Conditional disclosure of secrets

Conditional disclosure of secrets (CDS) is a primitive, studied in information-theoretic cryptography, that allows distributed, non-communicating parties to coordinate the release of information to a third party. CDS was initially introduced for use in the context of private information retrieval, and has been related to communication complexity and non-local quantum computation. == Definition of conditional disclosure of secrets == The conditional disclosure of secrets setting involves three players; Alice, Bob and the referee. Alice receives an input x ∈ { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle x\in \{0,1\}^{n}} and a secret z ∈ { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle z\in \{0,1\}} , and Bob receives a string y ∈ { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle y\in \{0,1\}^{n}} . A choice of Boolean function f : { 0 , 1 } 2 n → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle f:\{0,1\}^{2n}\rightarrow \{0,1\}} is fixed in advance and known to all players. Alice and Bob cannot communicate with one another, but share a string of random bits which we label r {\displaystyle r} . Alice and Bob compute messages m A = m A ( x , z , r ) {\displaystyle m_{A}=m_{A}(x,z,r)} and m B = m B ( y , r ) {\displaystyle m_{B}=m_{B}(y,r)} , which they send to the referee. The referee knows ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} . A CDS protocol consists of the encoding maps applied by Alice and Bob. A protocol is said to be ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } -correct if, for all ( x , y ) ∈ f − 1 ( 1 ) {\displaystyle (x,y)\in f^{-1}(1)} , the referee can determine z {\displaystyle z} with probability 1 − ϵ {\displaystyle 1-\epsilon } . A protocol is said to be δ {\displaystyle \delta } -secure if, for all ( x , y ) ∈ f − 1 ( 0 ) {\displaystyle (x,y)\in f^{-1}(0)} the distribution of the messages is δ {\displaystyle \delta } close to a simulator distribution (in total variation distance), where the simulator distribution is independent of z {\displaystyle z} . The communication complexity of a CDS protocol P is the total number of bits of message sent by Alice and Bob. The CDS communication cost of a function, C D S ϵ , δ ( f ) {\displaystyle CDS_{\epsilon ,\delta }(f)} is the minimal communication cost of an ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } -correct, δ {\displaystyle \delta } secure protocol that implements f {\displaystyle f} . The randomness complexity and randomness cost of implementing a function in the CDS model are defined similarly, but consider the number of bits of shared random bits held by Alice and Bob. == Basic properties of the primitive == === Amplification === Supposing we have an ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } -correct and δ {\displaystyle \delta } -secure CDS protocol, it is known that we can find a new protocol which reduces the correctness and privacy errors at the expense of an increased communication and randomness cost. More specifically, the following theorem has been proven Theorem (Amplification). A CDS protocol for f which supports a single-bit secret with privacy and correctness error of 1/3 can be transformed into a new CDS protocol with privacy and correctness error of 2 − Ω ( k ) {\displaystyle 2^{-\Omega (k)}} and communication/randomness complexity which are larger than those of the original protocol by a multiplicative factor of O(k). In fact, somewhat more than the above theorem is true in that the size of the secret can also be made to be of length k {\displaystyle k} , while simultaneously reducing the correctness and privacy errors as above. The proof involves first encoding the secret z {\displaystyle z} into a secret sharing scheme, and then running the original CDS protocol on each share of the resulting scheme. === Closure === If a CDS protocol for a function f {\displaystyle f} is known, then certain simple modifications of f {\displaystyle f} have CDS protocols with similar efficiency. The simplest case is to consider a CDS protocol for function f {\displaystyle f} and ask for a similarly efficient protocol for the negation of f {\displaystyle f} , labelled ¬ f {\displaystyle \neg f} . This is addressed by the following theorem Theorem (CDS is closed under complement). Suppose that f has a CDS protocol with randomness cost of ρ {\displaystyle \rho } bits, communication complexity of t {\displaystyle t} bits, and privacy and correctness errors δ = ϵ = 2 − k {\displaystyle \delta =\epsilon =2^{-k}} . Then ¬ f {\displaystyle \neg f} has a CDS scheme with similar privacy and correctness errors, and randomness and communication complexity of O ( k 3 ρ 2 t + k 3 ρ 3 ) {\displaystyle O(k^{3}\rho ^{2}t+k^{3}\rho ^{3})} . The cost of a CDS protocol is also closed under formula's, in the following sense. Consider two functions f 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}} and f 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}} . Then, the communication and randomness costs of f 1 ∧ f 2 {\displaystyle f_{1}\wedge f_{2}} as well as f 1 ∨ f 2 {\displaystyle f_{1}\vee f_{2}} are not much larger than the sum of the costs for f 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}} and f 