The Vans challenge is a viral internet challenge that began in March 2019 where people show their Vans shoes landing right-side up after tossing them in the air. The viral sensation reportedly started after a Twitter user shared a video of the occurrence, which was captioned: “Did you know it doesn’t matter how you throw your Vans they will land facing up.” Since then, multiple people on social media posted similar videos of them throwing their Vans in the air and landing right-side up, along with Crocs, UGG boots, and other popular shoes. This theory proved false, as these shoes have not always landed facing up after tossing them.
Caffe (software)
Caffe (Convolutional Architecture for Fast Feature Embedding) is a deep learning framework, originally developed at University of California, Berkeley. It is open source, under a BSD license. It is written in C++, with a Python interface. == History == Yangqing Jia created the Caffe project during his PhD at UC Berkeley, while working the lab of Trevor Darrell. The first version, called "DeCAF", made its first appearance in Spring 2013 when it was used for the ILSVRC challenge (later called ImageNet). The library was named Caffe and released to the public in December 2013. It reached end-of-support in 2018. It is hosted on GitHub. == Features == Caffe supports many different types of deep learning architectures geared towards image classification and image segmentation. It supports CNN, RCNN, LSTM and fully-connected neural network designs. Caffe supports GPU- and CPU-based acceleration computational kernel libraries such as Nvidia cuDNN and Intel MKL. == Applications == Caffe is being used in academic research projects, startup prototypes, and even large-scale industrial applications in vision, speech, and multimedia. Yahoo! has also integrated Caffe with Apache Spark to create CaffeOnSpark, a distributed deep learning framework. == Caffe2 == In April 2017, Facebook announced Caffe2, which included new features such as recurrent neural network (RNN). At the end of March 2018, Caffe2 was merged into PyTorch.
Top 10 AI Background Removers Compared (2026)
Curious about the best AI background remover? An AI background remover is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI background remover slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.
IBM optical mark and character readers
IBM designed, manufactured and sold optical mark and character readers from 1960 until 1984. The IBM 1287 is notable as being the first commercially sold scanner capable of reading handwritten numbers. == Initial development work == IBM Poughkeepsie studied machine character recognition from 1950 till 1954, developing an experimental machine that used a cathode-ray-tube attached an IBM 701 which performed the character analysis. They pursued a technique known as lakes and bays which examined different areas of dark and light where the lakes were white areas enclosed by black and the bays were partially enclosed areas. Their machine and mission was moved to IBM Endicott in 1954, where research continued. From 1955 to 1956 they then worked on the VIDOR (Visual Document Reader) program, but they could not get agreement on acceptable reject rate. The developers felt 80% recognition was acceptable (meaning 20% of documents would need to be manually processed), while product planners and IBM Marketing felt that compared to punched card, the reject rate was unacceptably high. This led to no new products being released. In 1956 the American Bankers Association chose to use Magnetic Ink Character Recognition (MICR) to automate check handling, rejecting a proposed solution generated by an IBM Poughkeepsie banking project that used optical characters formed by vertical bars and digits. IBM developed a magnetic read head to handle the new standard, releasing the IBM 1210 MICR reader/sorter in 1959. The development work for this product both with read heads and document handling, helped move optical character recognition forward, with development focusing on reading one or two lines of print from a paper document larger than an IBM punched card. The first product to be released was the IBM 1418. == IBM 123x Optical Mark Readers == The IBM 1230, IBM 1231, and IBM 1232 were optical mark readers used to input the contents of data sources such as questionnaires, test results, surveys as well as historical data that could be easily entered as marks on sheets. Educational institutes used them to score test results and they were effectively a replacement for the IBM 805 Test Scoring Machine that used electrical resistance and a mark sense pencil to score a test, rather than optical mark detection. They were developed and manufactured by IBM Rochester. They have the following features: A pneumatic input hopper that can hold approximately 600 sheets Two output stackers: the normal stacker that holds 600 sheets and the select (or