pablo Moscato in his technical report in 1989 where he viewed MA as being close to a form of population-based hybrid genetic algorithm (GA) coupled with an individual learning procedure capable of performing local refinements. The metaphorical parallels, on the one hand, to Darwinian evolution and, on the other hand, between memes and domain specific (local search) heuristics are captured within memetic algorithms thus rendering a methodology that balances well between generality and problem specificity. This two-stage nature makes them a special case of dual-phase evolution. The basic idea behind an MA is to combine the advantages of a global search performed by an EA (or another global search method) with the local refinement provided by one or more local search techniques, while avoiding their drawbacks. The main disadvantage of EAs is that, when searching in the vicinity of an optimum, they perform poorly in determining the exact position of that optimum. The downside of local search methods lies simply in the locality of their search relative to the chosen starting point. The combination of these two classes of methods aims to merge global and local search so that the advantages of both approaches can be leveraged. The idea of this approach can be illustrated by the search for the highest mountain in the Alps. A local search method would climb one of the mountains near the starting point, ignoring Mont Blanc as long as the starting point is not in its vicinity. An EA, on the other hand, will likely only find Mont Blanc after examining many other mountains, valleys, and hills, and then it will have difficulty identifying the summit cross. From the perspective of an MA’s global search procedure, however, only the summits of hills and mountains are seen, and its search is limited to finding the best summit. The open question is whether the additional effort required for the local search is worthwhile. This depends not only on the design of the MA but also on the specific application and the local search methods used. In the context of complex optimization, many different instantiations of memetic algorithms have been reported across a wide range of application domains, in general, converging to high-quality solutions more efficiently than their conventional evolutionary counterparts. In general, using the ideas of memetics within a computational framework is called memetic computing or memetic computation (MC). With MC, the traits of universal Darwinism are more appropriately captured. Viewed in this perspective, MA is a more constrained notion of MC. More specifically, MA covers one area of MC, in particular dealing with areas of evolutionary algorithms that marry other deterministic refinement techniques for solving optimization problems. MC extends the notion of memes to cover conceptual entities of knowledge-enhanced procedures or representations. == Theoretical Background == The no-free-lunch theorems of optimization and search state that all optimization strategies are equally effective with respect to the set of all optimization problems. Conversely, this means that one can expect the following: The more efficiently an algorithm solves a problem or class of problems, the less general it is and the more problem-specific knowledge it builds on. This insight leads directly to the recommendation to complement generally applicable metaheuristics with application-specific methods or heuristics, which fits well with the concept of MAs. == The development of MAs == === 1st generation === Pablo Moscato characterized an MA as follows: "Memetic algorithms are a marriage between a population-based global search and the heuristic local search made by each of the individuals. ... The mechanisms to do local search can be to reach a local optimum or to improve (regarding the objective cost function) up to a predetermined level." And he emphasizes "I am not constraining an MA to a genetic representation.". This original definition of MA although encompasses characteristics of cultural evolution (in the form of local refinement) in the search cycle, it may not qualify as a true evolving system according to universal Darwinism, since all the core principles of inheritance/memetic transmission, variation, and selection are missing. This suggests why the term MA stirred up criticisms and controversies among researchers when first introduced. The following pseudo code would correspond to this general definition of an MA: Pseudo code Procedure Memetic Algorithm Initialize: Generate an initial population, evaluate the individuals and assign a quality value to them; while Stopping conditions are not satisfied do Evolve a new population using stochastic search operators. Evaluate all individuals in the population and assign a quality value to them. Select the subset of individuals, Ω i l {\displaystyle \Omega _{il}} , that should undergo the individual improvement procedure. for each individual in Ω i l {\displaystyle \Omega _{il}} do Perform individual learning using meme(s) with frequency or probability of f i l {\displaystyle f_{il}} , with an intensity of t i l {\displaystyle t_{il}} . Proceed with Lamarckian or Baldwinian learning. end for end while Lamarckian learning in this context means to update the chromosome according to the improved solution found by the individual learning step, while Baldwinian learning leaves the chromosome unchanged and uses only the improved fitness. This pseudo code leaves open which steps are based on the fitness of the individuals and which are not. In question are the evolving of the new population and the selection of Ω i l {\displaystyle \Omega _{il}} . Since most MA implementations are based on EAs, the pseudo code of a corresponding representative of the first generation is also given here, following Krasnogor: Pseudo code Procedure Memetic Algorithm Based on an EA Initialization: t = 0 {\displaystyle t=0} ; // Initialization of the generation counter Randomly generate an initial population P ( t ) {\displaystyle P(t)} ; Compute the fitness f ( p ) ∀ p ∈ P ( t ) {\displaystyle f(p)\ \ \forall p\in P(t)} ; while Stopping conditions are not satisfied do Selection: Accordingly to f ( p ) {\displaystyle f(p)} choose a subset of P ( t ) {\displaystyle P(t)} and store it in M ( t ) {\displaystyle M(t)} ; Offspring: Recombine and mutate individuals p ∈ M ( t ) {\displaystyle p\in M(t)} and store them in M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle M'(t)} ; Learning: Improve p ′ {\displaystyle p'} by local search or heuristic ∀ p ′ ∈ M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle \forall p'\in M'(t)} ; Evaluation: Compute the fitness f ( p ′ ) ∀ p ′ ∈ M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle f(p')\ \ \forall p'\in M'(t)} ; if Lamarckian learning then Update chromosome of p ′ {\displaystyle p'} according to improvement ∀ p ′ ∈ M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle \forall p'\in M'(t)} ; fi New generation: Generate P ( t + 1 ) {\displaystyle P(t+1)} by selecting some individuals from P ( t ) {\displaystyle P(t)} and M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle M'(t)} ; t = t + 1 {\displaystyle t=t+1} ; // Increment the generation counter end while Return best individual p ∈ P ( t − 1 ) {\displaystyle p\in P(t-1)} as result; There are some alternatives for this MA scheme. For example: All or some of the initial individuals may be improved by the meme(s). The parents may be locally improved instead of the offspring. Instead of all offspring, only a randomly selected or fitness-dependent fraction may undergo local improvement. The latter requires the evaluation of the offspring in M ′ ( t ) {\displaystyle M'(t)} prior to the Learning step. === 2nd generation === Multi-meme, hyper-heuristic and meta-Lamarckian MA are referred to as second generation MA exhibiting the principles of me
Quantum neural network
Quantum neural networks are computational neural network models which are based on the principles of quantum mechanics. The first ideas on quantum neural computation were published independently in 1995 by Subhash Kak and Ron Chrisley, engaging with the theory of quantum mind, which posits that quantum effects play a role in cognitive function. However, typical research in quantum neural networks involves combining classical artificial neural network models (which are widely used in machine learning for the important task of pattern recognition) with the advantages of quantum information in order to develop more efficient algorithms. One important motivation for these investigations is the difficulty to train classical neural networks, especially in big data applications. The hope is that features of quantum computing such as quantum parallelism or the effects of interference and entanglement can be used as resources. Since the technological implementation of a quantum computer is still in a premature stage, such quantum neural network models are mostly theoretical proposals that await their full implementation in physical experiments. Most Quantum neural networks are developed as feed-forward networks. Similar to their classical counterparts, this structure intakes input from one layer of qubits, and passes that input onto another layer of qubits. This layer of qubits evaluates this information and passes on the output to the next layer. Eventually the path leads to the final layer of qubits. The layers do not have to be of the same width, meaning they don't have to have the same number of qubits as the layer before or after it. This structure is trained on which path to take similar to classical artificial neural networks. This is discussed in a lower section. Quantum neural networks refer to three different categories: Quantum computer with classical data, classical computer with quantum data, and quantum computer with quantum data. == Examples == Quantum neural network research is still in