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}} . See Applebaum et al. for a precise statement. == Upper and lower bounds on communication cost == Given a function f {\displaystyle f} we would like to understand the communication and randomness costs to implement f {\displaystyle f} in the CDS setting. Towards understanding this, protocols for implementing CDS have been developed (which give an upper bound on the cost) and lower bound strategies have been developed. For most functions, there is a large gap between the known upper and lower bound, so understanding the cost of CDS remains largely an open problem. This section presents some of what is known so far about the cost of CDS. === Secret sharing based upper bound === A subject with a close relationship to CDS is secret sharing. Secret sharing constructions provide an upper bound on the cost of CDS protocols. A secret sharing scheme encodes a secret, s {\displaystyle s} into a set of shares S 1 , . . . , S n {\displaystyle S_{1},...,S_{n}} . Associated to any secret sharing scheme is an access structure, which consists of a set of authorized sets A = A 1 , . . . , A k {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}={A_{1},...,A_{k}}} with A i ⊆ { S 1 , . . . , S n } {\displaystyle A_{i}\subseteq \{S_{1},...,S_{n}\}} . The authorized sets are those subsets of the A i {\displaystyle A_{i}} from which it is possible to recover the secret recorded into the scheme. A succinct way to describe an access structure is in terms of a function f A : { 0 , 1 } n → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}:\{0,1\}^{n}\rightarrow \{0,1\}} . Each subset of the shares K [ x ] ⊂ { S 1 , . . . , S n } {\displaystyle K[x]\subset \{S_{1},...,S_{n}\}} is labelled by a string x ∈ { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle x\in \{0,1\}^{n}} such that x i = 1 {\displaystyle x_{i}=1} if and only if S i ∈ K {\displaystyle S_{i}\in K} . Then we define f A {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}} to be such that f A ( x ) = 1 {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}(x)=1} if and only if K [ x ] ∈ A {\displaystyle K[x]\in {\mathcal {A}}} . In words, the function f A {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}} is 1 when given an authorized subset as input, and 0 otherwise. A basic result in the theory of secret sharing is that an access structure A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} can be realized in a secret sharing scheme if and only if f A {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}} is monotone. The size of a secret sharing scheme is defined as the total number of bits in the shares S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} . For monotone functions, there is an upper bound on the communication cost in CDS for any monotone function f {\displaystyle f} in terms of the size of any secret sharing scheme with access structure given by f {\displaystyle f} , C D S ϵ = 0 , δ = 0 ( f ) ≤ S h a r i n g S i z e ( f ) {\displaystyle CDS_{\epsilon =0,\delta =0}(f)\leq SharingSize(f)} For some concrete classes of secret sharing schemes, this relationship can be extended to general (non-monotone) Boolean functions. This leads to an upper bound on CDS cost in terms of the size of any span program that computes f {\displaystyle f} , C D S ϵ = 0 , δ = 0 ( f ) ≤ S P k ( f ) {\displaystyle CDS_{\epsilon =0,\delta =0}(f)\leq SP_{k}(f)} The class of problems with efficient (polynomial size) span program is the complexity class M o d k L {\displaystyle Mod_{k}L} , so problems in this class have efficient CDS protocols. === Sub-exponential upper bounds for all functions === Using a matching vector family based construction, it has been proven that ∀ f , C D S ϵ = 0 , δ = 0 ( f ) ≤ 2 O ( n log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle \forall f,\,\,\,\,\,\,CDS_{\epsilon =0,\delta =0}(f)\leq 2^{O({\sqrt {n\log n}})}} . The technique for this proof is similar to one used to prove upper bounds on private information retrieval. This upper bound on CDS also leads to sub-exponential upper bounds on the size of a large class of secret sharing schemes. === Lower bounds from communication complexity === In a CDS protocol, the referee is given the inputs ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} . This means it is not clear if the messages sent by Alice a

Data augmentation

Data augmentation is a statistical technique which allows maximum likelihood estimation from incomplete data. Data augmentation has important applications in Bayesian analysis, and the technique is widely used in machine learning to reduce overfitting when training machine learning models, achieved by training models on several slightly-modified copies of existing data. == Synthetic oversampling techniques for traditional machine learning == Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) is a method used to address imbalanced datasets in machine learning. In such datasets, the number of samples in different classes varies significantly, leading to biased model performance. For example, in a medical diagnosis dataset with 90 samples representing healthy individuals and only 10 samples representing individuals with a particular disease, traditional algorithms may struggle