Timo Untamo Honkela (August 4, 1962 – May 9, 2020) was a computer scientist at the University of Helsinki, Aalto University School of Science and Aalto University School of Art, Design and Architecture. He holds a PhD from Helsinki University of Technology. From 2014 until 2018 he held a fixed-term professorship at the University of Helsinki. Before joining the University of Helsinki he worked as a non-tenured professor in two Schools of the Aalto University, The School of Art, Design and Architecture and the School of Science. He has presented his thoughts on his studies and work in the joint blog 375 Humanists. Timo Honkela conducted research on several areas related to knowledge engineering, cognitive modeling and natural language processing. Honkela was born in Kalajoki. From 1998 to 2000 he worked as a professor in the Aalto Media Lab. To the media Lab Honkela brought his expertise in Kohonen self-organising map (SOM) and worked closely with artist and designers around the topic. In 2001 Honkela collaborated with George Legrady to produce an interactive museum installation, Pockets Full of Memories to the Centre Georges Pompidou, National Museum of Modern Art in Paris. The concept, created by Legrady, provided for visitors a possibility to scan their own objects to a database and then organise them by Kohonen Self-Organizing Map algorithm. In 2017 Honkela published a book in Finnish. The book Rauhankone (English: Peace Machine) presents his idea of designing artificial intelligence and machine learning to serve humanity, in practice to help people to live in peace with each other. He died in Helsinki. == Publications == Timo Honkela, Wlodzislaw Duch, Mark Girolami and Samuel Kaski (editors): Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning, Springer, 2011. Jorma Laaksonen and Timo Honkela (editors): Advances in Self-Organizing Maps, Springer, 2011. Timo Honkela: Rauhankone. Gaudeamus, 2017.
Gonioreflectometer
A gonioreflectometer is a device for measuring a bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF). The device consists of a light source illuminating the material to be measured and a sensor that captures light reflected from that material. The light source should be able to illuminate and the sensor should be able to capture data from a hemisphere around the target. The hemispherical rotation dimensions of the sensor and light source are the four dimensions of the BRDF. The 'gonio' part of the word refers to the device's ability to measure at different angles. Several similar devices have been built and used to capture data for similar functions. Most of these devices use a camera instead of the light intensity-measuring sensor to capture a two-dimensional sample of the target. Examples include: a spatial gonioreflectometer for capturing the SBRDF (McAllister, 2002). a camera gantry for capturing the light field (Levoy and Hanrahan, 1996). an unnamed device for capturing the bidirectional texture function (Dana et al., 1999).
Stability (learning theory)
Stability, also known as algorithmic stability, is a notion in computational learning theory of how a machine learning algorithm output is changed with small perturbations to its inputs. A stable learning algorithm is one for which the prediction does not change much when the training data is modified slightly. For instance, consider a machine learning algorithm that is being trained to recognize handwritten letters of the alphabet, using 1000 examples of handwritten letters and their labels ("A" to "Z") as a training set. One way to modify this training set is to leave out an example, so that only 999 examples of handwritten letters and their labels are available. A stable learning algorithm would produce a similar classifier with both the 1000-element and 999-element training sets. Stability can be studied for many types of learning problems, from language learning to inverse problems in physics and engineering, as it is a property of the learning process rather than the type of information being learned. The study of stability gained importance in computational learning theory in the 2000s when it was shown to have a connection with generalization. It was shown that for large classes of learning algorithms, notably empirical risk minimization algorithms, certain types of stability ensure good generalization. == History == A central goal in designing a machine learning system is to guarantee that the learning algorithm will generalize, or perform accurately on new examples after being trained on a finite number of them. In the 1990s, milestones were reached in obtaining generalization bounds for supervised learning algorithms. The technique historically used to prove generalization was to show that an algorithm was consistent, using the uniform convergence properties of empirical quantities to their means. This technique was used to obtain generalization bounds for the large class of empirical risk minimization (ERM) algorithms. An ERM algorithm is one that selects a solution from a hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} in such a way to minimize the empirical error on a training set S {\displaystyle S} . A general result, proved by Vladimir Vapnik for an ERM binary classification algorithms, is that for any target function and input distribution, any hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} with VC-dimension d {\displaystyle d} , and n {\displaystyle n} training examples, the algorithm is consistent and will produce a training error that is at most O ( d n ) {\displaystyle O\left({\sqrt {\frac {d}{n}}}\right)} (plus logarithmic factors) from the true error. The result was later extended to almost-ERM algorithms with function classes that do not have unique minimizers. Vapnik's work, using what became known as VC theory, established a relationship between generalization of a learning algorithm and properties of the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} of functions being learned. However, these results could not be applied to algorithms with hypothesis spaces of unbounded VC-dimension. Put another way, these results could not be applied when the information being learned had a complexity that was too large to measure. Some of the simplest machine learning algorithms—for instance, for regression—have hypothesis spaces with unbounded VC-dimension. Another example is language learning algorithms that can produce sentences of arbitrary length. Stability analysis was developed in the 2000s for computational learning theory and is an alternative method for obtaining generalization bounds. The stability of an algorithm is a property of the learning process, rather than a direct property of the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} , and it can be assessed in algorithms that have hypothesis spaces with unbounded or undefined VC-dimension such as nearest neighbor. A stable learning algorithm is one for which the learned function does not change much when the training set is slightly modified, for instance by leaving out an example. A measure of Leave one out error is used in a Cross Validation Leave One Out (CVloo) algorithm to evaluate a learning algorithm's stability with respect to the loss function. As such, stability analysis is the application of sensitivity analysis to machine learning. == Summary of classic results == Early 1900s - Stability in learning theory was earliest described in terms of continuity of the learning map L {\displaystyle L} , traced to Andrey Nikolayevich Tikhonov. 1979 - Devroye and Wagner observed that the leave-one-out behavior of an algorithm is related to its sensitivity to small changes in the sample. 1999 - Kearns and Ron discovered a connection between finite VC-dimension and stability. 2002 - In a landmark paper, Bousquet and Elisseeff proposed the notion of uniform hypothesis stability of a learning algorithm and showed that it implies low generalization error. Uniform hypothesis stability, however, is a strong condition that does not apply to large classes of algorithms, including ERM algorithms with a hypothesis space of only two functions. 2002 - Kutin and Niyogi extended Bousquet and Elisseeff's results by providing generalization bounds for several weaker forms of stability which they called almost-everywhere stability. Furthermore, they took an initial step in establishing the relationship between stability and consistency in ERM algorithms in the Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) setting. 2004 - Poggio et al. proved a general relationship between stability and ERM consistency. They proposed a statistical form of leave-one-out-stability which they called CVEEEloo stability, and showed that it is a) sufficient for generalization in bounded loss classes, and b) necessary and sufficient for consistency (and thus generalization) of ERM algorithms for certain loss functions such as the square loss, the absolute value and the binary classification loss. 2010 - Shalev Shwartz et al. noticed problems with the original results of Vapnik due to the complex relations between hypothesis space and loss class. They discuss stability notions that capture different loss classes and different types of learning, supervised and unsupervised. 2016 - Moritz Hardt et al. proved stability of gradient descent given certain assumption on the hypothesis and number of times each instance is used to update the model. == Preliminary definitions == We define several terms related to learning algorithms training sets, so that we can then define stability in multiple ways and present theorems from the field. A machine learning algorithm, also known as a learning map L {\displaystyle L} , maps a training data set, which is a set of labeled examples ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} , onto a function f {\displaystyle f} from X {\displaystyle X} to Y {\displaystyle Y} , where X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} are in the same space of the training examples. The functions f {\displaystyle f} are selected from a hypothesis space of functions called H {\displaystyle H} . The training set from which an algorithm learns is defined as S = { z 1 = ( x 1 , y 1 ) , . . , z m = ( x m , y m ) } {\displaystyle S=\{z_{1}=(x_{1},\ y_{1})\ ,..,\ z_{m}=(x_{m},\ y_{m})\}} and is of size m {\displaystyle m} in Z = X × Y {\displaystyle Z=X\times Y} drawn i.i.d. from an unknown distribution D. Thus, the learning map L {\displaystyle L} is defined as a mapping from Z m {\displaystyle Z_{m}} into H {\displaystyle H} , mapping a training set S {\displaystyle S} onto a function f S {\displaystyle f_{S}} from