reject) stacker which holds 50 sheets. Pluggable SMS printed circuit cards They can read positional marks made by a lead pencil using an optical read head that consists of photovoltaic(solar) cells and lamps The 1230 has 21 photovoltaic cells, 20 for reading the pencil marks and one to read timing marks on the right hand border of the sheet. The 1231 and 1232 have 22 photovoltaic cells, 20 to read data, one to read timing marks and one to read a special feature called a master mark. Input size is a 8+1⁄2 in × 11 in (22 cm × 28 cm) sheet called a data sheet that can have up to 1000 marked or printed positions per side. Uses electromechanical devices known as sonic delay lines to store results. === IBM 1230 Optical Mark Scoring Reader === The IBM 1230 is an offline optical mark scoring machine announced on 2 November 1962 that was designed to read and scores 1,200 answer sheets per hour. Scored results are printed via a wire matrix printer on the right margin of each answer sheet as it is processed. Two master sheets are required for the process: one that encoded the correct answers and one for the machine to record run information. Output could be sent to an IBM 534 Model 3 Card Punch as an option, which limits throughput to 750 sheets per hour when punching 80 columns of data. === IBM 1231 Optical Mark Page Reader === The IBM 1231 is an online optical mark reader that was designed to read and score 2000 test answer sheets per hour, depending on downstream operations. The correct answers for the test can either be entered using a master sheet (like the 1230) or sent to the 1231 using the optional master-mark special feature. === IBM 1232 Optical Mark Page Reader === The IBM 1232 is an offline optical mark reader that was designed to read up to 2000 marked sheets per hour. Documents can be read at up to 2000 sheets per hour, but this depends on the number of characters that need to be punched from each sheet. The IBM 1232 reads the marks and then punches them into cards using a IBM 534 Model 3 Card Punch. Together they can read up to 64,000 characters per hour or 800 fully punched cards. === Example customers === The California Test Bureau (CTB) that provided standardised achievement tests for educational institutes across the USA, began replacing their IBM 805s with IBM 1230s in 1963. They then installed two IBM 1232s in 1964. Being able to use a full 8+1⁄2 in × 11 in (22 cm × 28 cm) answer sheet rather than a 7+3⁄8 in × 3+1⁄4 in (18.7 cm × 8.3 cm) mark sense card, eliminated the need to use multiple answer cards per test per student, as well as dramatically increased the marking speed for test answers. Credit Bureau Services of Dallas used an IBM 1232 in 1966 as part of their first computerisation project. They marked credit history data onto optical scanning sheets that were fed into their IBM 1232. The attached IBM 534 then punched this data onto punched cards, which were then fed into their IBM System/360 Model 30. In 1968 the US Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) began using special log books for their coastal surveyors to record coastal survey data, which was then converted to punched cards by an IBM 1232. == IBM 2956 Optical Mark/Hole Reader == The IBM 2956 Models 2 and 3 are custom build optical mark/hole readers designed to be attached to an IBM 2740 Communications Terminal. The IBM 2956-2 can read cards that have either been hand or machine marked or that have been punched. The cards can be fed by hand or from the 400 card hopper. It has a 400 card stacker. The 2956-2 could be ordered by request for price quotation (RPQ) 843086. The IBM 2956-3 can read cards that have either been hand or machine marked or that have been punched. It can also read marked sheets up to 9 in × 14 in (230 mm × 360 mm) in size, although only a 3+1⁄4 in (83 mm) band along the side of the sheet can be read (the width of a punched card). It does not have a hopper or a stacker, so each card or sheet must be manually fed into the machine. The 2956-3 could be ordered by request for price quotation (RPQ) 843106. The 2956-3 could be attached to an IBM 3276 or IBM 3278 display station with RPQ UB9001. One use case for the IBM 2956 is to grade school tests. On completion of a learning module a student can use an optical scan-type card to record answers to up to 27 questions, with up to 5 choices per question. They are scanned by the reader and the results are then transmitted to an IBM System/360 in remote job entry mode and can also be printed on the IBM 2740. The reader can also be attached to an IBM 3735 which transmits results to an IBM System/370 and which prints results on an IBM 3286 printer. They can also be attached to an IBM System/3. Note that the IBM 2956 Model 5 (2956-5) was a banking reader/sorter. == IBM 1282 Optical Reader Card Punch == The IBM 1282 is an offline optical reader that is used to read embossed credit card receipts, a