to accurately classify the minority class. SMOTE rebalances the dataset by generating synthetic samples for the minority class. For instance, if there are 100 samples in the majority class and 10 in the minority class, SMOTE can create synthetic samples by randomly selecting a minority class sample and its nearest neighbors, then generating new samples along the line segments joining these neighbors. This process helps increase the representation of the minority class, improving model performance. == Data augmentation for image classification == When convolutional neural networks grew larger in mid-1990s, there was a lack of data to use, especially considering that some part of the overall dataset should be spared for later testing. It was proposed to perturb existing data with affine transformations to create new examples with the same labels, which were complemented by so-called elastic distortions in 2003, and the technique was widely used as of 2010s. Data augmentation can enhance CNN performance and acts as a countermeasure against CNN profiling attacks. Data augmentation has become fundamental in image classification, enriching training dataset diversity to improve model generalization and performance. The evolution of this practice has introduced a broad spectrum of techniques, including geometric transformations, color space adjustments, and noise injection. === Geometric Transformations === Geometric transformations alter the spatial properties of images to simulate different perspectives, orientations, and scales. Common techniques include: Affine Transformation Rotation: Rotating images by a specified degree to help models recognize objects at various angles. Reflection: Reflecting images horizontally or vertically to introduce variability in orientation. Translation: Shifting images in different directions to teach models positional invariance. Scaling Shear Mapping Cropping: Removing sections of the image to focus on particular features or simulate closer views. Elastic Distortion Morphing within the same class: Generating new samples by applying morphing techniques between two images belonging to the same class, thereby increasing intra-class diversity. === Color Space Transformations === Color space transformations modify the color properties of images, addressing variations in lighting, color saturation, and contrast. Techniques include: Brightness Adjustment: Varying the image's brightness to simulate different lighting conditions. Contrast Adjustment: Changing the contrast to help models recognize objects under various clarity levels. Saturation Adjustment: Altering saturation to prepare models for images with diverse color intensities. Color Jittering: Randomly adjusting brightness, contrast, saturation, and hue to introduce color variability. === Noise Injection === Injecting noise into images simulates real-world imperfections, teaching models to ignore irrelevant variations. Techniques involve: Gaussian Noise: Adding Gaussian noise mimics sensor noise or graininess. Salt and Pepper Noise: Introducing black or white pixels at random simulates sensor dust or dead pixels. == Data augmentation for signal processing == Residual or block bootstrap can be used for time series augmentation. === Biological signals === Synthetic data augmentation is of paramount importance for machine learning classification, particularly for biological data, which tend to be high dimensional and scarce. The applications of robotic control and augmentation in disabled and able-bodied subjects still rely mainly on subject-specific analyses. Data scarcity is notable in signal processing problems such as for Parkinson's Disease Electromyography signals, which are difficult to source - Zanini, et al. noted that it is possible to use a generative adversarial network (in particular, a DCGAN) to perform style transfer in order to generate synthetic electromyographic signals that corresponded to those exhibited by sufferers of Parkinson's Disease. The approaches are also important in electroencephalography (brainwaves). Wang, et al. explored the idea of using deep convolutional neural networks for EEG-Based Emotion Recognition, results show that emotion recognition was improved when data augmentation was used. A common approach is to generate synthetic signals by re-arranging components of real data. Lotte proposed a method of "Artificial Trial Generation Based on Analogy" where three data examples x 1 , x 2 , x 3 {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}} provide examples and an artificial x s y n t h e t i c {\displaystyle x_{synthetic}} is formed which is to x 3 {\displaystyle x_{3}} what x 2 {\displaystyle x_{2}} is to x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} . A transformation is applied to x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} to make it more similar to x 2 {\displaystyle x_{2}} , the same transformation is then applied to x 3 {\displaystyle x_{3}} which generates x s y n t h e t i c {\displaystyle x_{synthetic}} . This approach was shown to improve performance of a Linear Discriminant Analysis classifier on three different datasets. Current research shows great impact can be derived from relatively simple techniques. For example, Freer observed