X {\displaystyle X} to Y {\displaystyle Y} . Here, we consider only deterministic algorithms where L {\displaystyle L} is symmetric with respect to S {\displaystyle S} , i.e. it does not depend on the order of the elements in the training set. Furthermore, we assume that all functions are measurable and all sets are countable. The loss V {\displaystyle V} of a hypothesis f {\displaystyle f} with respect to an example z = ( x , y ) {\displaystyle z=(x,y)} is then defined as V ( f , z ) = V ( f ( x ) , y ) {\displaystyle V(f,z)=V(f(x),y)} . The empirical error of f {\displaystyle f} is I S [ f ] = 1 n ∑ V ( f , z i ) {\displaystyle I_{S}[f]={\frac {1}{n}}\sum V(f,z_{i})} . The true error of f {\displaystyle f} is I [ f ] = E z V ( f , z ) {\displaystyle I[f]=\mathbb {E} _{z}V(f,z)} Given a training set S of size m, we will build, for all i = 1....,m, modified training sets as follows: By removing the i-th element S | i = { z 1 , . . . , z i − 1 , z i + 1 , . . . , z m } {\displaystyle S^{|i}=\{z_{1},...,\ z_{i-1},\ z_{i+1},...,\ z_{m}\}} By replacing the i-th element S i = { z 1 , . . . , z i − 1 , z i ′ , z i + 1 , . . . , z m } {\displaystyle S^{i}=\{z_{1},...,\ z_{i-1},\ z_{i}',\ z_{i+1},...,\ z_{m}\}} == Definitions of stability == === Hypothesis Stability === An algorithm L {\displaystyle L} has hypothesis stability β with respect to the loss function V if the following holds: ∀ i ∈ { 1 , . . . , m } , E S , z [ | V ( f S , z ) − V ( f S |
Decision tree pruning
Pruning is a data compression technique in machine learning and search algorithms that reduces the size of decision trees by removing sections of the tree that are non-critical and redundant to classify instances. Pruning reduces the complexity of the final classifier, and hence improves predictive accuracy by the reduction of overfitting. One of the questions that arises in a decision tree algorithm is the optimal size of the final tree. A tree that is too large risks overfitting the training data and poorly generalizing to new samples. A small tree might not capture important structural information about the sample space. However, it is hard to tell when a tree algorithm should stop because it is impossible to tell if the addition of a single extra node will dramatically decrease error. This problem is known as the horizon effect. A common strategy is to grow the tree until each node contains a small number of instances then use pruning to remove nodes that do not provide additional information. Pruning should reduce the size of a learning tree without reducing predictive accuracy as measured by a cross-validation set. There are many techniques for tree pruning that differ in the measurement that is used to optimize performance. == Techniques == Pruning processes can be divided into two types (pre- and post-pruning). Pre-pruning procedures prevent a complete induction of the training set by replacing a stop () criterion in the induction algorithm (e.g. max. Tree depth or information gain (Attr)> minGain). Pre-pruning methods are considered to be more efficient because they do not induce an entire set, but rather trees remain small from the start. Prepruning methods share a common problem, the horizon effect. This is to be understood as the undesired premature termination of the induction by the stop () criterion. Post-pruning (or just pruning) is the most common way of simplifying trees. Here, nodes and subtrees are replaced with leaves to reduce complexity. Pruning can not only significantly reduce the size but also improve the classification accuracy of unseen objects. It may be the case that the accuracy of the assignment on the train set deteriorates, but the accuracy of the classification properties of the tree increases overall. The procedures are differentiated on the basis of their approach in the tree (top-down or bottom-up). === Bottom-up pruning === These procedures start at the last node in the tree (the lowest point). Following recursively upwards, they determine the relevance of each individual node. If the relevance for the classification is not given, the node is dropped or replaced by a leaf. The advantage is that no relevant sub-trees can be lost with this method. These methods include Reduced Error Pruning (REP), Minimum Cost Complexity Pruning (MCCP), or Minimum Error Pruning (MEP). === Top-down pruning === In contrast to the bottom-up method, this method starts at the root of the tree. Following the structure below, a relevance check is carried out which decides whether a node is relevant for the classification of all n items or not. By pruning the tree at an inner node, it can happen that an entire sub-tree (regardless of its relevance) is dropped. One of these representatives is pessimistic error pruning (PEP), which brings quite good results with unseen items. == Pruning algorithms == === Reduced error pruning === One of the simplest forms of pruning is reduced error pruning. Starting at the leaves, each node is replaced with its most popular class. If the prediction accuracy is not affected then the change is kept. While somewhat naive, reduced error pruning has the advantage of simplicity and speed. === Cost complexity pruning === Cost complexity pruning generates a series of trees T 0 … T m {\displaystyle T_{0}\dots T_{m}} where T 0 {\displaystyle T_{0}} is