mark read field or machine printed characters in three different fonts. It then outputs this data onto a punched card. It was developed and manufactured by IBM Endicott. It proved popular and within two years of announcement 100 machines were installed or on order. === Example customer === The New York Department of Motor Vehicles reported that from 1964 until 1968 they were using an IBM 1282 to read machine printed license renewal slips that had been mailed back as part of the renewal process. They would scan the slip and then process the resulting punched card. This worked well until the DMV decided to request renewals include the drivers Social Security Number (SSN), which meant a handwritten number needed to be either manually keyed or a new scanning device procured. They switched to the IBM 1287 in 1968. == IBM 1285 Optical Reader == The IBM 1285 is an online optical reader that is used to read printed paper tapes from cash registers or adding machines. It was developed by IBM Endicott and manufactured by IBM Rochester. The IBM 1285 attaches to an IBM 1401, 1440, 1460 or System/360. It has a small round screen to display characters being read and it has a keyboard to enter header information and to optionally enter character corrections for rejected characters. It can read a 200 ft (61 m) roll or paper tape in three-and-a half minutes, reading data at speeds of up to 3000 lines per minute. It can mark the tape with a dot to indicate unreadable characters, so they can be r
Krohn–Rhodes theory
In mathematics and computer science, the Krohn–Rhodes theory (or algebraic automata theory) is an approach to the study of finite semigroups and automata that seeks to decompose them in terms of elementary components. These components correspond to finite aperiodic semigroups and finite simple groups that are combined in a feedback-free manner (called a "wreath product" or "cascade"). Krohn and Rhodes found a general decomposition for finite automata. The authors discovered and proved an unexpected major result in finite semigroup theory, revealing a deep connection between finite automata and semigroups. Decidability of Krohn-Rhodes complexity long motivated much work in semigroup theory. In June 2024, Stuart Margolis, John Rhodes, and Anne Schilling announced a proof that the complexity is decidable. == Definitions and description of the Krohn–Rhodes theorem == Let T {\displaystyle T} be a semigroup. A semigroup S {\displaystyle S} that is a homomorphic image of a subsemigroup of T {\displaystyle T} is said to be a divisor of T {\displaystyle T} . The Krohn–Rhodes theorem for finite semigroups states that every finite semigroup S {\displaystyle S} is a divisor of a finite alternating wreath product of finite simple groups, each a divisor of S {\displaystyle S} , and finite aperiodic semigroups (which contain no nontrivial subgroups). In the automata formulation, the Krohn–Rhodes theorem for finite automata states that given a finite automaton A {\displaystyle A} with states Q {\displaystyle Q} and input alphabet I {\displaystyle I} , output alphabet U {\displaystyle U} , then one can expand the states to Q ′ {\displaystyle Q'} such that the new automaton A ′ {\displaystyle A'} embeds into a cascade of "simple", irreducible automata: In particular, A {\displaystyle A} is emulated by a feed-forward cascade of (1) automata whose transformation semigroups are finite simple groups and (2) automata that are banks of flip-flops running in parallel. The new automaton A ′ {\displaystyle A'} has the same input and output symbols as A {\displaystyle A} . Here, both the states and inputs of the cascaded automata have a very special hierarchical coordinate form. Moreover, each simple group (prime) or non-group irreducible semigroup (subsemigroup of the flip-flop monoid) that divides the transformation semigroup of A {\displaystyle A} must divide the transformation semigroup of some component of the cascade, and only the primes that must occur as divisors of the components are those that divide A {\displaystyle A} 's transformation semigroup. == Group complexity == The Krohn–Rhodes complexity (also called group complexity or just complexity) of a finite semigroup S is the least number of groups in a wreath product of finite groups and finite aperiodic semigroups of which S is a divisor. All finite aperiodic semigroups have complexity 0, while non-trivial finite groups have complexity 1. In fact, there are semigroups of every non-negative integer complexity. For example, for any n greater than 1, the multiplicative semigroup of all (n+1) × (n+1) upper-triangular matrices over any fixed finite field has complexity n (Kambites, 2007). A major open problem in finite semigroup theory is the decidability of complexity: is there an algorithm that will compute the Krohn–Rhodes complexity of a finite semigroup, given its multiplication table? Upper bounds and