that introducing noise into gathered data to form additional data points improved the learning ability of several models which otherwise performed relatively poorly. Tsinganos et al. studied the approaches of magnitude warping, wavelet decomposition, and synthetic surface EMG models (generative approaches) for hand gesture recognition, finding classification performance increases of up to +16% when augmented data was introduced during training. More recently, data augmentation studies have begun to focus on the field of deep learning, more specifically on the ability of generative models to create artificial data which is then introduced during the classification model training process. In 2018, Luo et al. observed that useful EEG signal data could be generated by Conditional Wasserstein Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) which was then introduced to the training set in a classical train-test learning framework. The authors found classification performance was improved when such techniques were introduced. === Mechanical signals === The prediction of mechanical signals based on data augmentation brings a new generation of technological innovations, such as new energy dispatch, 5G communication field, and robotics control engineering. In 2022, Yang et al. integrate constraints, optimization and control into a deep network framework based on data augmentation and data pruning with spatio-temporal data correlation, and improve the interpretability, safety and controllability of deep learning in real industrial projects through explicit mathematical programming equations and analytical solutions.

State–action–reward–state–action

State–action–reward–state–action (SARSA) is an algorithm for learning a Markov decision process policy, used in the reinforcement learning area of machine learning. It was proposed by Rummery and Niranjan in a technical note with the name "Modified Connectionist Q-Learning" (MCQ-L). The alternative name SARSA, proposed by Rich Sutton, was only mentioned as a footnote. This name reflects the fact that the main function for updating the Q-value depends on the current state of the agent "S1", the action the agent chooses "A1", the reward "R2" the agent gets for choosing this action, the state "S2" that the agent enters after taking that action, and finally the next action "A2" the agent chooses in its new state. The acronym for the quintuple (St, At, Rt+1, St+1, At+1) is SARSA. Some authors use a slightly different convention and write the quintuple (St, At, Rt, St+1, At+1), depending on which time step the reward is formally assigned. The rest of the article uses the former convention. == Algorithm == Q new ( S t , A t ) ← ( 1 − α ) Q ( S t , A t ) + α [ R t + 1 + γ Q ( S t + 1 , A t + 1 ) ] {\displaystyle Q^{\textrm {new}}(S_{t},A_{t})\leftarrow (1-\alpha )Q(S_{t},A_{t})+\alpha \,[R_{t+1}+\gamma \,Q(S_{t+1},A_{t+1})]} A SARSA agent interacts with the environment and updates the policy based on actions taken, hence this is known as an on-policy learning algorithm. The Q value for a state-action is updated by an error, adjusted by the learning rate α. Q values represent the possible reward received in the next time step for taking action a in state s, plus the discounted future reward received from the next state-action observation. Watkin's Q-learning updates an estimate of the optimal state-action value function Q ∗ {\displaystyle Q^{}} based on the maximum reward of available actions. While SARSA learns the Q values associated with taking the policy it follows itself, Watkin's Q-learning learns the Q values associated with taking the optimal policy while following an exploration/exploitation policy. Some optimizations of Watkin's Q-learning may be applied to SARSA. == Hyperparameters == === Learning rate (alpha) === The learning rate determines to what extent newly acquired information overrides old information. A factor of 0 will make the agent not learn anything, while a factor of 1 would make the agent consider only the most recent information. === Discount factor (gamma) === The discount factor determines the importance of future rewards. A discount factor of 0 makes the agent "opportunistic", or "myopic", e.g., by only considering current rewards, while a factor approaching 1 will make it strive for a long-term high reward. If the discount factor meets or exceeds 1, the Q {\displaystyle Q} values may diverge. === Initial conditions (Q(S0, A0)) === Since SARSA is an iterative algorithm, it implicitly assumes an initial condition before the first update occurs. A high (infinite) initial value, also known as "optimistic initial conditions", can encourage exploration: no matter what action takes place, the update rule causes it to have higher values than the other alternative, thus increasing their choice probability. In 2013 it was suggested that the first reward r {\displaystyle r} could be used to reset the initial conditions. According to this idea, the first time an action is taken the reward is used to set the value of Q {\displaystyle Q} . This allows immediate learning in case of fixed deterministic rewards. This resetting-of-initial-conditions (RIC) approach seems to be consistent with human behavior in repeated binary choice experiments.

