Uniform convergence in probability

Uniform convergence in probability is a form of convergence in probability in statistical asymptotic theory and probability theory. It means that, under certain conditions, the empirical frequencies of all events in a certain event-family uniformly converge to their theoretical probabilities. Uniform convergence in probability has applications to statistics as well as machine learning as part of statistical learning theory. Specifically, the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem and the homonymous classes of functions are fundamentally related to uniform convergence. The law of large numbers says that, for each single event A {\displaystyle A} , its empirical frequency in a sequence of independent trials converges (with high probability) to its theoretical probability. In many application however, the need arises to judge simultaneously the probabilities of events of an entire class S {\displaystyle S} from one and the same sample. Moreover, it, is required that the relative frequency of the events converge to the probability uniformly over the entire class of events S {\displaystyle S} . The Uniform Convergence Theorem gives a sufficient condition for this convergence to hold. Roughly, if the event-family is sufficiently simple (its VC dimension is sufficiently small) then uniform convergence holds. == Definitions == For a class of predicates H {\displaystyle H} defined on a set X {\displaystyle X} and a set of samples x = ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x m ) {\displaystyle x=(x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{m})} , where x i ∈ X {\displaystyle x_{i}\in X} , the empirical frequency of h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} on x {\displaystyle x} is Q ^ x ( h ) = 1 m | { i : 1 ≤ i ≤ m , h ( x i ) = 1 } | . {\displaystyle {\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)={\frac {1}{m}}|\{i:1\leq i\leq m,h(x_{i})=1\}|.} The theoretical probability of h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} is defined as Q P ( h ) = P { y ∈ X : h ( y ) = 1 } . {\displaystyle Q_{P}(h)=P\{y\in X:h(y)=1\}.} The Uniform Convergence Theorem states, roughly, that if H {\displaystyle H} is "simple" and we draw samples independently (with replacement) from X {\displaystyle X} according to any distribution P {\displaystyle P} , then with high probability, the empirical frequency will be close to its expected value, which is the theoretical probability. Here "simple" means that the Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension of the class H {\displaystyle H} is small relative to the size of the sample. In other words, a sufficiently simple collection of functions behaves roughly the same on a small random sample as it does on the distribution as a whole. The Uniform Convergence Theorem was first proved by Vapnik and Chervonenkis using the concept of growth function. == Uniform Convergence Theorem == The statement of the Uniform Convergence Theorem is as follows: If H {\displaystyle H} is a set of { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} -valued functions defined on a set X {\displaystyle X} and P {\displaystyle P} is a probability distribution on X {\displaystyle X} then for ε > 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon >0} and m {\displaystyle m} a positive integer, we have: P m { | Q P ( h ) − Q x ^ ( h ) | ≥ ε for some h ∈ H } ≤ 4 Π H ( 2 m ) e − ε 2 m / 8 . {\displaystyle P^{m}\{|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q_{x}}}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ for some }}h\in H\}\leq 4\Pi _{H}(2m)e^{-\varepsilon ^{2}m/8}.} In the above, for any x ∈ X m , {\displaystyle x\in X^{m},} Q P ( h ) = P { ( y ∈ X : h ( y ) = 1 } , {\displaystyle Q_{P}(h)=P\{(y\in X:h(y)=1\},} Q ^ x ( h ) = 1 m | { i : 1 ≤ i ≤ m , h ( x i ) = 1 } | {\displaystyle {\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)={\frac {1}{m}}|\{i:1\leq i\leq m,h(x_{i})=1\}|} and | x | = m . {\displaystyle |x|=m.} P m {\displaystyle P^{m}} indicates that the probability is taken over x {\displaystyle x} consisting of m {\displaystyle m} i.i.d. draws from the distribution P . {\displaystyle P.} Finally, the growth function Π H {\displaystyle \Pi _{H}} is defined in the following way, for any { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{0,1\}} -valued functions H {\displaystyle H} over X {\displaystyle X} and for any natural number m {\displaystyle m} : Π H ( m ) = max | { h ∩ D : D ⊆ X , | D | = m , h ∈ H } | . {\displaystyle \Pi _{H}(m)=\max |\{h\cap D:D\subseteq X,|D|=m,h\in H\}|.