Richard Stanley Zemel (born 1963) is a Canadian-American computer scientist and professor at Columbia University, Department of Computer Science, and a leading figure in the field of machine learning and computer vision. Zemel studied the history of science at Harvard University and obtained his B.A. in 1984. He continued his study at the Department of Computer Science of the University of Toronto under the supervision of Geoffrey Hinton. He obtained his M.Sc. and Ph.D. both in computer science in 1989 and 1994, respectively.
Enonic XP
Enonic XP is a free and open-source content platform. Developed by the Norwegian software company Enonic, the platform can be used to build websites, progressive web applications, or web-based APIs. Enonic XP uses an application framework for coding server logic with JavaScript, and has no need for SQL as it ships with an integrated content repository. The CMS is fully decoupled, meaning developers can create traditional websites and landing pages, or use XP in headless mode, that is without the presentation layer, for loading editorial content onto any device or client. Enonic is used by major organizations in Norway, including the national postal service Norway Post, the insurance company Gjensidige, the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration, and all the top football clubs in the national football league for men, Eliteserien. == Overview == Enonic XP ships with the content management system (CMS) Content Studio. This includes a visual drag and drop editor, a landing page editor, support for multi-site and multi-language, media and structured content, advanced image editing, responsive user interface, permissions and roles management, revision and version control, and bulk publishing. Integrations and applications can be directly installed via the "Applications" section in XP, where the platform finds apps approved in the official Enonic Market. There are no third-party databases in Enonic XP. Instead, the developers have built a distributed storage repository, avoiding the need to index content. The system brings together capabilities from Filesystem, NoSQL, document stores, and search in the storage technology, which automatically indexes everything put into the storage. Enonic XP supports deployment of server side JavaScript. The open-source framework runs on top of a JVM (Java virtual machine), and allows developers to run the same code in the browser and on the server, thus enabling them to employ JavaScript. While running on the Java virtual machine, Enonic XP can be deployed on most infrastructures. The dependency on a third-party application server to deploy code has been removed, as the platform is an application server by default. A developer can for instance insert his own modules and code straight into the system while it is running. JavaScript unifies all the technical elements, and Enonic XP features a MVC framework where everything on the back-end can be coded with server-side JavaScript. The Enonic platform can use any template engine. === Progressive web apps === Another feature of Enonic XP is the possibility for developers to create progressive web apps (PWA). A PWA is a web application that is a regular web page or website, but can appear to the user like a mobile application. === Headless CMS and integrations === Enonic XP is headless, which means it separates content and presentation. The platform supports GraphQL, provides several default APIs, and allows for building custom APIs through the Guillotine starter kit. Consequently, Enonic supports modern front-end frameworks, and offers integrations with e.g. Next.js and React. == History == Enonic AS was founded in 2000 by Morten Øien Eriksen and Thomas Sigdestad. The software company specialized in building services and solutions, including a content management system known as "Vertical Site", then "Enonic CMS". Being aware that they had application, database, and website teams working on separate silos toward the same goal, Enonic sought to combine the different elements into a single software. The resulting application platform Enonic XP, first released in 2015, includes a CMS as an optional surface layer. In March 2020, Enonic XP was ranked by SoftwareReviews, a division of Info-Tech Research Group, a Canadian IT research and analyst firm, as the "Leader" in Web Experience Management. The ranking is based on user reviews, and is featured in SoftwareReviews‘ Digital Experience Data Quadrant Report, a comprehensive evaluation and ranking of leading Web Experience Management vendors. Enonic was also ranked first in 2021 and 2022. === Release history === Enonic XP assumed the mantle from the previous content management system Enonic CMS, and thus began with "version 5.0.0." The following list only contains major releases. == Development and support == Enonic offers a user and developer community consisting of a forum, support system with tickets, documentation, codex, learning and training center with certifications, and various community groups. Writing about the support system, Mike Johnston of CMS Critic notes that "enterprise customers obviously get access to a higher level of personalized support, where the Enonic support team can respond as fast as two hours." The support system is divided in three levels: silver, gold and platinum—from next day business support to 24/7 support. As Enonic XP is open-source, known vulnerabilities, bugs and issues are listed on GitHub.