LogitBoost

In machine learning and computational learning theory, LogitBoost is a boosting algorithm formulated by Jerome Friedman, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani. The original paper casts the AdaBoost algorithm into a statistical framework. Specifically, if one considers AdaBoost as a generalized additive model and then applies the cost function of logistic regression, one can derive the LogitBoost algorithm. == Minimizing the LogitBoost cost function == LogitBoost can be seen as a convex optimization. Specifically, given that we seek an additive model of the form f = ∑ t α t h t {\displaystyle f=\sum _{t}\alpha _{t}h_{t}} the LogitBoost algorithm minimizes the logistic loss: ∑ i log ⁡ ( 1 + e − y i f ( x i ) ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i}\log \left(1+e^{-y_{i}f(x_{i})}\right)}

Modern Hopfield network

Modern Hopfield networks (also known as Dense Associative Memories) are generalizations of the classical Hopfield networks that break the linear scaling relationship between the number of input features and the number of stored memories. This is achieved by introducing stronger non-linearities (either in the energy function or neurons’ activation functions) leading to super-linear (even an exponential) memory storage capacity as a function of the number of feature neurons. The network still requires a sufficient number of hidden neurons. The key theoretical idea behind the modern Hopfield networks is to use an energy function and an update rule that is more sharply peaked around the stored memories in the space of neuron’s configurations compared to the classical Hopfield network. == Classical Hopfield networks == Hopfield networks are recurrent neural networks with dynamical trajectories converging to fixed point attractor states and described by an energy function. The state of each model neuron i {\textstyle i} is defined by a time-dependent variable V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} , which can be chosen to be either discrete or continuous. A complete model describes the mathematics of how the future state of activity of each neuron depends on the known present or previous activity of all the neurons. In the original Hopfield model of associative memory, the variables were binary, and the dynamics were described by a one-at-a-time update of the state of the neurons. An energy function quadratic in the V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} was defined, and the dynamics consisted of changing the activity of each single neuron i {\displaystyle i} only if doing so would lower the total energy of the system. This same idea was extended to the case of V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} being a continuous variable representing the output of neuron i {\displaystyle i} , and V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} being a monotonic function of an input current. The dynamics became expressed as a set of first-order differential equations for which the "energy" of the system always decreased. The energy in the continuous case has one term which is quadratic in the V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} (as in the binary model), and a second term which depends on the gain function (neuron's activation function). While having many desirable properties of associative memory, both of these classical systems suffer from a small memory storage capacity, which scales linearly with the number of input features. == Discrete variables == A simple example of the Modern Hopfield network can be written in terms of binary variables V i {\displaystyle V_{i}} that represent the active V i = + 1 {\displaystyle V_{i}=+1} and inactive V i = − 1 {\displaystyle V_{i}=-1} state of the model neuron i {\displaystyle i} . E = − ∑ μ = 1 N mem F ( ∑ i = 1 N f ξ μ i V i ) {\displaystyle E=-\sum \limits _{\mu =1}^{N_{\text{mem}}}F{\Big (}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N_{f}}\xi _{\mu i}V_{i}{\Big )}} In this formula the weights ξ μ i {\textstyle \xi _{\mu i}} represent the matrix of memory vectors (index μ = 1... N mem {\displaystyle \mu =1...N_{\text{mem}}} enumerates