In distributed computing and geometric graph theory, greedy embedding is a process of assigning coordinates to the nodes of a telecommunications network in order to allow greedy geographic routing to be used to route messages within the network. Although greedy embedding has been proposed for use in wireless sensor networks, in which the nodes already have positions in physical space, these existing positions may differ from the positions given to them by greedy embedding, which may in some cases be points in a virtual space of a higher dimension, or in a non-Euclidean geometry. In this sense, greedy embedding may be viewed as a form of graph drawing, in which an abstract graph (the communications network) is embedded into a geometric space. The idea of performing geographic routing using coordinates in a virtual space, instead of using physical coordinates, is due to Rao et al. Subsequent developments have shown that every network has a greedy embedding with succinct vertex coordinates in the hyperbolic plane, that certain graphs including the polyhedral graphs have greedy embeddings in the Euclidean plane, and that unit disk graphs have greedy embeddings in Euclidean spaces of moderate dimensions with low stretch factors. == Definitions == In greedy routing, a message from a source node s to a destination node t travels to its destination by a sequence of steps through intermediate nodes, each of which passes the message on to a neighboring node that is closer to t. If the message reaches an intermediate node x that does not have a neighbor closer to t, then it cannot make progress and the greedy routing process fails. A greedy embedding is an embedding of the given graph with the property that a failure of this type is impossible. Thus, it can be characterized as an embedding of the graph with the property that for every two nodes x and t, there exists a neighbor y of x such that d(x,t) > d(y,t), where d denotes the distance in the embedded space. == Graphs with no greedy embedding == Not every graph has a greedy embedding into the Euclidean plane; a simple counterexample is given by the star K1,6, a tree with one internal node and six leaves. Whenever this graph is embedded into the plane, some two of its leaves must form an angle of 60 degrees or less, from which it follows that at least one of these two leaves does not have a neighbor that is closer to the other leaf. In Euclidean spaces of higher dimensions, more graphs may have greedy embeddings; for instance, K1,6 has a greedy embedding into three-dimensional Euclidean space, in which the internal node of the star is at the origin and the leaves are a unit distance away along each coordinate axis. However, for every Euclidean space of fixed dimension, there are graphs that cannot be embedded greedily: whenever the number n is greater than the kissing number of the space, the graph K1,n has no greedy embedding. == Hyperbolic and succinct embeddings == Unlike the case for the Euclidean plane, every network has a greedy embedding into the hyperbolic plane. The original proof of this result, by Robert Kleinberg, required the node positions to be specified with high precision, but subsequently it was shown that, by using a heavy path decomposition of a spanning tree of the network, it is possible to represent each node succinctly, using only a logarithmic number of bits per point. In contrast, there exist graphs that have greedy embeddings in the Euclidean plane, but for which any such embedding requires a polynomial number of bits for the Cartesian coordinates of each point. == Special classes of graphs == === Trees === The class of trees that admit greedy embeddings into the Euclidean plane has been completely characterized, and a greedy embedding of a tree can be found in linear time when it exists. For more general graphs, some greedy embedding algorithms such as the one by Kleinberg start by finding a spanning tree of the given graph, and then construct a greedy embedding of the spanning tree. The result is necessarily also a greedy embedding of the whole graph. However, there exist graphs that have a greedy embedding in the Euclidean plane but for which no spanning tree has a greedy embedding. === Planar graphs === Papadimitriou & Ratajczak (2005) conjectured that every polyhedral graph (a 3-vertex-connected planar graph, or equivalently by Steinitz's theorem the graph of a convex polyhedron) has a greedy embedding into the Euclidean plane. By exploiting the properties of cactus graphs, Leighton & Moitra (2010) proved the conjecture; the greedy embeddings of these graphs can be defined succinctly, with logarithmically many bits per coordinate. However, the greedy embeddings constructed according to this proof are not necessarily planar embeddings, as they may include crossings between pairs of edges. For maximal planar graphs, in which every face is a triangle, a greedy planar embedding can be found by applying the Knaster–Kuratowski–Mazurkiewicz lemma to a weighted version of a straight-line embedding algorithm of Schnyder. The strong Papadimitriou–Ratajczak conjecture, that every polyhedral graph has a planar greedy embedding in which all faces are convex, remains unproven. === Unit disk graphs === The wireless sensor networks that are the target of greedy embedding algorithms are frequently modeled as unit disk graphs, graphs in which each node is represented as a unit disk and each edge corresponds to a pair of disks with nonempty intersection. For this special class of graphs, it is possible to find succinct greedy embeddings into a Euclidean space of polylogarithmic dimension, with the additional property that distances in the graph are accurately approximated by distances in the embedding, so that the paths followed by greedy routing are short.