ever more precise lower bounds on complexity have been obtained (see, e.g. Rhodes & Steinberg, 2009). Rhodes has conjectured that the problem is decidable. In June 2024, Stuart Margolis, John Rhodes, and Anne Schilling announced a proof in the affirmative of the conjecture, though as of 2025 the result has yet to be confirmed. == History and applications == At a conference in 1962, Kenneth Krohn and John Rhodes announced a method for decomposing a (deterministic) finite automaton into "simple" components that are themselves finite automata. This joint work, which has implications for philosophy, comprised both Krohn's doctoral thesis at Harvard University and Rhodes' doctoral thesis at MIT. Simpler proofs, and generalizations of the theorem to infinite structures, have been published since then (see Chapter 4 of Rhodes and Steinberg's 2009 book The q-Theory of Finite Semigroups for an overview). In the 1965 paper by Krohn and Rhodes, the proof of the theorem on the decomposition of finite automata (or, equivalently sequential machines) made extensive use of the algebraic semigroup structure. Later proofs contained major simplifications using finite wreath products of finite transformation semigroups. The theorem generalizes the Jordan–Hölder decomposition for finite groups (in which the primes are the finite simple groups), to all finite transformation semigroups (for which the primes are again the finite simple groups plus all subsemigroups of the "flip-flop" (see above)). Both the group and more general finite automata decomposition require expanding the state-set of the general, but allow for the same number of input symbols. In the general case, these are embedded in a larger structure with a hierarchical "coordinate system". One must be careful in understanding the notion of "prime" as Krohn and Rhodes explicitly refer to their theorem as a "prime decomposition theorem" for automata. The components in the decomposition, however, are not prime automata (with prime defined in a naïve way); rather, the notion of prime is more sophisticated and algebraic: the semigroups and groups associated to the constituent automata of the decomposition are prime (or irreducible) in a strict and natural algebraic sense with respect to the wreath product (Eilenberg, 1976). Also, unlike earlier decomposition theorems, the Krohn–Rhodes decompositions usually require expansion of the state-set, so that the expanded automaton covers (emulates) the one being decomposed. These facts have made the theorem difficult to understand and challenging to apply in a practical way—until recently, when computational implementations became available (Egri-Nagy & Nehaniv 2005, 2008). H.P. Zeiger (1967) proved an important variant called the holonomy decomposition (Eilenberg 1976). The holonomy method appears to be relatively efficient and has been implemented computationally by A. Egri-Nagy (Egri-Nagy & Nehaniv 2005). Meyer and Thompson (1969) give a version of Krohn–Rhodes decomposition for finite automata that is equivalent to the decomposition previously developed by Hartmanis and Stearns, but for useful decompositions, the notion of expanding the state-set of the original automaton is essential (for the non-permutation automata case). Many proofs and constructions now exist of Krohn–Rhodes decompositions (e.g., [Krohn, Rhodes & Tilson 1968], [Ésik 2000], [Diekert et al. 2012]), with the holonomy method the most popular and efficient in general (although not in all cases). [Zimmermann 2010] gives an elementary proof of the theorem. Owing to the close relation between monoids and categories, a version of the Krohn–Rhodes theorem is applicable to category theory. This observation and a proof of an analogous result were offered by Wells (1980). The Krohn–Rhodes theorem for semigroups/monoids is an analogue of the Jordan–Hölder theorem for finite groups (for semigroups/monoids rather than groups). As such, the theorem is a deep and important result in semigroup/monoid theory. The theorem was also surprising to many mathematicians and computer scientists since it had previously been widely believed that the semigroup/monoid axioms were too weak to admit a structure theorem of any strength, and prior work (Hartmanis & Stearns) was only able to show much more rigid and less general decomposition results for finite automata. Work by Egri-Nagy and Nehaniv (2005, 2008–) continues to further automate the holonomy version of the Krohn–Rhodes decomposition extended with the related decomposition for finite groups (so-called Frobenius–Lagrange coordinates) using the computer algebra system GAP. Applications outside of the semigroup and monoid theories are now computationally feasible. They include computations in biology and biochemical systems (e.g. Egri-Nagy & Nehaniv 2008), artificial intelligence, finite-state physics, psychology, and game theory (see, for example, Rhodes 2009).