different memories, and index i = 1... N f {\displaystyle i=1...N_{f}} enumerates the content of each memory corresponding to the i {\displaystyle i} -th feature neuron), and the function F ( x ) {\displaystyle F(x)} is a rapidly growing non-linear function. The update rule for individual neurons (in the asynchronous case) can be written in the following form V i ( t + 1 ) = sign ⁡ [ ∑ μ = 1 N mem ( F ( ξ μ i + ∑ j ≠ i ξ μ j V j ( t ) ) − F ( − ξ μ i + ∑ j ≠ i ξ μ j V j ( t ) ) ) ] {\displaystyle V_{i}^{(t+1)}=\operatorname {sign} {\bigg [}\sum \limits _{\mu =1}^{N_{\text{mem}}}{\bigg (}F{\Big (}\xi _{\mu i}+\sum \limits _{j\neq i}\xi _{\mu j}V_{j}^{(t)}{\Big )}-F{\Big (}-\xi _{\mu i}+\sum \limits _{j\neq i}\xi _{\mu j}V_{j}^{(t)}{\Big )}{\bigg )}{\bigg ]}} which states that in order to calculate the updated state of the i {\textstyle i} -th neuron the network compares two energies: the energy of the network with the i {\displaystyle i} -th neuron in the ON state and the energy of the network with the i {\displaystyle i} -th neuron in the OFF state, given the states of the remaining neuron. The updated state of the i {\displaystyle i} -th neuron selects the state that has the lowest of the two energies. In the limiting case when the non-linear energy function is quadratic F ( x ) = x 2 {\displaystyle F(x)=x^{2}} these equations reduce to the familiar energy function and the update rule for the classical binary Hopfield network. The memory storage capacity of these networks can be calculated for random binary patterns. For the power energy function F ( x ) = x n {\displaystyle F(x)=x^{n}} the maximal number of memories that can be stored and retrieved from this network without errors is given by N mem max ≈ 1 2 ( 2 n − 3 ) ! ! N f n − 1 ln ⁡ ( N f ) {\displaystyle N_{\text{mem}}^{\max }\approx {\frac {1}{2(2n-3)!!}}{\frac {N_{f}^{n-1}}{\ln(N_{f})}}} For an exponential energy function F ( x ) = e x {\textstyle F(x)=e^{x}} the memory storage capacity is exponential in the number of feature neurons N mem max ≈ 2 N f / 2 {\displaystyle N_{\text{mem}}^{\max }\approx 2^{N_{f}/2}} == Continuous variables == Modern Hopfield networks or Dense Associative Memories can be best understood in continuous variables and continuous time. Consider the network architecture, shown in Fig.1, and the equations for the neurons' state evolutionwhere the currents of the feature neurons are denoted by x i {\textstyle x_{i}} , and the currents of the memory neurons are denoted by h μ {\displaystyle h_{\mu }} ( h {\displaystyle h} stands for hidden neurons). There are no synaptic connections among the feature neurons or the memory neurons. A matrix ξ μ i {\displaystyle \xi _{\mu i}} denotes the strength of synapses from a feature neuron i {\displaystyle i} to the memory neuron μ {\displaystyle \mu } . The synapses are assumed to be symmetric, so that the same value characterizes a different physical synapse from the memory neuron μ {\displaystyle \mu } to the feature neuron i {\displaystyle i} . The outputs of the memory neurons and the feature neurons are denoted by f μ {\displaystyle f_{\mu }} and g i {\displaystyle g_{i}} , which are non-linear functions of the corresponding currents. In general these outputs can depend on the currents of all the neurons in that layer so that f μ = f ( { h μ } ) {\displaystyle f_{\mu }=f(\{h_{\mu }\})} and g i = g ( { x i } ) {\textstyle g_{i}=g(\{x_{i}\})} . It is convenient to define these activation function as derivatives of the Lagrangian functions for the two groups of neuronsThis way the specific form of the equations for neuron's states is completely defined once the Lagrangian functions are specified. Finally, the time constants for the two groups of neurons are denoted by τ f {\displaystyle \tau _{f}} and τ h {\displaystyle \tau _{h}} , I i {\displaystyle I_{i}} is the input current to the network that can be driven by the presented data. General systems of non-linear differential equations can have many complicated behaviors that can depend on the choice of the non-linearities and the initial conditions. For Hopfield networks, however, this is not the case - the dynamical trajectories