the initial tree and T m {\displaystyle T_{m}} is the root alone. At step i {\displaystyle i} , the tree is created by removing a subtree from tree i − 1 {\displaystyle i-1} and replacing it with a leaf node with value chosen as in the tree building algorithm. The subtree that is removed is chosen as follows: Define the error rate of tree T {\displaystyle T} over data set S {\displaystyle S} as err ( T , S ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {err} (T,S)} . The subtree t {\displaystyle t} that minimizes err ( prune ( T , t ) , S ) − err ( T , S ) | leaves ( T ) | − | leaves ( prune ( T , t ) ) | {\displaystyle {\frac {\operatorname {err} (\operatorname {prune} (T,t),S)-\operatorname {err} (T,S)}{\left\vert \operatorname {leaves} (T)\right\vert -\left\vert \operatorname {leaves} (\operatorname {prune} (T,t))\right\vert }}} is chosen for removal. The function prune ( T , t ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {prune} (T,t)} defines the tree obtained by pruning the subtrees t {\displaystyle t} from the tree T {\displaystyle T} . Once the series of trees has been created, the best tree is chosen by generalized accuracy as measured by a training set or cross-validation. == Examples == Pruning could be applied in a compression scheme of a learning algorithm to remove the redundant details without compromising the model's performances. In neural networks, pruning removes entire neurons or layers of neurons.
The AI Con
The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech's Hype and Create the Future We Want is a 2025 non-fiction book by linguist Emily M. Bender and sociologist Alex Hanna. It argues that much of what is labeled "artificial intelligence" is a misleading term that obscures ordinary automation while concentrating power in a small number of technology firms. The book was published in May 2025 by Harper in the United States and Bodley Head in the United Kingdom. It was developed alongside the authors' long-running podcast Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000, which critiques exaggerated claims about AI. == Synopsis == The authors present AI as a marketing umbrella that encourages audiences to infer understanding and agency where none exist. They argue readers should treat such language skeptically and to separate specific automated tasks from broad claims of intelligence. The book describes a recurring hype cycle in which corporate narratives justify data and labor extraction, the replacement of human services with cheaper substitutes, and the diversion of attention from present harms to speculative futures. While acknowledging limited uses such as pattern recognition, the authors argue that contemporary systems are best understood as text and media generators shaped by training data and human labor, not as thinking or reasoning entities. A central theme is the social and environmental cost of scaling these systems, including increased energy and water use, the appropriation of creative work for training, and the outsourcing of ghost work to low-paid data workers worldwide. These costs are linked to workplace effects, with the authors arguing that automation rarely eliminates jobs outright and more often degrades them through surveillance, work intensification, and unpaid oversight. As alternatives to passive adoption, the authors propose concrete responses: asking precise questions about what is being automated and why, demanding transparency about data and evaluation, and practicing what they call strategic refusal when deployment conflicts with evidence or values. The book also develops a vocabulary for public debate, rejecting both boosterish and doomerish narratives as grounded in the same assumption that AI is a singular, autonomous force. The authors recommend reading strategies such as favoring trusted human sources over automated summaries and using humor to deflate inflated claims. They describe a link between language to policy and power, arguing that precise terminology can help policymakers and the public resist austerity-driven automation and demand accountability for errors and harms. == Reception == The Guardian praised the book's myth-busting approach and its analysis of how hype erodes cultural and civic life by normalizing synthetic media as a substitute for human judgment. Kirkus Reviews described it as a contrarian account that catalogs concrete risks while cutting through speculative predictions. An interview in Business Insider highlighted the authors' accessible frameworks, including their proposal to describe chatbots as conversation simulators and to evaluate systems in terms of values, labor, and evidence. Coverage in GeekWire emphasized the book's call for resistance through collective bargaining, stronger data rights, and a norm of rejecting deployments that fail basic standards of necessity and evaluation. Some reviews were more critical. A review in LLRX argued that the book's tone could be overly polemical and that it gave limited attention to potential benefits claimed for generative systems. Coverage in the Financial Times, focused on Bender's broader public scholarship, situated the book within her long-standing critique of anthropomorphic narratives about large language models and her advocacy for more democratic oversight of automated systems.
