Models, code, and papers for "John Harvey":

Lifelong Testing of Smart Autonomous Systems by Shepherding a Swarm of Watchdog Artificial Intelligence Agents

Dec 21, 2018
Hussein Abbass, John Harvey, Kate Yaxley

Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies could be broadly categorised into Analytics and Autonomy. Analytics focuses on algorithms offering perception, comprehension, and projection of knowledge gleaned from sensorial data. Autonomy revolves around decision making, and influencing and shaping the environment through action production. A smart autonomous system (SAS) combines analytics and autonomy to understand, learn, decide and act autonomously. To be useful, SAS must be trusted and that requires testing. Lifelong learning of a SAS compounds the testing process. In the remote chance that it is possible to fully test and certify the system pre-release, which is theoretically an undecidable problem, it is near impossible to predict the future behaviours that these systems, alone or collectively, will exhibit. While it may be feasible to severely restrict such systems\textquoteright \ learning abilities to limit the potential unpredictability of their behaviours, an undesirable consequence may be severely limiting their utility. In this paper, we propose the architecture for a watchdog AI (WAI) agent dedicated to lifelong functional testing of SAS. We further propose system specifications including a level of abstraction whereby humans shepherd a swarm of WAI agents to oversee an ecosystem made of humans and SAS. The discussion extends to the challenges, pros, and cons of the proposed concept.


  Click for Model/Code and Paper
Some observations on computer lip-reading: moving from the dream to the reality

Oct 03, 2017
Helen L. Bear, Gari Owen, Richard Harvey, Barry-John Theobald

In the quest for greater computer lip-reading performance there are a number of tacit assumptions which are either present in the datasets (high resolution for example) or in the methods (recognition of spoken visual units called visemes for example). Here we review these and other assumptions and show the surprising result that computer lip-reading is not heavily constrained by video resolution, pose, lighting and other practical factors. However, the working assumption that visemes, which are the visual equivalent of phonemes, are the best unit for recognition does need further examination. We conclude that visemes, which were defined over a century ago, are unlikely to be optimal for a modern computer lip-reading system.

* Helen L. Bear, Gari Owen, Richard Harvey, and Barry-John Theobald. Some observations on computer lip-reading: moving from the dream to the reality. International Society for Optics and Photonics- Security and defence. 2014. p92530G--92530G 

  Click for Model/Code and Paper
Resolution limits on visual speech recognition

Oct 03, 2017
Helen L. Bear, Richard Harvey, Barry-John Theobald, Yuxuan Lan

Visual-only speech recognition is dependent upon a number of factors that can be difficult to control, such as: lighting; identity; motion; emotion and expression. But some factors, such as video resolution are controllable, so it is surprising that there is not yet a systematic study of the effect of resolution on lip-reading. Here we use a new data set, the Rosetta Raven data, to train and test recognizers so we can measure the affect of video resolution on recognition accuracy. We conclude that, contrary to common practice, resolution need not be that great for automatic lip-reading. However it is highly unlikely that automatic lip-reading can work reliably when the distance between the bottom of the lower lip and the top of the upper lip is less than four pixels at rest.

* Helen L. Bear, Richard Harvey, Barry-John Theobald, Yuxuan Lan. Resolution limits on visual speech recognition. International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). 2014. p1371-1375 

  Click for Model/Code and Paper
Which phoneme-to-viseme maps best improve visual-only computer lip-reading?

Oct 03, 2017
Helen L. Bear, Richard W. Harvey, Barry-John Theobald, Yuxuan Lan

A critical assumption of all current visual speech recognition systems is that there are visual speech units called visemes which can be mapped to units of acoustic speech, the phonemes. Despite there being a number of published maps it is infrequent to see the effectiveness of these tested, particularly on visual-only lip-reading (many works use audio-visual speech). Here we examine 120 mappings and consider if any are stable across talkers. We show a method for devising maps based on phoneme confusions from an automated lip-reading system, and we present new mappings that show improvements for individual talkers.