} From the point of view of Learning Theory one can consider H {\displaystyle H} to be the Concept/Hypothesis class defined over the instance set X {\displaystyle X} . Crucially, the Sauer–Shelah lemma implies that Π H ( m ) ≤ m d {\displaystyle \Pi _{H}(m)\leq m^{d}} , where d {\displaystyle d} is the VC dimension of H {\displaystyle H} . == Proof of the Uniform Convergence Theorem == and are the sources of the proof below. Before we get into the details of the proof of the Uniform Convergence Theorem we will present a high level overview of the proof. Symmetrization: We transform the problem of analyzing | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ x ( h ) | ≥ ε {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)|\geq \varepsilon } into the problem of analyzing | Q ^ r ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2} , where r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} are i.i.d samples of size m {\displaystyle m} drawn according to the distribution P {\displaystyle P} . One can view r {\displaystyle r} as the original randomly drawn sample of length m {\displaystyle m} , while s {\displaystyle s} may be thought as the testing sample which is used to estimate Q P ( h ) {\displaystyle Q_{P}(h)} . Permutation: Since r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} are picked identically and independently, so swapping elements between them will not change the probability distribution on r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} . So, we will try to bound the probability of | Q ^ r ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2} for some h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} by considering the effect of a specific collection of permutations of the joint sample x = r | | s {\displaystyle x=r||s} . Specifically, we consider permutations σ ( x ) {\displaystyle \sigma (x)} which swap x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x m + i {\displaystyle x_{m+i}} in some subset of 1 , 2 , . . . , m {\displaystyle {1,2,...,m}} . The symbol r | | s {\displaystyle r||s} means the concatenation of r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} . Reduction to a finite class: We can now restrict the function class H {\displaystyle H} to a fixed joint sample and hence, if H {\displaystyle H} has finite VC Dimension, it reduces to the problem to one involving a finite function class. We present the technical details of the proof. It should be stressed that this proof glosses over details like the measurability of the events V {\displaystyle V} and R {\displaystyle R} ; measurability is granted in the case of H {\displaystyle H} being finite or countable, but this is not normally the case in standard applications of the theorem (e.g. for statistical learning theory or to prove the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem). To get measurability, one needs to use a notion of separability of the underlying space, possibly related to H {\displaystyle H} . === Symmetrization === Lemma: Let V = { x ∈ X m : | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ x ( h ) | ≥ ε for some h ∈ H } {\displaystyle V=\{x\in X^{m}:|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{x}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ for some }}h\in H\}} and R = { ( r , s ) ∈ X m × X m : | Q r ^ ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 for some h ∈ H } . {\displaystyle R=\{(r,s)\in X^{m}\times X^{m}:|{\widehat {Q_{r}}}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2{\text{ for some }}h\in H\}.} Then for m ≥ 2 ε 2 {\displaystyle m\geq {\frac {2}{\varepsilon ^{2}}}} , P m ( V ) ≤ 2 P 2 m ( R ) {\displaystyle P^{m}(V)\leq 2P^{2m}(R)} . Proof: By the triangle inequality, if | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon } and | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≤ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\leq \varepsilon /2} then | Q ^ r ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≥ ε / 2 {\displaystyle |{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\geq \varepsilon /2} . Therefore, P 2 m ( R ) ≥ P 2 m { ∃ h ∈ H , | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε and | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≤ ε / 2 } = ∫ V P m { s : ∃ h ∈ H , | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε and | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ s ( h ) | ≤ ε / 2 } d P m ( r ) = A {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&P^{2m}(R)\\[5pt]\geq {}&P^{2m}\{\exists h\in H,|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ and }}|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\leq \varepsilon /2\}\\[5pt]={}&\int _{V}P^{m}\{s:\exists h\in H,|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon {\text{ and }}|Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{s}(h)|\leq \varepsilon /2\}\,dP^{m}(r)\\[5pt]={}&A\end{aligned}}} since r {\displaystyle r} and s {\displaystyle s} are independent. Now for r ∈ V {\displaystyle r\in V} fix an h ∈ H {\displaystyle h\in H} such that | Q P ( h ) − Q ^ r ( h ) | ≥ ε {\displaystyle |Q_{P}(h)-{\widehat {Q}}_{r}(h)|\geq \varepsilon } . For this h {\displaystyle h} , we shall