its infancy, and a conglomeration of proposals and ideas of varying scope and mathematical rigor have been put forward. Most of them are based on the idea of replacing classical binary or McCulloch-Pitts neurons with a qubit (which can be called a "quron"), resulting in neural units that can be in a superposition of the state 'firing' and 'resting'. === Quantum perceptrons === A lot of proposals attempt to find a quantum equivalent for the perceptron unit from which neural nets are constructed. A problem is that nonlinear activation functions do not immediately correspond to the mathematical structure of quantum theory, since a quantum evolution is described by linear operations and leads to probabilistic observation. Ideas to imitate the perceptron activation function with a quantum mechanical formalism reach from special measurements to postulating non-linear quantum operators (a mathematical framework that is disputed). A direct implementation of the activation function using the circuit-based model of quantum computation has recently been proposed by Schuld, Sinayskiy and Petruccione based on the quantum phase estimation algorithm. === Quantum networks === At a larger scale, researchers have attempted to generalize neural networks to the quantum setting. One way of constructing a quantum neuron is to first generalise classical neurons and then generalising them further to make unitary gates. Interactions between neurons can be controlled quantumly, with unitary gates, or classically, via measurement of the network states. This high-level theoretical technique can be applied broadly, by taking different types of networks and different implementations of quantum neurons, such as photonically implemented neurons and quantum reservoir processor (quantum version of reservoir computing). Most learning algorithms follow the classical model of training an artificial neural network to learn the input-output function of a given training set and use classical feedback loops to update parameters of the quantum system until they converge to an optimal configuration. Learning as a parameter optimisation problem has also been approached by adiabatic models of quantum computing. Quantum neural networks can be applied to algorithmic design: given qubits with tunable mutual interactions, one can attempt to learn interactions following the classical backpropagation rule from a training set of desired input-output relations, taken to be the desired output algorithm's behavior. The quantum network thus 'learns' an algorithm. === Quantum associative memory === The first quantum associative memory algorithm was introduced by Dan Ventura and Tony Martinez in 1999. The authors do not attempt to translate the structure of artificial neural network models into quantum theory, but propose an algorithm for a circuit-based quantum computer that simulates associative memory. The memory states (in Hopfield neural networks saved in the weights of the neural connections) are written into a superposition, and a Grover-like quantum search algorithm retrieves the memory state closest to a given input. As such, this is not a fully content-addressable memory, since only incomplete patterns can be retrieved. The first truly content-addressable quantum memory, which can retrieve patterns also from corrupted inputs, was proposed by Carlo A. Trugenberger. Both memories can store an exponential (in terms of n qubits) number of patterns but can be used only once due to the no-cloning theorem and their destruction upon measurement. Trugenberger, however, has shown that his probabilistic model of quantum associative memory can be efficiently implemented and re-used multiples times for any polynomial number of stored patterns, a large advantage with respect to classical associative memories. === Classical neural networks inspired by quantum theory === A substantial amount of interest has been given to a "quantum-inspired" model that uses ideas from quantum theory to implement a neural network based on fuzzy logic. == Training == Quantum Neural Networks can be theoretically trained similarly to training classical/artificial neural networks. A key difference lies in communication between the layers of a neural networks. For classical neural networks, at the end of a given operation, the current perceptron copies its output to the next layer of perceptron(s) in the network. However, in a quantum neural network, where each perceptron is a qubit, this would violate the no-cloning theorem. A proposed generalized solution to this is to replace the classical fan-out method with an arbitrary unitary that spreads out, but does not copy, the output of one qubit to the next layer of qubits. Using this fan-out Unitary ( U f {\displaystyle U_{f}} ) with a dummy state qubit in a known state (Ex. | 0 ⟩ {\displaystyle |0\rangle } in the computational basis), also known as an Ancilla bit, the information from the qubit can be transferred to the next layer