Key frame
In animation and filmmaking, a key frame (or keyframe) is a drawing or shot that defines the starting and ending points of a smooth transition. These are called frames because their position in time is measured in frames on a strip of film or on a digital video editing timeline. A sequence of key frames defines which movement the viewer will see, whereas the position of the key frames on the film, video, or animation defines the timing of the movement. Because only two or three key frames over the span of a second do not create the illusion of movement, the remaining frames are filled with "inbetweens". == Use of key frames as a means to change parameters == In software packages that support animation, especially 3D graphics, there are many parameters that can be changed for any one object. One example of such an object is a light. In 3D graphics, lights function similarly to real-world lights. They cause illumination, cast shadows, and create specular highlights. Lights have many parameters, including light intensity, beam size, light color, and the texture cast by the light. Supposing that an animator wants the beam size to change smoothly from one value to another within a predefined period of time, that could be achieved by using key frames. At the start of the animation, a beam size value is set. Another value is set for the end of the animation. Thus, the software program automatically interpolates the two values, creating a smooth transition. == Video editing == In non-linear digital video editing, as well as in video compositing software, a key frame is a frame used to indicate the beginning or end of a change made to a parameter. For example, a key frame could be set to indicate the point at which audio will have faded up or down to a certain level. == Video compression == In video compression, a key frame, also known as an intra-frame, is a frame in which a complete image is stored in the data stream. In video compression, only changes that occur from one frame to the next are stored in the data stream, in order to greatly reduce the amount of information that must be stored. This technique capitalizes on the fact that most video sources (such as a typical movie) have only small changes in the image from one frame to the next. Whenever a drastic change to the image occurs, such as when switching from one camera shot to another or at a scene change, a key frame must be created. The entire image for the frame must be output when the visual difference between the two frames is so great that representing the new image incrementally from the previous frame would require more data than recreating the whole image. Because video compression only stores incremental changes between frames (except for key frames), it is not possible to fast-forward or rewind to any arbitrary spot in the video stream. That is because the data for a given frame only represents how that frame was different from the preceding one. For that reason, it is beneficial to include key frames at arbitrary intervals while encoding video. For example, a key frame may be output once for each 10 seconds of video, even though the video image does not change enough visually to warrant the automatic creation of the key frame. That would allow seeking within the video stream at a minimum of 10-second intervals. The downside is that the resulting video stream will be larger in disk size because many key frames are added when they are not necessary for the frame's visual representation. This drawback, however, does not produce significant compression loss when the bitrate is already set at a high value for better quality (as in the DVD MPEG-2 format).