Visual descriptor
In computer vision, visual descriptors or image descriptors are descriptions of the visual features of the contents in images, videos, or algorithms or applications that produce such descriptions. They describe elementary characteristics such as the shape, the color, the texture or the motion, among others. == Introduction == As a result of the new communication technologies and the massive use of Internet in our society, the amount of audio-visual information available in digital format is increasing considerably. Therefore, it has been necessary to design some systems that allow us to describe the content of several types of multimedia information in order to search and classify them. The audio-visual descriptors are in charge of the contents description. These descriptors have a good knowledge of the objects and events found in a video, image or audio and they allow the quick and efficient searches of the audio-visual content. This system can be compared to the search engines for textual contents. Although it is relatively easy to find text with a computer, it is much more difficult to find concrete audio and video parts. For instance, imagine somebody searching a scene of a happy person. The happiness is a feeling and it is not evident its shape, color and texture description in images. The description of the audio-visual content is not a superficial task and it is essential for the effective use of this type of archives. The standardization system that deals with audio-visual descriptors is the MPEG-7 (Motion Picture Expert Group - 7). == Types == Descriptors are the first step to find out the connection between pixels contained in a digital image and what humans recall after having observed an image or a group of images after some minutes. Visual descriptors are divided in two main groups: General information descriptors: contain low level descriptors which give a description about color, shape, regions, textures and motion. Specific domain information descriptors: give information about objects and events in the scene. A concrete example would be face recognition. === General information descriptors === General information descriptors consist of a set of descriptors that covers different basic and elementary features like: color, texture, shape, motion, location and others. This description is automatically generated by means of signal processing. ==== Color ==== It's the most basic quality of visual content. Five tools are defined to describe color. The three first tools represent the color distribution and the last ones describe the color relation between sequences or group of images: Dominant color descriptor (DCD) Scalable color descriptor (SCD) Color structure descriptor (CSD) Color layout descriptor (CLD) Group of frame (GoF) or group-of-pictures (GoP) ==== Texture ==== It's an important quality in order to describe an image. The texture descriptors characterize image textures or regions. They observe the region homogeneity and the histograms of these region borders. The set of descriptors is formed by: Homogeneous texture descriptor (HTD) Texture browsing descriptor (TBD) Edge histogram descriptor (EHD) ==== Shape ==== It contains important semantic information due to human's ability to recognize objects through their shape. However, this information can only be extracted by means of a segmentation similar to the one that the human visual system implements. Nowadays, such a segmentation system is not available yet, however there exists a serial of algorithms which are considered to be a good approximation. These descriptors describe regions, contours and shapes for 2D images and for 3D volumes. The shape descriptors are the following ones: Region-based shape descriptor (RSD) Contour-based shape descriptor (CSD) 3-D shape descriptor (3-D SD) ==== Motion ==== It's defined by four different descriptors which describe motion in video sequence. Motion is related to the objects motion in the sequence and to the camera motion. This last information is provided by the capture device, whereas the rest is implemented by means of image processing. The descriptor set is the following one: Motion activity descriptor (MAD) Camera motion descriptor (CMD) Motion trajectory descriptor (MTD) Warping and parametric motion descriptor (WMD and PMD) ==== Location ==== Elements location in the image is used to describe elements in the spatial domain. In addition, elements can also be located in the temporal domain: Region locator descriptor (RLD) Spatio temporal locator descriptor (STLD) === Specific domain information descriptors === These descriptors, which give information about objects and events in the scene, are not easily extractable, even more when the extraction is to be automatically done. Nevertheless, they can be manually processed. As mentioned before, face recognition is a concrete example of an application that tries to automatically obtain this information. == Descriptors applications == Among all applications, the most important ones are: Multimedia documents search engines and classifiers. Digital library: visual descriptors allow a very detailed and concrete search of any video or image by means of different search parameters. For instance, the search of films where a known actor appears, the search of videos containing the Everest mountain, etc. Personalized electronic news service. Possibility of an automatic connection to a TV channel broadcasting a soccer match, for example, whenever a player approaches the goal area. Control and filtering of concrete audiovisual content, like violent or pornographic material. Also, authorization for some multimedia content.