of qubits. This process adheres to the quantum operation requirement of reversibility. Using this quantum feed-forward network, deep neural networks can be executed and trained efficiently. A deep neural network is essentially a network with many hidden-layers, as seen in the sample model neural network above. Since the Quantum neural network being discussed uses fan-out Unitary operators, and each operator only acts on its respective input, only two layers are used at any given time. In other words, no Unitary operator is acting on the entire network at any given time, meaning the number of qubits required for a given step depends on the number of inputs in a given layer. Since Quantum Computers are notorious for their ability to run multiple iterations in a short period of time, the efficiency of a quantum neural network is solely dependent on the number of qubits in any given layer, and not on the depth of the network. === Cost functions === To determine the effectiveness of a neural network, a cost function is used, which essentially measures the proximity of the network's output to the expected or desired output. In a Classical Neural Network, the weights ( w {\displaystyle w} ) and biases ( b {\displaystyle b} ) at each step determine the outcome of the cost function C ( w , b ) {\displaystyle C(w,b)} . When training a Classical Neural network, the weights and biases are adjusted after each iteration, and given equation 1 below, where y ( x ) {\displaystyle y(x)} is the desired output and a out ( x ) {\displaystyle a^{\text{out}}(x)} is the actual output, the cost function is optimized when C ( w , b ) {\displaystyle C(w,b)} = 0. For a quantum neural network, the cost function is determined by measuring the fidelity of the outcome state ( ρ out {\displaystyle \rho ^{\text{out}}} ) with the desired outcome state ( ϕ out {\displaystyle \phi ^{\text{out}}} ), seen in Equation 2 below. In this case, the Unitary operators are adjusted after each it
FERET database
The Facial Recognition Technology (FERET) database is a dataset used for facial recognition system evaluation as part of the Face Recognition Technology (FERET) program. It was first established in 1993 under a collaborative effort between Harry Wechsler at George Mason University and Jonathon Phillips at the Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, Maryland. The FERET database serves as a standard database of facial images for researchers to use to develop various algorithms and report results. The use of a common database also allowed one to compare the effectiveness of different approaches in methodology and gauge their strengths and weaknesses. The facial images for the database were collected between December 1993 and August 1996, accumulating a total of 14,126 images pertaining to 1,199 individuals along with 365 duplicate sets of images that were taken on a different day. In 2003, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) released a high-resolution, 24-bit color version of these images. The dataset tested includes 2,413 still facial images, representing 856 individuals. The FERET database has been used by more than 460 research groups and is managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Co–Star
Co–Star is an American astrological social networking service founded in 2017, and headquartered in New York City. Users enter the date, time and place they were born to generate an astrological chart and daily horoscopes, which can be compared with those of other users. == History == The concept for Co-Star began in 2015 when Banu Guler created an astrological chart as a gift. The idea later developed into a mobile application with collaborators Anna Kopp and Ben Weitzman. The app publicly launched in 2017. The app includes astrological readings, charts, and daily push notifications that have been noted for their unconventional tone. In early 2018, the company raised a $750,000 pre-seed round from Female Founders Fund. In 2019, Co–Star raised a $5.2 million seed round from Maveron, Aspect, and 14W. In January 2020, Co–Star for Android was launched to a 120,000-person waitlist—two years after their iOS version. In April 2021, the company announced a $15 million Series A, led by Spark Capital. As of that date, Co–Star reported more than 20 million downloads and increased adoption among young women in the United States. == Features == Co–Star employs artificial intelligence to analyze publicly accessible NASA JPL data and find patterns in a user's transits. Co–Star's algorithm maps human-written snippets of text to planetary movements to display personalized content for each user. That content has been called “slightly robotic,” “wildly beautiful,” “truly insane," “brutally honest,” and compared to “a free therapy session.” In July 2023, Co–Star released an in-app service called The Void that allows users to ask open-ended questions and receive answers informed by Co–Star's astrological database.