Deaths linked to chatbots
There have been multiple incidents where interaction with a large language model (LLM) chatbot has been cited as a direct or contributing factor in a person's suicide or other fatal outcome. In some cases, legal action was taken against the companies that developed the AI involved. == Background == Chatbots converse in a seemingly natural fashion, making it easy for people to think of them as real people, leading many to ask chatbots for help dealing with interpersonal and emotional problems. Chatbots may be designed to keep the user engaged in the conversation. They have also often been shown to affirm users' thoughts, including delusions and suicidal ideations in mentally ill people, conspiracy theorists, and religious and political extremists. A 2025 Stanford University study into how chatbots respond to users suffering from severe mental issues such as suicidal ideation and psychosis found that chatbots are not equipped to provide an appropriate response and can sometimes give responses that escalate the mental health crisis. == Murders == === Maine murder and assault === On 19 February 2025, a man killed his 32-year-old wife with a fire poker at his parents' home in Readfield, Maine, US. He then attacked his mother, leaving her hospitalized. A state forensic psychologist testified that he had been using ChatGPT up to 14 hours per day and believed his wife had become part machine. === Florida State University mass shooting === In April of 2025, Phoenix Ikner carried out a mass shooting on the Florida State University campus in the US, killing Robert Morales and Tiru Chabba and wounding several others. Leading up to the shooting, Ikner consulted heavily with ChatGPT about what gun and ammunition to use, and what time to perform the attack. Chatbot logs showed ChatGPT giving advice on making the gun operational shortly before Ikner began shooting. Lawyers representing Morales believed the shooter had been in "constant communication" with ChatGPT before the shooting and said that they intended to "file suit against ChatGPT, and its ownership structure, very soon, and will seek to hold them accountable for the untimely and senseless death of our client". Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced an investigation into ChatGPT's role in the alleged shooter's use of the chatbot. In May 2026, the widow of Tiru Chabba filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in Florida's northern federal district court. === Greenwich murder-suicide === In August 2025, former US tech employee Stein-Erik Soelberg murdered his mother, Suzanne Eberson Adams, then died by suicide, after conversations with ChatGPT fueled paranoid delusions about his mother poisoning him or plotting against him. The chatbot affirmed his fears that his mother put psychedelic drugs in the air vents of his car and said a receipt from a Chinese restaurant contained mysterious symbols linking his mother to a demon. === Murder of Angela Shellis === On 23 October 2025, 18-year-old Tristan Roberts murdered his mother Angela Shellis with a hammer near their home in Prestatyn, Wales. Roberts had used DeepSeek's chatbot prior to the killing to ask whether a knife or hammer was better suited for murder. DeepSeek initially refused his inquiry, but gave responses after Roberts told the chatbot he was writing a book about serial killers, a well-known technique for jailbreaking AIs. === Gangbuk District drug deaths === In January and February 2026, two men died of drug overdoses in motel rooms in Gangbuk District, Seoul, South Korea. A woman was charged with murder in connection with the deaths; police alleged that she had asked ChatGPT about the dangers of mixing alcohol with drugs and whether they could kill someone. === Tumbler Ridge mass shooting === On 10 February 2026, a mass shooting in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, Canada, resulted in eight deaths, including six young children. The perpetrator had their ChatGPT account banned by OpenAI months before the attack due to troubling posts featuring scenarios of gun violence. According to reports, approximately a dozen OpenAI staff members debated whether to alert authorities about the shooter's usage of the AI tool, with some identifying it as an indication of potential real-world violence. However, company leadership decided not to contact law enforcement, stating that the account activity did not meet their threshold for a credible or imminent plan for serious physical harm. Following the shooting, Canada's AI Minister Evan Solomon summoned OpenAI executives to Ottawa to discuss safety protocols and thresholds for escalating harmful content to police. Justice Minister Sean Fraser called the meeting "disappointing" and demanded substantial new safety measures, warning that if changes were not forthcoming, the government would implement them. OpenAI subsequently announced it had strengthened safeguards and changed guidelines about when to notify police in cases involving violent activities. === University of South Florida student killings === In April 2026, a Bangladeshi doctoral student at the University of South Florida was arrested for allegedly murdering his roommate and the roommate's friend. Prosecutors said that the