Augmented Analytics
Augmented Analytics is an approach of data analytics that employs the use of machine learning and natural language processing to automate analysis processes normally done by a specialist or data scientist. The term was introduced in 2017 by Rita Sallam, Cindi Howson, and Carlie Idoine in a Gartner research paper. Augmented analytics is based on business intelligence and analytics. In the graph extraction step, data from different sources are investigated. == Defining Augmented Analytics == Machine Learning – a systematic computing method that uses algorithms to sift through data to identify relationships, trends, and patterns. It is a process that allows algorithms to dynamically learn from data instead of having a set base of programmed rules. Natural language generation (NLG) – a software capability that takes unstructured data and translates it into plain-English, readable, language. Automating Insights – using machine learning algorithms to automate data analysis processes. Natural Language Query – enabling users to query data using business terms that are either typed onto a search box or spoken. == Data Democratization == Data Democratization is the democratizing data access in order to relieve data congestion and get rid of any sense of data "gatekeepers". This process must be implemented alongside a method for users to make sense of the data. This process is used in hopes of speeding up company decision making and uncovering opportunities hidden in data. There are three aspects to democratising data: Data Parameterisation and Characterisation. Data Decentralisation using an OS of blockchain and DLT technologies, as well as an independently governed secure data exchange to enable trust. Consent Market-driven Data Monetisation. When it comes to connecting assets, there are two features that will accelerate the adoption and usage of data democratisation: decentralized identity management and business data object monetization of data ownership. It enables multiple individuals and organizations to identify, authenticate, and authorize participants and organizations, enabling them to access services, data or systems across multiple networks, organizations, environments, and use cases. It empowers users and enables a personalized, self-service digital onboarding system so that users can self-authenticate without relying on a central administration function to process their information. Simultaneously, decentralized identity management ensures the user is authorized to perform actions subject to the system’s policies based on their attributes (role, department, organization, etc.) and/ or physical location. == Use cases == Agriculture – Farmers collect data on water use, soil temperature, moisture content and crop growth, augmented analytics can be used to make sense of this data and possibly identify insights that the user can then use to make business decisions. Smart Cities – Many cities across the United States, known as Smart Cities collect large amounts of data on a daily basis. Augmented analytics can be used to simplify this data in order to increase effectiveness in city management (transportation, natural disasters, etc.). Analytic Dashboards – Augmented analytics has the ability to take large data sets and create highly interactive and informative analytical dashboards that assist in many organizational decisions. Augmented Data Discovery – Using an augmented analytics process can assist organizations in automatically finding, visualizing and narrating potentially important data correlations and trends. Data Preparation – Augmented analytics platforms have the ability to take large amounts of data and organize and "clean" the data in order for it to be usable for future analyses. Business – Businesses collect large amounts of data, daily. Some examples of types of data collected in business operations include; sales data, consumer behavior data, distribution data. An augmented analytics platform provides access to analysis of this data, which could be used in making business decisions.
1 Second Everyday