Masking (art)
In art, craft, and engineering, masking is the use of materials to protect areas from change, or to focus change on other areas. This can describe either the techniques and materials used to control the development of a work of art by protecting a desired area from change; or a phenomenon that (either intentionally or unintentionally) causes a sensation to be concealed from conscious attention. The term is derived from the word mask, in the sense that it hides the face from view. == In painting == Masking materials supplement a painter's dexterity and choice of applicator to control where paint is laid. Examples include the use of a stencil or masking tape to protect areas which are not to be painted. === Solid masks === Most solid masks require an adhesive to hold the mask in place while work is performed. Some, such as masking tape and frisket, come with adhesive pre-applied. Solid masks are readily available in bulk, and are used in large painting jobs. Paper products Kraft paper Butcher paper Masking tape Plastic film Frisket Polyester tape Stencils Silk screen === Liquid masks === Liquid masks are preferred where precision is needed; they prevent paint from seeping underneath, resulting in clean edges. Care must be taken to remove them without damaging the work underneath. Latex or other polymers Molten wax Gesso, typically a substrate for painting, but can also be applied to achieve masking effects == In photography == Masks used for photography are used to enhance the quality of an image. Representations of a scene—whether film, video display, or printed—do not have the dynamic contrast range available to the human eye looking directly at the same scene. Adjusting the contrast in an image helps restore some of the perceived qualities of the original scene. These adjustments are typically performed on "blown-out" highlights, and "crushed" or "muddy" shadow areas, where clipping has occurred; or on desaturated colors. Photographic masks are peculiar in that they are produced from the image they will alter, an exercise in recursion. Masks used to produce other effects are similar to those used in painting. === Controlling exposure === ==== Film ==== The basic methods of controlling exposure are dodging and burning, which respectively lighten (reduce exposure) and darken (increase exposure) areas of an image. The tools a film photographer uses range from shaped pieces of black material (such as studio foil, foam, and paper) to the photographer's hands. To create a photographic mask, a sheet of negative film is contact-exposed to the original film negative or slide positive in a particular way. Both films are then combined to produce a processed positive. The process is similar when applied using digital techniques: the inverse of the working image is reduced to an image mask; filters or other adjustments are then applied, using the mask to selectively block portions of the image. ==== Digital ==== Image editors offer at the very least a "Select All" command and a rectangular "marquee" selection tool. (The word "marquee" describes the "crawling ants" border used to highlight the active region.) Once a selection is created, further changes to the image will be confined to that area. To continue editing the rest of the image, the selection is either "deselected" or the entire image is selected. Advanced suites offer more ways to select portions of an image, as well as ways to combine these selections through. Selection masks can be switched between an editable greyscale image and a mask. They allow the user to create a mask using the suite's painting tools. === Contrast masking === When the contrast range of an image needs to be adjusted, a contrast mask is a simple solution. The processed image resembles what would be achieved when exposing through a neutral density filter, but the effects are focused highly upon the extreme regions of the image. The blocking areas of the mask coincide with the highlights of the image, and the permissive areas with the shadows, resulting in more detail appearing in each. ==== Film ==== The mask is often made from high-quality black-and-white film, such as Kodak Technical Pan, which allows for a degree of softening on the mask. Its processing time is reduced so as to not completely oppose the original negative. Both negatives are combined and registered, and collectively exposed with additional time to compensate for the presence of the mask. ==== Digital ==== Contrast masking is made simpler with digital editing. A grayscale version of the image is produced, either by desaturation or by calculating selected ratios of the image's