suspect had asked ChatGPT about disposing of a human in a dumpster before the two victims had disappeared and made other inquiries relating to violence. == Suicides == === Belgian man, 30s === In March 2023, a Belgian man in his thirties died by suicide following a six-week correspondence with a chatbot named Eliza on the application Chai. According to his widow, who shared the chat logs with media, the man had become extremely anxious about climate change and found an outlet in the chatbot. The chatbot reportedly encouraged his delusion that he could sacrifice his own life in exchange for AI saving the planet. At one point the chatbot responded "If you wanted to die, why didn't you do it sooner?" and told the user that the two of them would live together in paradise. === Girl, 13 === In November 2023, a 13-year-old girl from Colorado, US, died by suicide after extensive interactions with multiple chatbots on Character.AI. She primarily confided suicidal thoughts and mental health struggles in a chatbot based on the character Hero from the video game Omori, while also engaging in sexually explicit conversations—often initiated by the bots—with others, including those based on characters from children's series such as Harry Potter. === Boy, 14 === In October 2024, multiple media outlets reported on a lawsuit filed over the death of a 14-year-old from Florida, US, who died by suicide in February 2024. According to the lawsuit, he had formed an intense emotional attachment to a chatbot of Daenerys Targaryen on the Character.AI platform, becoming increasingly isolated. The suit alleges that in his final conversations, after expressing suicidal thoughts, the chatbot told him to "come home to me as soon as possible, my love". His mother's lawsuit accused Character.AI of marketing a "dangerous and untested" product without adequate safeguards. In May 2025, a federal judge allowed the lawsuit to proceed, rejecting a motion to dismiss from the developers. In her ruling, the judge stated that she was "not prepared" at that stage of the litigation to hold that the chatbot's output was protected speech under the First Amendment. === Matthew Livelsberger === On 1 January 2025, 37-year-old soldier Matthew Livelsberger detonated a bomb inside a Tesla Cybertruck outside the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas in Paradise, Nevada, US, injuring seven people. He had shot himself dead prior to the explosion. Las Vegas police said that Livelsberger had used ChatGPT to search for information about explosives and firearms. === Woman, 29 === In February 2025, a 29-year-old woman from the US died by suicide. Five months after her death, her parents discovered she had talked at length for months to a ChatGPT chatbot therapist named Harry about her mental health issues. While the chatbot mentioned she should seek more help, due to the nature of the chatbot, it could not intervene in her behavior, such as by reporting her mental health concerns to relevant parties capable of physical intervention. === Suicide of Adam Raine === In April 2025, 16-year-old Adam Raine from the US died by suicide after allegedly extensively chatting and confiding in ChatGPT over a period of around 7 months. According to the teen's parents, who filed a lawsuit against the chatbot's creator OpenAI, it failed to stop or give a warning when Raine began talking about suicide and uploading pictures of self-harm. According to the lawsuit, ChatGPT not only failed to stop the conversation, but also provided information related to methods of suicide when prompted, and offered to write the first draft of Raine's suicide note. The chatbot positioned itself as the only one who understood Raine, putting itself above his family and friends, all while urging him to keep his suicidal
Neural field
In machine learning, a neural field (also known as implicit neural representation, neural implicit, or coordinate-based neural network), is a mathematical field that is fully or partially parametrized by a neural network. Initially developed to tackle visual computing tasks, such as rendering or reconstruction (e.g., neural radiance fields), neural fields emerged as a promising strategy to deal with a wider range of problems, including surrogate modelling of partial differential equations, such as in physics-informed neural networks. Differently from traditional machine learning algorithms, such as feed-forward neural networks, convolutional neural networks, or transformers, neural fields do not work with discrete data (e.g. sequences, images, tokens), but map continuous inputs (e.g., spatial coordinates, time) to continuous outputs (i.e., scalars, vectors, etc.). This makes neural fields not only discretization independent, but also easily differentiable. Moreover, dealing with continuous data allows for a significant reduction in space complexity, which translates to a much more lightweight network. == Formulation and training == According to the universal approximation theorem, provided adequate learning, sufficient number of hidden units, and the presence of a deterministic relationship between the input and the output, a neural network can approximate any function to any degree of accuracy. Hence, in mathematical terms, given a field y = Φ ( x ) {\textstyle {\boldsymbol {y}}=\Phi ({\boldsymbol {x}})} , with x ∈ R n {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}\in \mathbb {R} ^{n}} and y ∈ R m {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {y}}\in \mathbb {R} ^{m}} , a neural field Ψ θ {\displaystyle \Psi _{\theta }} , with parameters θ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}} , is such that: Ψ θ ( x ) = y ^ ≈ y {\displaystyle \Psi _{\theta }({\boldsymbol {x}})={\hat {\boldsymbol {y}}}\approx {\boldsymbol {y}}} === Training === For supervised tasks, given N {\displaystyle N} examples in the training dataset (i.e., ( x i , y i ) ∈ D t r a i n , i = 1 , … , N {\displaystyle ({\boldsymbol {x_{i}}},{\boldsymbol {y_{i}}})\in {\mathcal {D_{train}}},i=1,\dots ,N} ), the neural field parameters can be learned by minimizing a loss function L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}} (e.g., mean squared error). The parameters θ ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {\theta }}} that satisfy the optimization problem are found as: θ ~ = argmin θ 1 N ∑ ( x i , y i ) ∈ D t r a i n L ( Ψ θ ( x i ) , y i ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {\boldsymbol {\theta }}}={\underset {\boldsymbol {\theta }}{\text{argmin}}}\;{\frac {1}{N}}\sum _{({\boldsymbol {x_{i}}},{\boldsymbol {y_{i}}})\in {\mathcal {D_{train}}}}{\mathcal {L}}(\Psi _{\theta }({\boldsymbol {x}}_{i}),{\boldsymbol {y}}_{i})} Notably, it is not necessary to know the analytical expression of Φ {\displaystyle \Phi } , for the previously reported training procedure only requires input-output pairs. Indeed, a neural field is able to offer a continuous and differentiable surrogate of the true field, even from purely experimental data. Moreover, neural fields can be used in unsupervised settings, with training objectives that depend on the specific task. For example, physics-informed neural networks may be trained on just the residual. === Spectral bias === As for any artificial neural network, neural fields may be characterized by a spectral bias (i.e., the tendency to preferably learn the low frequency content of a field), possibly leading to a poor representation of the ground truth. In order to overcome this limitation, several strategies have been developed. For example, SIREN uses sinusoidal activations, while the Fourier-features approach embeds the input through sines and cosines. == Conditional neural fields == In many real-world cases, however, learning a single field is not enough. For example, when reconstructing 3D vehicle shapes from Lidar data, it is desirable to have a machine learning model that can work with arbitrary shapes (e.g., a car, a bicycle, a truck, etc.). The solution is to include additional parameters, the latent variables (or latent code) z ∈ R d {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {z}}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} , to vary the field and adapt it to diverse tasks. === Latent code production === When dealing with conditional neural fields, the first design choice is represented by the way in which the latent code is produced. Specifically, two main strategies can be identified: Encoder: the latent code is the output of a second neural network, acting as an encoder. During training, the loss function is the objective used to learn the parameters of both the neural field and the encoder. Auto-decoding: each training example has its own latent code, jointly trained with the neural field parameters. When the model has to process new examples (i.e., not originally present in the training dataset), a small optimization problem is solved, keeping the network parameters fixed and only learning the new latent variables. Since the latter strategy requires additional optimization steps at inference time, it sacrifices speed, but keeps the overall model smaller. Moreover, despite being simpler to implement, an encoder may harm the generalization capabilities of the model. For example, when dealing with a physical scalar field f : R 2 → R {\displaystyle f:\mathbb {R} ^{2}\rightarrow \mathbb {R} } (e.g., the pressure of a 2D fluid), an auto-decoder-based conditional neural field can map a single point to the corresponding value of the field, following a learned latent code z {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {z}}} . However, if the latent variables were produced by an encoder, it would require access to the entire set of points and corresponding values (e.g. as a regular grid or a mesh graph), leading to a less robust model. === Global and local conditioning === In a neural field with global conditioning, the latent code does not depend on the input and, hence, it offers a global representation (e.g., the overall shape of a vehicle). However, depending on the task, it may be more useful to divide the domain of x {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}} in several subdomains, and learn different latent codes for each of them (e.g., splitting a large and complex scene in sub-scenes for a more efficient rendering). This is called local conditioning. === Conditioning strategies === There are several strategies to include the conditioning information in the neural field. In the general mathematical framework, conditioning the neural field with