1 Second Everyday (1SE) is an application developed by Cesar Kuriyama. The application allows the user to record one second of video every day and then chronologically edits (mashes) them together into a single film. It is compatible with iOS and Android. The idea of the application was developed by Kuriyama's 1 Second Everyday — Age 30 video. The application was launched in January 2013. 1 Second Everyday played a part in the plot of Chef and also became the inspiration for the 2014 short animated clip Feast. == Background == === Kuriyama's video === In February 2011, when Cesar Kuriyama turned 30, after saving money, he quit his job in an advertising firm and took a year off to travel. During this time, he started working on a project he called 1 Second Everyday. As part of the project, every day he recorded one second of video – something that was supposed to help him remember that day. He started the project because he was frustrated with his memory. He planned to stockpile the 365 one-second clips into one film to serve as a memento of his year. While working on the project Kuriyama realized that recording one second every day impacted the decisions he made in a positive way. After a year he made a 365-second clip out of his recordings. The video called 1 Second Everyday – Age 30, went viral. According to Kuriyama, he was initially inspired to take a year off from work by a TED talk given by Stefan Sagmeister called "The Power of Time Off." Kuriyama also delivered a TED talk about 1 Second Everyday in 2012 at TED 2012 in Long Beach California. === Kickstarter campaign === After completing his own video, Kuriyama decided to develop an application that would allow the users to record one second every day and compile their own videos. He developed a prototype of the application and then in 2012, he launched a Kickstarter campaign to raise funds for completing the application. The campaign became one of the most backed app campaigns in the history of Kickstarter. It was backed by 11,281 backers who pledged a total of $56,959 on an initial goal of $20,000. Following the completion of the Kickstarter campaign, he partnered with an application design studio in Brooklyn to develop the application. 1 Second Everyday was released two weeks after the completion of its Kickstarter campaign. == Application == The application was released for iOS on 10 January 2013. An Android-compatible version of the application was developed later. Using it, the user can record the videos in the application or they can select one second portions from their libraries. 1 Second Everyday dates every snippet. The user can also set alarms to remember to record their daily video. In order to compile a video, the user selects the seconds they want and the application creates a compilation video. The user can keep multiple timelines. It also allows users to post directly on social networks. The main interface in 1 Second Everyday is a calendar, which shows the user which days have snippets and which they can still fill in. In the beginning, 1 Second Everyday restricted the recording to one second. However, the developers later released Super Seconds, which allowed users to record an additional half a second video. In 2014, 1 Second Everyday Crowds was launched, which is an area in the application featuring compilations of second clips from different users. == In the media == The Kickstarter campaign of 1 Second Everyday was featured in Entrepreneur's 3 Innovative Tech Startups on Kickstarter Right Now in 2012. The application was featured in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Gawker and other media outlets. By the end of the launch day, it was in Top 10 Free Apps on App Store. It was also selected as the App of the Week on GeekWire in 2013. Several other one-second compilation videos were also posted on the Internet after Kuriyama's video gained media attention. Sam Cornwell, an English photographer documented his son Indigo's growth using a montage of one-second iPhone clips. He shot these clips every single day from the moment of birth right up to the baby's first birthday. According to Cornwell, he was inspired by Kuriyama's project. The video of Cornwell's son gained considerable media attention after it was posted on YouTube. Save the Children also made a video commercial based on a similar format that showed a British girl oblivious of the Syrian war end up being a refugee. 1SE was a finalist for the Fast Company Innovation by Design Award in 2015, but lost to Google Maps. In 2015, Google Android created a gallery, Leap Second 2015, with the help of Droga5 and Kuriyama. The gallery showcased how people around the world enjoyed the one extra second of their lives. Through the 1 Second Everyday app available at Google Play, people were able to submit their extra second, which were then vetted and added to the gallery. The viewers were able to view other celebratory seconds from around the world as well as searching for them using different hashtags.
Recursive transition network
A recursive transition network ("RTN") is a graph theoretical schematic used to represent the rules of a context-free grammar. RTNs have application to programming languages, natural language and lexical analysis. Any sentence that is constructed according to the rules of an RTN is said to be "well-formed". The structural elements of a well-formed sentence may also be well-formed sentences by themselves, or they may be simpler structures. This is why RTNs are described as recursive. == Notes and references ==