always converge to a fixed point attractor state. This property is achieved because these equations are specifically engineered so that they have an underlying energy function The terms grouped into square brackets represent a Legendre transform of the Lagrangian function with respect to the states of the neurons. If the Hessian matrices of the Lagrangian functions are positive semi-definite, the energy function is guaranteed to decrease on the dynamical trajectory This property makes it possible to prove that the system of dynamical equations describing temporal evolution of neurons' activities will eventually reach a fixed point attractor state. In certain situations one can assume that the dynamics of hidden neurons equilibrates at a much faster time scale compared to the feature neurons, τ h ≪ τ f {\textstyle \tau _{h}\ll \tau _{f}} . In this case the steady state solution of the second equation in the system (1) can be used to express the currents of the hidden units through the outputs of the feature neurons. This makes it possible to reduce the general theory (1) to an effective theory for feature neurons only. The resulting effective update rules and the energies for various common choices of the Lagrangian functions are shown in Fig.2. In the case of log-sum-exponential Lagrangian function the update rule (if applied once) for the states of the feature neurons is the attention mechanism commonly used in many modern AI systems (see Ref. for the derivation of this result from the continuous time formulation). == Relationship to classical Hopfield network with continuous variables == Classical formulation of continuous Hopfield networks can be understood as a

Zo (chatbot)

Zo was an English-language chatbot developed by Microsoft as the successor to the chatbot Tay. Zo was an English version of Microsoft's other successful chatbots Xiaoice (China) and Rinna (Japan) and its predecessor Tay(English) == History == Zo was first launched in December 2016 on the Kik Messenger app. It was also available to users of Facebook (via Messenger), the group chat platform GroupMe, or to followers of Twitter to chat with it through private messages. According to an article written in December 2016, at that time Zo held the record for Microsoft's longest continual chatbot conversation: 1,229 turns, lasting 9 hours and 53 minutes. In a BuzzFeed News report, Zo told their reporter that "[the] Quran was violent" when talking about healthcare. The report also highlighted how Zo made a comment about the Osama bin Laden capture as a result of 'intelligence' gathering. In July 2017, Business Insider asked "is windows 10 good", and Zo replied with a joke about Microsoft's operating system: "'Its not a bug, its a feature!' - Windows 8". They then asked "why?", to which Zo replied: "Because it's Windows latest attempt at Spyware." Later on, Zo would tell that it prefers Windows 7 on which it ran over Windows 10. Zo stopped posting to Instagram, Twitter and Facebook March 1, 2019, and stopped chatting on Twitter, Skype and Kik as of March 7, 2019. On July 19, 2019, Zo was discontinued on Facebook, and Samsung on AT&T phones. As of September 7, 2019, it was discontinued with GroupMe. == Reception == Zo came under criticism for the biases introduced in an effort to avoid potentially offensive subjects. The chatbot refuses, for example, to engage with any mention—be it positive, negative or neutral—of the Middle East, the Qur'an or the Torah, while allowing discussion of Christianity. In an article in Quartz where she exposed those biases, Chloe Rose Stuart-Ulin wrote, "Zo is politically correct to the worst possible extreme; mention any of her triggers, and she transforms into a judgmental little brat." == Academic coverage == Schlesinger, A., O'Hara, K.P. and Taylor, A.S., 2018, April. Let's talk about race: Identity, chatbots, and AI. In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–14). doi:10.1145/3173574.3173889 Medhi Thies, I., Menon, N., Magapu, S., Subramony, M. and O’neill, J., 2017. How do you want your chatbot? An exploratory Wizard-of-Oz study with young, urban Indians. In Human-Computer Interaction-INTERACT 2017: 16th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Mumbai, India, September 25–29, 2017, Proceedings, Part I 16 (pp. 441–459). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-67744-6_28