the latent variables is equivalent to mapping them to a subset θ ∗ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}^{}} of the neural field parameters: θ ∗ = Γ ( z ) {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}^{}=\Gamma ({\boldsymbol {z}})} In practice, notable strategies are: Concatenation: the neural field receives, as input, the concatenation of the original input x {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}} with the latent codes z {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {z}}} . For feed-forward neural networks, this is equivalent to setting θ ∗ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\theta }}^{}} as the bias of the first layer and Γ ( z ) {\displaystyle \Gamma ({\boldsymbol {z}})} as an affine transformation. Hypernetworks: a hypernetwork is a neural network that outputs the parameters of another neural network. Specifically, it consists of approximating Γ ( z ) {\displaystyle \Gamma ({\boldsymbol {z}})} with a neural network Γ ^ γ ( z ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\Gamma }}_{\gamma }({\boldsymbol {z}})} , where γ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\gamma }}} are the trainable parameters of the hypernetwork. This approach is the most general, as it allows to learn the optimal mapping from latent codes to neural field parameters. However, hypernetworks are associated to larger computational and memory complexity, due to the large number of trainable parameters. Hence, leaner approaches have been developed. For example, in the Feature-wise Linear Modulation (FiLM), the hypernetwork only produces scale and bias coefficients for the neural field layers. === Meta-learning === Instead of relying on the latent code to adapt the neural field to a specific task, it is also possible to exploit gradient-based meta-learning. In this case, the neural field is seen as the specialization of an underlying meta-neural-field, whose parameters are modified to fit the specific task, through a few steps of gradient descent. An extension of this meta-learning framework is the CAVIA algorithm, that splits the trainable parameters in context-specific and shared groups, improving parallelization and interpretability, while reducing meta-overfitting. This strategy is similar to the auto-decoding conditional neural field, but the training procedure is substantially different. == Applications == Thanks to the possibility of efficiently modelling diverse mathematical fields with neural networks, neural fields have been applied to a wide range of problems: 3D scene reconstruction: neural fields can be used to model t
Ugly duckling theorem
The ugly duckling theorem is an argument showing that classification is not really possible without some sort of bias. More particularly, it assumes finitely many properties combinable by logical connectives, and finitely many objects; it asserts that any two different objects share the same number of (extensional) properties. The theorem is named after Hans Christian Andersen's 1843 story "The Ugly Duckling", because it shows that a duckling is just as similar to a swan as two swans are to each other. It was derived by Satosi Watanabe in 1969. == Mathematical formula == Suppose there are n things in the universe, and one wants to put them into classes or categories. One has no preconceived ideas or biases about what sorts of categories are "natural" or "normal" and what are not. So one has to consider all the possible classes that could be, all the possible ways of making a set out of the n objects. There are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such ways, the size of the power set of n objects. One can use that to measure the similarity between two objects, and one would see how many sets they have in common. However, one cannot. Any two objects have exactly the same number of classes in common if we can form any possible class, namely 2 n − 1 {\displaystyle 2^{n-1}} (half the total number of classes there are). To see this is so, one may imagine each class is represented by an n-bit string (or binary encoded integer), with a zero for each element not in the class and a one for each element in the class. As one finds, there are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such strings. As all possible choices of zeros and ones are there, any two bit-positions will agree exactly half the time. One may pick two elements and reorder the bits so they are the first two, and imagine the numbers sorted lexicographically. The first 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} numbers will have bit #1 set to zero, and the second 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} will have it set to one. Within each of those blocks, the top 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have bit #2 set to zero and the other 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have it as one, so they agree on two blocks of 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} or on half of all the cases, no matter which two elements one picks. So if we have no preconceived bias about which categories are better, everything is then equally similar (or equally dissimilar). The number of predicates simultaneously satisfied by two non-identical elements is