Rectified linear unit
In the context of artificial neural networks, the rectifier or ReLU (rectified linear unit) activation function is an activation function defined as the non-negative part of its argument, i.e., the ramp function: ReLU ( x ) = x + = max ( 0 , x ) = x + | x | 2 = { x if x > 0 , 0 x ≤ 0 {\displaystyle \operatorname {ReLU} (x)=x^{+}=\max(0,x)={\frac {x+|x|}{2}}={\begin{cases}x&{\text{if }}x>0,\\0&x\leq 0\end{cases}}} where x {\displaystyle x} is the input to a neuron. This is analogous to half-wave rectification in electrical engineering. ReLU is one of the most popular activation functions for artificial neural networks, and finds application in computer vision and speech recognition using deep neural nets and computational neuroscience. == History == The ReLU was first used by Alston Householder in 1941 as a mathematical abstraction of biological neural networks. Kunihiko Fukushima in 1969 used ReLU in the context of visual feature extraction in hierarchical neural networks. In 1998, Gregory Woodbury demonstrated that the rectified linear function could account for a broad range of emergent properties in the visual cortex. His work showed that a single unified model could drive the joint development of refined retinotopic maps, ocular dominance columns, and orientation selectivity. By utilizing the rectifier's "cutoff" property, Woodbury achieved a close quantitative fit to biological data, matching the spatial periodicities and topographic refinement patterns observed in macaque and cat cortical maps. Furthermore, he extended this framework to adult plasticity, accurately replicating the spatial and temporal dynamics of lesion-induced cortical reorganization. This research established that the rectified linear response was a necessary mechanism for the stable self-organisation and maintenance of complex, multi-feature neural maps. In 2000, Hahnloser et al. argued that ReLU approximates the biological relationship between neural firing rates and input current, in addition to enabling recurrent neural network dynamics to stabilise under weaker criteria. Prior to 2010, most activation functions used were the logistic sigmoid (which is inspired by probability theory; see logistic regression) and its more numerically efficient counterpart, the hyperbolic tangent. Around 2010, the use of ReLU became common again. Jarrett et al. (2009) noted that rectification by either absolute or ReLU (which they called "positive part") was critical for object recognition in convolutional neural networks (CNNs), specifically because it allows average pooling without neighboring filter outputs cancelling each other out. They hypothesized that the use of sigmoid or tanh was responsible for poor performance in previous CNNs. Nair and Hinton (2010) made a theoretical argument that the softplus activation function should be used, in that the softplus function numerically approximates the sum of an exponential number of linear models that share parameters. They then proposed ReLU as a good approximation to it. Specifically, they began by considering a single binary neuron in a Boltzmann machine that takes x {\displaystyle x} as input, and produces 1 as output with probability σ ( x ) = 1 1 + e − x {\displaystyle \sigma (x)={\frac {1}{1+e^{-x}}}} . They then considered extending its range of output by making infinitely many copies of it X 1 , X 2 , X 3 , … {\displaystyle X_{1},X_{2},X_{3},\dots } , that all take the same input, offset by an amount 0.5 , 1.5 , 2.5 , … {\displaystyle 0.5,1.5,2.5,\dots } , then their outputs are added together as ∑ i = 1 ∞ X i {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{\infty }X_{i}} . They then demonstrated that ∑ i = 1 ∞ X i {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{\infty }X_{i}} is approximately equal to N ( log ( 1 + e x ) , σ ( x ) ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}(\log(1+e^{x}),\sigma (x))} , which is also approximately equal to ReLU ( N ( x , σ ( x ) ) ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {ReLU} ({\mathcal {N}}(x,\sigma (x)))} , where N {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}} stands for the gaussian distribution. They also argued for another reason for using ReLU: that it allows "intensity equivariance" in image recognition. That is, multiplying input image by a constant k {\displaystyle k} multiplies the output also. In contrast, this is false for other activation functions like sigmoid or tanh. They found that ReLU activation allowed good empirical performance in restricted Boltzmann