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.
Latent semantic analysis
Latent semantic analysis (LSA) is a technique in natural language processing, in particular distributional semantics, of analyzing relationships between a set of documents and the terms they contain by producing a set of concepts related to the documents and terms. LSA assumes that words that are close in meaning will occur in similar pieces of text (the distributional hypothesis). A matrix containing word counts per document (rows represent unique words and columns represent each document) is constructed from a large piece of text and a mathematical technique called singular value decomposition (SVD) is used to reduce the number of rows while preserving the similarity structure among columns. Documents are then compared by cosine similarity between any two columns. Values close to 1 represent very similar documents while values close to 0 represent very dissimilar documents. An information retrieval technique using latent semantic structure was patented in 1988 by Scott Deerwester, Susan Dumais, George Furnas, Richard Harshman, Thomas Landauer, Karen Lochbaum and Lynn Streeter. In the context of its application to information retrieval, it is sometimes called latent semantic indexing (LSI). == Overview == === Occurrence matrix === LSA can use a document-term matrix which describes the occurrences of terms in documents; it is a sparse matrix whose rows correspond to terms and whose columns correspond to documents. A typical example of the weighting of the elements of the matrix is tf-idf (term frequency–inverse document frequency): the weight of an element of the matrix is proportional to the number of times the terms appear in each document, where rare terms are upweighted to reflect their relative importance. This matrix is also common to standard semantic models, though it is not necessarily explicitly expressed as a matrix, since the mathematical properties of matrices are not always used. === Rank lowering === After the construction of the occurrence matrix, LSA finds a low-rank approximation to the term-document matrix. There could be various reasons for these approximations: The original term-document matrix is presumed too large for the computing resources; in this case, the approximated low rank matrix is interpreted as an approximation (a "least and necessary evil"). The original term-document matrix is presumed noisy: for example, anecdotal instances of terms are to be eliminated. From this point of view, the approximated matrix is interpreted as a de-noisified matrix (a better matrix than the original). The original term-document matrix is presumed overly sparse relative to the "true" term-document matrix. That is, the original matrix lists only the words actually in each document, whereas we might be interested in all words related to each document—generally a much larger set due to synonymy. The consequence of the rank lowering is that some dimensions are combined and depend on more than one term: {(car), (truck), (flower)} → {(1.3452 car + 0.2828 truck), (flower)} This mitigates the problem of identifying synonymy, as the rank lowering is expected to merge the dimensions associated with terms that have similar meanings. It also partially mitigates the problem with polysemy, since components of polysemous words that point in the "right" direction are added to the components of words that share a similar meaning. Conversely, components that point in other directions tend to either simply cancel out, or, at worst, to be smaller than components in the directions corresponding to the intended sense. === Derivation === Let X {\displaystyle X} be a matrix where element ( i , j ) {\displaystyle (i,j)} describes the occurrence of term i {\displaystyle i} in document j {\displaystyle j} (this can be, for example, the frequency). X {\displaystyle X} will look like this: d j ↓ t i T → [ x 1 , 1 … x 1 , j … x 1 , n ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ x i , 1 … x i , j … x i , n ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ x m , 1 … x m , j … x m , n ] {\displaystyle {\begin{matrix}&{\textbf {d}}_{j}\\&\downarrow \\{\textbf {t}}_{i}^{T}\rightarrow &{\begin{bmatrix}x_{1,1}&\dots &x_{1,j}&\dots &x_{1,n}\\\vdots &\ddots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\x_{i,1}&\dots &x_{i,j}&\dots &x_{i,n}\\\vdots &\ddots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\x_{m,1}&\dots &x_{m,j}&\dots &x_{m,n}\\\end{bmatrix}}\end{matrix}}} Now a row in this matrix will be a vector corresponding to a term, giving its relation to each document: t i T = [ x i , 1 … x i , j … x i , n ] {\displaystyle {\textbf {t}}_{i}^{T}={\begin{bmatrix}x_{i,1}&\dots &x_{i,j}&\dots &x_{i,n}\end{bmatrix}}} Likewise, a column in this matrix will be a vector corresponding to a document, giving its relation to each term: d j = [ x 1 , j ⋮ x i , j ⋮ x m , j ] {\displaystyle {\textbf {d}}_{j}={\begin{bmatrix}x_{1,j}\\\vdots \\x_{i,j}\\\vdots \\x_{m,j}\\\end{bmatrix}}} Now the dot product t i T t p {\displaystyle {\textbf {t}}_{i}^{T}{\textbf {t}}_{p}} between two term vectors gives the correlation between the terms over the set of documents. The matrix product X X T {\displaystyle XX^{T}} contains all these dot products. Element ( i , p ) {\displaystyle (i,p)} (which is equal to element ( p , i ) {\displaystyle (p,i)} ) contains the dot product t i T t p {\displaystyle {\textbf {t}}_{i}^{T}{\textbf {t}}_{p}} ( = t p T t i {\displaystyle ={\textbf {t}}_{p}^{T}{\textbf {t}}_{i}} ). Likewise, the matrix X T X {\displaystyle X^{T}X} contains the dot products between all the document vectors, giving their correlation over the terms: d j T d q = d q T d j {\displaystyle {\textbf {d}}_{j}^{T}{\textbf {d}}_{q}={\textbf {d}}_{q}^{T}{\textbf {d}}_{j}} . Now, from the theory of linear algebra, there exists a decomposition of X {\displaystyle X} such that U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} are orthogonal matrices and Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } is a diagonal matrix. This is called a singular value decomposition (SVD): X = U Σ V T {\displaystyle {\begin{matrix}X=U\Sigma V^{T}\end{matrix}}} The matrix products giving us the term and document correlations then become X X T = ( U Σ V T ) ( U Σ V T ) T = ( U Σ V T ) ( V T T Σ T U T ) = U Σ V T V Σ T U T = U Σ Σ T U T X T X = ( U Σ V T ) T ( U Σ V T ) = ( V T T Σ T U T ) ( U Σ V T ) = V Σ T U T U Σ V T = V Σ T Σ V T {\displaystyle {\begin{matrix}XX^{T}&=&(U\Sigma V^{T})(U\Sigma V^{T})^{T}=(U\Sigma V^{T})(V^{T^{T}}\Sigma ^{T}U^{T})=U\Sigma V^{T}V\Sigma ^{T}U^{T}=U\Sigma \Sigma ^{T}U^{T}\\X^{T}X&=&(U\Sigma V^{T})^{T}(U\Sigma V^{T})=(V^{T^{T}}\Sigma ^{T}U^{T})(U\Sigma V^{T})=V\Sigma ^{T}U^{T}U\Sigma V^{T}=V\Sigma ^{T}\Sigma V^{T}\end{matrix}}} Since Σ Σ T {\displaystyle \Sigma \Sigma ^{T}} and Σ T Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{T}\Sigma } are diagonal we see that U {\displaystyle U} must contain the eigenvectors of X X T {\displaystyle XX^{T}} , while V {\displaystyle V} must be the eigenvectors of X T X {\displaystyle X^{T}X} . Both products have the same non-zero eigenvalues, given by the non-zero entries of Σ Σ T {\displaystyle \Sigma \Sigma ^{T}} , or equally, by the non-zero entries of Σ T Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma ^{T}\Sigma } . Now the decomposition looks like this: X U Σ V T ( d j ) ( d ^ j ) ↓ ↓ ( t i T ) → [ x 1 , 1 … x 1 , j … x 1 , n ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ x i , 1 … x i , j … x i , n ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ x m , 1 … x m , j … x m , n ] = ( t ^ i T ) → [ [ u 1 ] … [ u l ] ] ⋅ [ σ 1 … 0 ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ 0 … σ l ] ⋅ [ [ v 1 ] ⋮ [ v l ] ] {\displaystyle {\begin{matrix}&X&&&U&&\Sigma &&V^{T}\\&({\textbf {d}}_{j})&&&&&&&({\hat {\textbf {d}}}_{j})\\&\downarrow &&&&&&&\downarrow \\({\textbf {t}}_{i}^{T})\rightarrow &{\begin{bmatrix}x_{1,1}&\dots &x_{1,j}&\dots &x_{1,n}\\\vdots &\ddots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\x_{i,1}&\dots &x_{i,j}&\dots &x_{i,n}\\\vdots &\ddots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\x_{m,1}&\dots &x_{m,j}&\dots &x_{m,n}\\\end{bmatrix}}&=&({\hat {\textbf {t}}}_{i}^{T})\rightarrow &{\begin{bmatrix}{\begin{bmatrix}\,\\\,\\{\textbf {u}}_{1}\\\,\\\,\end{bmatrix}}\dots {\begin{bmatrix}\,\\\,\\{\textbf {u}}_{l}\\\,\\\,\end{bmatrix}}\end{bmatrix}}&\cdot &{\begin{bmatrix}\sigma _{1}&\dots &0\\\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\0&\dots &\sigma _{l}\\\end{bmatrix}}&\cdot &{\begin{bmatrix}{\begin{bmatrix}&&{\textbf {v}}_{1}&&\end{bmatrix}}\\\vdots \\{\begin{bmatrix}&&{\textbf {v}}_{l}&&\end{bmatrix}}\end{bmatrix}}\end{matrix}}} The values σ 1 , … , σ l {\displaystyle \sigma _{1},\dots ,\sigma _{l}} are called the singular values, and u 1 , … , u l {\displaystyle u_{1},\dots ,u_{l}} and v 1 , … , v l {\displaystyle v_{1},\dots ,v_{l}} the left and right singular vectors. Notice the only part of U {\displaystyle U} that contributes to t i {\displaystyle {\textbf {t}}_{i}} is the i 'th {\displaystyle i{\textrm {'th}}} row. Let this row vector be called t ^ i T {\displaystyle {\hat {\textrm {t}}}_{i}^{T}} . Likewise, the only part of V T {\displaystyle V^{T}} that contributes to d j {\displaystyle {\textbf {d}}_{j}} is the j 'th {\displaystyle j{\textrm {'th}}} column, d ^ j {\displaystyle {\hat {\textrm {d}}}_{j}} . These are not the eigenvectors, but depend on all the eigenvectors. I