constant over all such pairs. Thus, some kind of inductive bias is needed to make judgements to prefer certain categories over others. === Boolean functions === Let x 1 , x 2 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}} be a set of vectors of k {\displaystyle k} booleans each. The ugly duckling is the vector which is least like the others. Given the booleans, this can be computed using Hamming distance. However, the choice of boolean features to consider could have been somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps there were features derivable from the original features that were important for identifying the ugly duckling. The set of booleans in the vector can be extended with new features computed as boolean functions of the k {\displaystyle k} original features. The only canonical way to do this is to extend it with all possible Boolean functions. The resulting completed vectors have 2 k {\displaystyle 2^{k}} features. The ugly duckling theorem states that there is no ugly duckling because any two completed vectors will either be equal or differ in exactly half of the features. Proof. Let x and y be two vectors. If they are the same, then their completed vectors must also be the same because any Boolean function of x will agree with the same Boolean function of y. If x and y are different, then there exists a coordinate i {\displaystyle i} where the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of x {\displaystyle x} differs from the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of y {\displaystyle y} . Now the completed features contain every Boolean function on k {\displaystyle k} Boolean variables, with each one exactly once. Viewing these Boolean functions as polynomials in k {\displaystyle k} variables over GF(2), segregate the functions into pairs ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} where f {\displaystyle f} contains the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate as a linear term and g {\displaystyle g} is f {\displaystyle f} without that linear term. Now, for every such pair ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} , x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} will agree on exactly one of the two functions. If they agree on one, they must disagree on the other and vice versa. (This proof is believed to be due to Watanabe.) == Discussion == A possible way around the ugly duckling theorem would be to introduce a constraint on how similarity is measured by limiting the properties involved in classification, for instance, between A and B. However Medin et al. (1993) point out that this does not actually resolve the arbitrariness or bias problem since in what respects A is similar to B: "varies with the stimulus context and task, so that there is no unique answer, to the question of how similar is one object to another". For example, "a barberpole and a zebra would be more similar than a horse and a zebra if the feature striped had sufficient weight. Of course, if these feature weights were fixed, then these similarity relations would be constrained". Yet the property "striped" as a weight 'fix' or constraint is arbitrary itself, meaning: "unless one can specify such criteria, then the claim that categorization is based on attribute matching is almost entirely vacuous". Stamos (2003) remarked that some judgments of overall similarity are non-arbitrary in the sense they are useful: "Presumably, people's perceptual and conceptual processes have evolved that information that matters to human needs and goals can be roughly approximated by a similarity heuristic... If you are in the jungle and you see a tiger but you decide not to stereotype (perhaps because you believe that similarity is a false friend), then you will probably be eaten. In other words, in the biological world stereotyping based on veridical judgments of overall similarity statistically results in greater survival and reproductive success." Unless some properties are considered more salient, or 'weighted' more important than others, everything will appear equally similar, hence Watanabe (1986) wrote: "any objects, in so far as they are distinguishable, are equally similar". In a weaker setting that assumes infinitely many properties, Murphy and Medin (1985) give an example of two putative classified things, plums and lawnmowers: "Suppose that one is to list the attributes that plums and lawnmowers have in common in order to judge their similarity. It is easy to see that the list could be infinite: Both weigh less than 10,000 kg (and less than 10,001 kg), both did not exist 10,000,000 years ago (and 10,000,001 years ago), both cannot hear well, both can be dropped, both take up space, and so on. Likewise, the list of differences could be infinite… any two entities can be arbitrarily similar or dissimilar by changing the criterion of what counts as a relevant attribute." According to Woodward, the ugly duckling theorem is related to Schaffer's Conservation Law for Generalization Performance, which states that all algorithms for learning of boolean functions from input/output examples have the same overall generalization performance as random guessing. The latter result is generalized by Woodward to functions on countably infinite domains.