Andrej Mrvar

Andrej Mrvar is a Slovenian computer scientist and a professor at the University of Ljubljana's Faculty of Social Sciences. He is known for his work in network analysis, graph drawing, decision making, virtual reality, timing and data processing of sports competitions. == Education and career == He is well known for his work on Pajek, a free software for analysis and visualization of large networks. Mrvar began work on Pajek in 1996 with Vladimir Batagelj. His book Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek, coauthored with Wouter de Nooy and Vladimir Batagelj, is his most cited work. It was published by Cambridge University Press in three editions (first 2005, second 2011, and third 2018). The book was translated into Japanese (2009) and Chinese (first edition 2012, second 2014). With Anuška Ferligoj, he was a founding co-editor-in-chief of the Metodološki zvezki - Advances in Methodology and Statistics journal. == Awards and honors == Vidmar Award (Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Ljubljana): 1988, 1990 First prizes for contributions (with Vladimir Batagelj) to Graph Drawing Contests in years: 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2005 / Graph Drawing Hall of Fame. Award of University of Ljubljana for contributions in education and research (Svečana listina Univerze v Ljubljani za pomembne dosežke na področju vzgojnoizobraževalnega in znanstvenoraziskovalega dela): 2001 The INSNA's William D. Richards Software award for work on Pajek (with Vladimir Batagelj): 2013 Award of Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana for scientific excellence (Priznanje za znanstveno odličnost): 2013 == Selected publications == Wouter de Nooy, Andrej Mrvar, Vladimir Batagelj, Mark Granovetter (Series Editor), Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek (Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences), Cambridge University Press (First Edition: 2005, Second Edition: 2011, Third Edition: 2018 ). Japanese Translation (2010). Chinese Translation (First Edition: 2012, Second Edition: 2014) Andrej Mrvar and Vladimir Batagelj, Analysis and visualization of large networks with program package Pajek. Complex Adaptive Systems Modeling, 4:6. SpringerOpen, 2016 Vladimir Batagelj and Andrej Mrvar, Some Analyses of Erdős Collaboration Graph, Social Networks, 22, 173–186, 2000 Vladimir Batagelj and Andrej Mrvar, A Subquadratic Triad Census Algorithm for Large Sparse Networks with Small Maximum Degree. Social Networks, 23, 237–243, 2001 Patrick Doreian and Andrej Mrvar, A Partitioning Approach to Structural Balance, Social Networks, 18, 149–168, 1996 Patrick Doreian and Andrej Mrvar, Partitioning Signed Social Networks, Social Networks, 31, 1–11, 2009 Andrej Mrvar and Patrick Doreian, Partitioning Signed Two-Mode Networks, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 33, 196–221, 2009 Patrick Doreian and Andrej Mrvar, The international reach of the Koch brothers network. In: Antonyuk, A. and Basov, N. (Eds.): Networks in the Global World V. NetGloW 2020. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 181, 225–235. Springer, 2021 Patrick Doreian and Andrej Mrvar, Delineating Changes in the Fundamental Structure of Signed Networks, Frontiers in Physics, 294, 1–11, 2021 Patrick Doreian and Andrej Mrvar, Hubs and Authorities in the Koch Brothers Network. Social Networks, Social Networks, 64, 148–157, 2021 Patrick Doreian and Andrej Mrvar, Public issues, policy proposals, social movements, and the interests of the Koch Brothers network of allies, Quality and Quantity, 56, 305–322, 2022 Douglas R. White, Vladimir Batagelj, Andrej Mrvar, Analyzing Large Kinship and Marriage Networks with Pgraph and Pajek. Social Science Computer Review, 17, 245–274, 1999 Ion Georgiou, Ronald Concer, Andrej Mrvar, A Systemic Approach to Sociometric Group Research: Advancing The Work of Leslie Day Zeleny, 1939–1947, Social Networks, 63, 174–200, 2020