Manifold regularization
In machine learning, manifold regularization is a technique for using the shape of a dataset to constrain the functions that should be learned on that dataset. In many machine learning problems, the data to be learned do not cover the entire input space. For example, a facial recognition system may not need to classify any possible image, but only the subset of images that contain faces. The technique of manifold learning assumes that the relevant subset of data comes from a manifold, a mathematical structure with useful properties. The technique also assumes that the function to be learned is smooth: data with different labels are not likely to be close together, and so the labeling function should not change quickly in areas where there are likely to be many data points. Because of this assumption, a manifold regularization algorithm can use unlabeled data to inform where the learned function is allowed to change quickly and where it is not, using an extension of the technique of Tikhonov regularization. Manifold regularization algorithms can extend supervised learning algorithms in semi-supervised learning and transductive learning settings, where unlabeled data are available. The technique has been used for applications including medical imaging, geographical imaging, and object recognition. == Manifold regularizer == === Motivation === Manifold regularization is a type of regularization, a family of techniques that reduces overfitting and ensures that a problem is well-posed by penalizing complex solutions. In particular, manifold regularization extends the technique of Tikhonov regularization as applied to Reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces (RKHSs). Under standard Tikhonov regularization on RKHSs, a learning algorithm attempts to learn a function f {\displaystyle f} from among a hypothesis space of functions H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . The hypothesis space is an RKHS, meaning that it is associated with a kernel K {\displaystyle K} , and so every candidate function f {\displaystyle f} has a norm ‖ f ‖ K {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{K}} , which represents the complexity of the candidate function in the hypothesis space. When the algorithm considers a candidate function, it takes its norm into account in order to penalize complex functions. Formally, given a set of labeled training data ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x ℓ , y ℓ ) {\displaystyle (x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{\ell },y_{\ell })} with x i ∈ X , y i ∈ Y {\displaystyle x_{i}\in X,y_{i}\in Y} and a loss function V {\displaystyle V} , a learning algorithm using Tikhonov regularization will attempt to solve the expression arg min f ∈ H 1 ℓ ∑ i = 1 ℓ V ( f ( x i ) , y i ) + γ ‖ f ‖ K 2 {\displaystyle {\underset {f\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\arg \!\min }}{\frac {1}{\ell }}\sum _{i=1}^{\ell }V(f(x_{i}),y_{i})+\gamma \left\|f\right\|_{K}^{2}} where γ {\displaystyle \gamma } is a hyperparameter that controls how much the algorithm will prefer simpler functions over functions that fit the data better. Manifold regularization adds a second regularization term, the intrinsic regularizer, to the ambient regularizer used in standard Tikhonov regularization. Under the manifold assumption in machine learning, the data in question do not come from the entire input space X {\displaystyle X} , but instead from a nonlinear manifold M ⊂ X {\displaystyle M\subset X} . The geometry of this manifold, the intrinsic space, is used to determine the regularization norm. === Laplacian norm === There are many possible choices for the intrinsic regularizer ‖ f ‖ I {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}} . Many natural choices involve the gradient on the manifold ∇ M {\displaystyle \nabla _{M}} , which can provide a measure of how smooth a target function is. A smooth function should change slowly where the input data are dense; that is, the gradient ∇ M f ( x ) {\displaystyle \nabla _{M}f(x)} should be small where the marginal probability density P X ( x ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{X}(x)} , the probability density of a randomly drawn data point appearing at x {\displaystyle x} , is large. This gives one appropriate choice for the intrinsic regularizer: ‖ f ‖ I 2 = ∫ x ∈ M ‖ ∇ M f ( x ) ‖ 2 d P X ( x ) {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}^{2}=\int _{x\in M}\left\|\nabla _{M}f(x)\right\|^{2}\,d{\mathcal {P}}_{X}(x)} In practice, this norm cannot be computed directly because the marginal distribution P X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{X}} is unknown, but it can be