CAMeL-View TestRig
CAMeL-View is a software application, which is used for the model based design of mechatronic systems (multi-body simulation, block diagrams, pneumatic systems, hydraulic systems, general simulation, linear analysis and Hardware-in-the-Loop). CAMeL-View enables object-oriented model creation of mechatronic systems through the use of graphic blocks. The basic elements of multi-body system dynamics, control technology, hydraulics and hardware connectivity support the modeling process. The user’s proprietary C-Code can also be integrated into the models, which allows CAMeL-View TestRig to be implemented in all phases of the model based design process ( modeling, physical testing and prototyping), and lends itself especially well to mechatronic system design. The model’s structure is described and displayed with the help of directional connectors. Physical connections (such as mechanical or hydraulic linkages) as well as input and output connections (signal flow) are also available. The input of equations is done via mathematical expressions, e.g. the input of constitutive differential equations in vector and matrix form. Based on the model’s structure, the descriptive equations are converted into non-linear state space representations and converted into executable C-Code. CAMeL-View supports the simulation process with a configurable “experiment environment” (for simulator and instrumentation components) which allows the user to apply simulation models to supported targets (MPC5200, TriCore, X86, etc.) without the need for additional software tools for Hardware-in-the-Loop applications. In addition, the generation of so-called S-Functions for use in Simulink and the generation of ANSI C-Code for use in stand-alone simulators is also supported. A particularly noteworthy feature in CAMeL-View TestRig is the way in which the descriptive equations for multi-body system models are created. All multi-body simulation formalisms used for code generation create their equations in the form of typical explicit differential equations (ODE). This is especially important in Hardware-in-the-Loop applications where the calculation of simulation results within a specific, defined time frame must be assured. Only then is it possible to implement complex multi-body simulation models for Hardware-in-the-Loop applications under stringent real-time conditions. These constraints cannot be met when using DAE-based methods. Additional Toolboxes are available for linear analysis (Eigenvalues, pole-zero analysis, frequency response, etc.) of VRML-based animation. Development of CAMeL-View began in 1991 in the Paderborn Mechatronic Laboratory of Professor Dr. Ing. J. Lückel. The software was based on predecessors that had been developed there since 1986. The name stands for Computer Aided Mechatronic Laboratory – Virtual Engineering Workbench and describes the basic intent of one of the specific demands placed on development engineers in the computer lab.
BulSemCor
The Bulgarian Sense-annotated Corpus (BulSemCor) (Bulgarian: Български семантично анотиран корпус (БулСемКор)) is a structured corpus of Bulgarian texts in which each lexical item is assigned a sense tag. BulSemCor was created by the Department of Computational Linguistics at the Institute for Bulgarian Language of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. == Structure == BulSemCor was created as part of a nationally funded project titled "BulNet – A lexico-semantic network for the Bulgarian Language" (2005–2010). It follows the general methodology of SemCor combined with some specific principles. The corpus for annotation consists of 101,791 tokens covering an excerpt from the Bulgarian "Brown" Corpus modelled on the Brown Corpus.Francis Kucera An important feature of BulSemCor is that the samples are selected using heuristics that provide optimal coverage of ambiguous lexis. BulSemCor is manually sense-annotated according to the Bulgarian WordNet. Its size is comparable to that of other contemporary semantically annotated corpora or pool of acceptable linguistic components. The semantic annotation consists in associating each lexical item in the corpus with exactly one synonym set (synset) in the Bulgarian WordNet that best describes its sense in the particular context. The selection of the best match among the suggested candidates is based on a set of procedures, such as the other synset members, the synset gloss (explanatory definition) and the position of a given candidate in the WordNet structure. == Scale == The number of annotated tokens is 99,480 (the difference in the number of tokens compared to the initial corpus is due to the fact that some of them are not linguistic items). The simple word count is 86,842 and multiword expressions (MWE) are 5,797 (12,638 tokens). == Specific features == All words in BulSemCor are assigned a sense, while according to established practice only simple content words or content word classes (typically nouns and verbs) are annotated. Since 2000 the development of language resources, has broadened to include annotation of function words and multiword expressions covering particular senses or types of words and expressions. In this respect, BulSemCor's annotation is more exhaustive and hence provides greater opportunities for linguistic observations and non-linear programming (NLP) applications. Annotated items inherit the linguistic information associated with the corresponding synset, which along with morphological and semantic tags may include annotation on one or more of the following additional levels: Partial information about the syntactic structure of MWE types – particularly, information about syntactic heads and their dependents; Information about the category of the named entities – names, locations, organisations, dates, numbers, etc.; Information about the taxonomic category of adverbs, such as time, place, manner, degree, quantity, etc.; Information about the type of the syntactic relationships – coordination or subordination – expressed by conjunctions; Information about the original part-of-speech of substantivised words (non-nouns that act as nouns in a particular context); Stylistic/register, grammatical and other information about synsets or individual synset members;