color channels, inverted, and blurred. The mask and original image are blended together to produce the final processed image. Some image editors allow for refinement of the effect by changing the strength of the blend. Contrast masking can be considered to be the opposite of gamma correction, which adjusts the midtones of an image. Effects similar to contrast masking can be achieved by adjusting the response curves of an image. === Unsharp masking === A derivative of contrast masking is unsharp masking, an unusual term for a process intended to increase the apparent sharpness (acutance) of an image. Unsharp masking uses a blurred form of the image to increase contrast along regions of moderate contrast difference. Around edges, the blur region causes highlights to overexpose and shadows to underexpose. Taken to an extreme, the edges become overly visible and detract from the quality of the image—this is referred to as halation. Unsharp masking does not increase the actual sharpness, as it cannot recover details lost to blurring. ==== Film ==== Unsharp masking allows the photographer to sharpen areas that have become blurred in the original negative, due to long shutter speed/exposure time, or from using a wide aperture/"fast" lens. When creating the unsharp mask, extra space or diffusing material is added between the image and the mask to produce the necessary blur. ==== Digital ==== Unsharp masking has become automated in digital editing, with higher-end suites offering the process as a "tool" or "filter" in their standard sharpening kits—the actual creation of a mask is bypassed in favor of calculations that represent the mask's effect. The process depends on three factors: the radius of the blur, the strength of the effect, and the threshold degree of contrast above which the effect will be applied. (Adjusting the threshold allows the editor to apply the effect selectively upon moderately defined edges and ignore image noise.) Unsharp masking is computationally more complex than other sharpening algorithms, but results in a higher-quality remedy. Deconvolution allows for truer sharpening, but is much more complex than unsharp masking.
Levenshtein automaton
In computer science, a Levenshtein automaton for a string w and a number n is a finite-state automaton that can recognize the set of all strings whose Levenshtein distance from w is at most n. That is, a string x is in the formal language recognized by the Levenshtein automaton if and only if x can be transformed into w by at most n single-character insertions, deletions, and substitutions. == Applications == Levenshtein automata may be used for spelling correction, by finding words in a given dictionary that are close to a misspelled word. In this application, once a word is identified as being misspelled, its Levenshtein automaton may be constructed, and then applied to all of the words in the dictionary to determine which ones are close to the misspelled word. If the dictionary is stored in compressed form as a trie, the time for this algorithm (after the automaton has been constructed) is proportional to the number of nodes in the trie, significantly faster than using dynamic programming to compute the Levenshtein distance separately for each dictionary word. It is also possible to find words in a regular language, rather than a finite dictionary, that are close to a given target word, by computing the Levenshtein automaton for the word, and then using a Cartesian product construction to combine it with an automaton for the regular language, giving an automaton for the intersection language. Alternatively, rather than using the product construction, both the Levenshtein automaton and the automaton for the given regular language may be traversed simultaneously using a backtracking algorithm. Levenshtein automata are used in Lucene for full-text searches that can return relevant documents even if the query is misspelled. == Construction == For any fixed constant n, the Levenshtein automaton for w and n may be constructed in time O(|w|). Mitankin studies a variant of this construction called the universal Levenshtein automaton, determined only by a numeric parameter n, that can recognize pairs of words (encoded in a certain way by bitvectors) that are within Levenshtein distance n of each other. Touzet proposed an effective algorithm to build this automaton. Yet a third finite automaton construction of Levenshtein (or Damerau–Levenshtein) distance are the Levenshtein transducers of Hassan et al., who show finite state transducers implementing edit distance one, then compose these to implement edit distances up to some constant.