estimated from the provided data. === Graph-based approach of the Laplacian norm === When the distances between input points are interpreted as a graph, then the Laplacian matrix of the graph can help to estimate the marginal distribution. Suppose that the input data include ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } labeled examples (pairs of an input x {\displaystyle x} and a label y {\displaystyle y} ) and u {\displaystyle u} unlabeled examples (inputs without associated labels). Define W {\displaystyle W} to be a matrix of edge weights for a graph, where W i j {\displaystyle W_{ij}} is a similarity built from distance measure between the data points x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} (so that more close implies higher W i j {\displaystyle W_{ij}} ). Define D {\displaystyle D} to be a diagonal matrix with D i i = ∑ j = 1 ℓ + u W i j {\displaystyle D_{ii}=\sum _{j=1}^{\ell +u}W_{ij}} and L {\displaystyle L} to be the Laplacian matrix D − W {\displaystyle D-W} . Then, as the number of data points ℓ + u {\displaystyle \ell +u} increases, L {\displaystyle L} converges to the Laplace–Beltrami operator Δ M {\displaystyle \Delta _{M}} , which is the divergence of the gradient ∇ M {\displaystyle \nabla _{M}} . Then, if f {\displaystyle \mathbf {f} } is a vector of the values of f {\displaystyle f} at the data, f = [ f ( x 1 ) , … , f ( x l + u ) ] T {\displaystyle \mathbf {f} =[f(x_{1}),\ldots ,f(x_{l+u})]^{\mathrm {T} }} , the intrinsic norm can be estimated: ‖ f ‖ I 2 = 1 ( ℓ + u ) 2 f T L f {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}^{2}={\frac {1}{(\ell +u)^{2}}}\mathbf {f} ^{\mathrm {T} }L\mathbf {f} } As the number of data points ℓ + u {\displaystyle \ell +u} increases, this empirical definition of ‖ f ‖ I 2 {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}^{2}} converges to the definition when P X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{X}} is known. === Solving the regularization problem with graph-based approach === Using the weights γ A {\displaystyle \gamma _{A}} and γ I {\displaystyle \gamma _{I}} for the ambient and intrinsic regularizers, the final expression to be solved becomes: arg min f ∈ H 1 ℓ ∑ i = 1 ℓ V ( f ( x i ) , y i ) + γ A ‖ f ‖ K 2 + γ I ( ℓ + u ) 2 f T L f {\displaystyle {\underset {f\in {\mathcal {H}}}{\arg \!\min }}{\frac {1}{\ell }}\sum _{i=1}^{\ell }V(f(x_{i}),y_{i})+\gamma _{A}\left\|f\right\|_{K}^{2}+{\frac {\gamma _{I}}{(\ell +u)^{2}}}\mathbf {f} ^{\mathrm {T} }L\mathbf {f} } As with other kernel methods, H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} may be an infinite-dimensional space, so if the regularization expression cannot be solved explicitly, it is impossible to search the entire space for a solution. Instead, a representer theorem shows that under certain conditions on the choice of the norm ‖ f ‖ I {\displaystyle \left\|f\right\|_{I}} , the optimal solution f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} must be a linear combination of the kernel centered at each of the input points: for some weights α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} , f ∗ ( x ) = ∑ i = 1 ℓ + u α i K ( x i , x ) {\displaystyle f^{}(x)=\sum _{i=1}^{\ell +u}\alpha _{i}K(x_{i},x)} Using this result, it is possible to search for the optimal solution f ∗ {\displaystyle f^{}} by searching the finite-dimensional space defined by the possible choices of α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} . === Functional approach of the Laplacian norm === The idea beyond the graph-Laplacian is to use neighbors to estimate the Laplacian. This method is akin to local averaging methods, that are known to scale poorly in high-dimensional problems. Indeed, the graph Laplacian is known to suffer from the curse of dimensionality. Luckily, it is possible to leverage expected smoothness of the function to estimate thanks to more advanced functional analysis. This method consists of estimating the Laplacian operator using derivatives of the kernel reading ∂ 1 , j K ( x i , x ) {\displaystyle \partial _{1,j}K(x_{i},x)} where ∂ 1 , j {\displaystyle \partial _{1,j}} denotes the partial derivatives according to the j-th coordinate of the first variable. This second approach to the Laplacian norm is to put in relation with meshfree methods, that contrast with the finite difference method in PDE. == Applications == Manifold regularization can extend a variety of algorithms that can be expressed using Tikhonov regularization, by choosing an appropriate loss function V {\displaystyle V} and hypothesis space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} . Two commonly used examples are the families of support vector machines and regularized least squares algorithm