* Helen L. Bear, Richard W. Harvey, Barry-John Theobald, and Yuxuan Lan. Which phoneme-to-viseme maps best improve visual-only computer lip-reading? Advances in Visual Computing 2014. p230-239 

  Click for Model/Code and Paper
Machine Learning in High Energy Physics Community White Paper

Jul 08, 2018
Kim Albertsson, Piero Altoe, Dustin Anderson, Michael Andrews, Juan Pedro Araque Espinosa, Adam Aurisano, Laurent Basara, Adrian Bevan, Wahid Bhimji, Daniele Bonacorsi, Paolo Calafiura, Mario Campanelli, Louis Capps, Federico Carminati, Stefano Carrazza, Taylor Childers, Elias Coniavitis, Kyle Cranmer, Claire David, Douglas Davis, Javier Duarte, Martin Erdmann, Jonas Eschle, Amir Farbin, Matthew Feickert, Nuno Filipe Castro, Conor Fitzpatrick, Michele Floris, Alessandra Forti, Jordi Garra-Tico, Jochen Gemmler, Maria Girone, Paul Glaysher, Sergei Gleyzer, Vladimir Gligorov, Tobias Golling, Jonas Graw, Lindsey Gray, Dick Greenwood, Thomas Hacker, John Harvey, Benedikt Hegner, Lukas Heinrich, Ben Hooberman, Johannes Junggeburth, Michael Kagan, Meghan Kane, Konstantin Kanishchev, Przemysław Karpiński, Zahari Kassabov, Gaurav Kaul, Dorian Kcira, Thomas Keck, Alexei Klimentov, Jim Kowalkowski, Luke Kreczko, Alexander Kurepin, Rob Kutschke, Valentin Kuznetsov, Nicolas Köhler, Igor Lakomov, Kevin Lannon, Mario Lassnig, Antonio Limosani, Gilles Louppe, Aashrita Mangu, Pere Mato, Narain Meenakshi, Helge Meinhard, Dario Menasce, Lorenzo Moneta, Seth Moortgat, Mark Neubauer, Harvey Newman, Hans Pabst, Michela Paganini, Manfred Paulini, Gabriel Perdue, Uzziel Perez, Attilio Picazio, Jim Pivarski, Harrison Prosper, Fernanda Psihas, Alexander Radovic, Ryan Reece, Aurelius Rinkevicius, Eduardo Rodrigues, Jamal Rorie, David Rousseau, Aaron Sauers, Steven Schramm, Ariel Schwartzman, Horst Severini, Paul Seyfert, Filip Siroky, Konstantin Skazytkin, Mike Sokoloff, Graeme Stewart, Bob Stienen, Ian Stockdale, Giles Strong, Savannah Thais, Karen Tomko, Eli Upfal, Emanuele Usai, Andrey Ustyuzhanin, Martin Vala, Sofia Vallecorsa, Mauro Verzetti, Xavier Vilasís-Cardona, Jean-Roch Vlimant, Ilija Vukotic, Sean-Jiun Wang, Gordon Watts, Michael Williams, Wenjing Wu, Stefan Wunsch, Omar Zapata

Machine learning is an important research area in particle physics, beginning with applications to high-level physics analysis in the 1990s and 2000s, followed by an explosion of applications in particle and event identification and reconstruction in the 2010s. In this document we discuss promising future research and development areas in machine learning in particle physics with a roadmap for their implementation, software and hardware resource requirements, collaborative initiatives with the data science community, academia and industry, and training the particle physics community in data science. The main objective of the document is to connect and motivate these areas of research and development with the physics drivers of the High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider and future neutrino experiments and identify the resource needs for their implementation. Additionally we identify areas where collaboration with external communities will be of great benefit.

* Editors: Sergei Gleyzer, Paul Seyfert and Steven Schramm 

  Click for Model/Code and Paper