machines. Glorot et al (2011) argued that ReLU has the following advantages over sigmoid or tanh: ReLU is more similar to biological neurons' responses in their main operating regime. ReLU avoids vanishing gradients. ReLU is cheaper to compute. ReLU creates sparse representation naturally, because many hidden units output exactly zero for a given input. They also found empirically that deep networks trained with ReLU can achieve strong performance without unsupervised pre-training, especially on large, purely supervised tasks. In 2017, the rectified linear function became a central component of the transformer architecture introduced in the Vaswani et al paper "Attention Is All You Need". Within every transformer layer, ReLU is utilized in the position-wise feed-forward networks (FFN), defined by Equation 2 of their paper: FFN ( x ) = max ( 0 , x W 1 + b 1 ) W 2 + b 2 {\displaystyle \operatorname {FFN} (x)=\max(0,xW_{1}+b_{1})W_{2}+b_{2}} This equation is foundational to the model's capacity; while the attention mechanism determines the relationships between tokens, the ReLU-based FFN performs the majority of the numerical computation and houses the bulk of the model's parameters. The efficiency and scalability of this rectified framework triggered a global technological revolution, enabling the development of Large Language Models that have had a profound economic impact. The industrial response to this architecture—including the massive expansion of AI-specific hardware and the birth of the generative AI sector—has positioned the Transformer as a cornerstone of 21st-century infrastructure. During the post 2017 period of rapid AI advancement, the rectified linear unit function has been key to achieving increased model performance and scaling due to the fact that it zeros out responses that are immaterial for a given stimuli, preventing them from accumulating in massive scale models. It is the complete silencing of the parts of the model found to be stimuli-irrelevant during learning that allows for scaling. As the stimuli-irrelevant proportion of the model becomes more massive, these highly numerous connections within the model would inevitably accumulate during scaling no matter how small each individual response is. Therefore, the rectified linear unit function, with its absolute zeroing property, enabled the scaling to hundred billion parameter models and beyond. Early Transformer scaling giants like GPT-3 (2020) and Falcon-180B (2023) relied on the rectified linear unit function explicitly, while successors such as GPT-4 (2023) and Llama 3 (2024) utilized smoother variants like GELU or SwiGLU. These variants were used to improve training stability while fundamentally preserving the rectified principle of zeroing low responses. At the centre of modern artificial intelligence ReLU and its variants maintain absolute zero response across the bulk of the model at any one time, while maintaining approximately linear reponses for stimuli-relevant connections enabling high performance on each specific cognitive task. This feature of activation sparsity has been critical for massive scaling and performance gains of AI models right up to the present day. == Advantages == Advantages of ReLU include: Sparse activation: for example, in a randomly initialized network, only about 50% of hidden units are activated (i.e. have a non-zero output). Better gradient propagation: fewer vanishing gradient problems compared to sigmoidal activation functions that saturate in both directions. Efficiency: only requires comparison and addition. Scale-invariant (homogeneous, or "intensity equivariance"): max ( 0 , a x ) = a max ( 0 , x ) for a ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \max(0,ax)=a\max(0,x){\text{ for }}a\geq 0} . == Potential problems == Possible downsides can include: Non-differentiability at zero (however, it is differentiable anywhere else, and the value of the derivative at zero can be chosen to be 0 or 1 arbitrarily). Not zero-centered: ReLU outputs are always non-negative. This can make it harder for the network to learn during backpropagation, because gradient updates tend to push weights in one direction (positive or negative). Batch normalization can help address this. ReLU is unbounded. Redundancy of the parametrization: Because ReLU is scale-invariant, the network computes the exact same function by scaling the weights and biases in front of a ReLU activation by k {\displaystyle k} , and the weights after by 1 / k {\displaystyle 1/k} . Dying ReLU: ReLU neurons can sometimes be pushed into states