Cryptographic module

A cryptographic module is a component of a computer system that securely implements cryptographic algorithms, typically with some element of tamper resistance. NIST defines a cryptographic module as "The set of hardware, software, and/or firmware that implements security functions (including cryptographic algorithms), holds plaintext keys and uses them for performing cryptographic operations, and is contained within a cryptographic module boundary." Hardware security modules, including secure cryptoprocessors, are one way of implementing cryptographic modules. Standards for cryptographic modules include FIPS 140-3 and ISO/IEC 19790.

Linguatec

The Linguatec Sprachtechnologien GmbH is a language technology provider, specialized in the field of machine translation, speech synthesis and speech recognition. Linguatec was founded in Munich in 1996 and its headquarters are in Pasing. Linguatec has won the European Information Society Technologies Prize three times. On their website, they are now using the online service Voice Reader Web, so that the information can be read out in every language by means of a text-to-speech function. == Core areas == Machine translation The different versions of Personal Translator (seven language pairs) can be used "for home use" or for professional business use in the company network. In addition to this, specialist dictionaries are offered to broaden standard vocabulary. Speech synthesis The Voice Reader text-to-speech program reads in twelve languages: German, British English, American English, French, Quebec French, Spanish, Mexican Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese, Czech, Chinese. Speech recognition Voice Pro is based on ViaVoice technology from IBM. There are special software programs for doctors and lawyers. == Patents == 2005 pending patent application for a newly developed hybrid technology that uses the intelligence of neural networks for machine translation. == Awards == 2004 European IT Prize for Beyond Babel 2004 test winner Stiftung Warentest – best voice recognition 1998 European IT Prize – applied voice recognition 1996 European IT Prize – automated translation == Studies == 2005 University of Regensburg: Voice Reader user test 2002 Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering and Organization IAO: user study on the efficiency of machine translation

Voice search

Voice search, also called voice-enabled search, allows the user to use a voice to search the Internet, a website, or an app. In a broader definition, voice search includes open-domain keyword query on any information on the Internet, for example in Google Voice Search, Cortana, Siri and Amazon Echo. Voice search is often interactive, involving several rounds of interaction that allows a system to ask for clarification. Voice search is a type of dialog system. Voice search is not a replacement for typed search. Rather the search terms, experience and use cases can differ heavily depending on the input type. == Supported language == Language is the most essential factor for a system to understand, and provide the most accurate results of what the user searches. This covers across languages, dialects, and accents, as users want a voice assistant that both understands them and speaks to them understandably. While spoken and written languages differ, voice search should support natural spoken language instead of only transforming voice into text and doing a regular text search with the help speech recognition. For example, in typed search an eCommerce user can easily copy and paste an alphanumeric product code to search field, but when speaking the search terms can be very different, such as "show me the new Bluetooth headphones by Samsung". == How it works == The difference between text and voice search is not only the input type. The mechanism must include an automatic speech recognition (ASR) for input, but it can also include natural language understanding for natural spoken search queries such as "What's the population for the United States" It can include text-to-speech (TTS) or a regular display for output modalities. Users might sometimes be required to activate the search by using a wake word. Then, the search system will detect the language spoken by the user. It will then detect the keywords and context of the sentence. Lastly, the device will return results depending on its output. A device with a screen might display the results, while a device without a screen will speak them back to the searcher.

PANGU (software)

The PANGU (Planet and Asteroid Natural scene Generation Utility) is a computer graphics utility of which the development was funded by ESA and performed by University of Dundee. It generates scenes of planets, moons, asteroids, spacecraft and rovers. The main purpose of the tool is to test and validate navigation techniques based on the processing of images coming from on-board sensors, such as a camera or imaging LIDAR on a planetary lander.

Logogen model

The logogen model of 1969 is a model of speech recognition that uses units called "logogens" to explain how humans comprehend spoken or written words. Logogens are a vast number of specialized recognition units, each able to recognize one specific word. This model provides for the effects of context on word recognition. == Overview == The word logogen can be traced back to the Greek-language word logos, which means "word", and genus, which means "birth". British scientist John Morton's logogen model was designed to explain word recognition using a new type of unit known as a logogen. A critical element of this theory is the involvement of lexicons, or specialized aspects of memory that include semantic and phonemic information about each item that is contained in memory. A given lexicon consists of many smaller, abstract items known as logogens. Logogens contain a variety of properties about given word such as their appearance, sound, and meaning. Logogens do not store words within themselves, but rather they store information that is specifically necessary for retrieval of whatever word is being searched for. A given logogen will become activated by psychological stimuli or contextual information (words) that is consistent with the properties of that specific logogen and when the logogen's activation level rises to or above its threshold level, the pronunciation of the given word is sent to the output system. Certain stimuli can affect the activation levels of more than one word at a time, usually involving words that are similar to one another. When this occurs, whichever of the words' activation levels reaches the threshold level, it is that word that is then sent to the output system with the subject remaining unaware of any partially excited logogens. This assumption was made by Marslen-Wilson and Welch (1978), who added to the model some assumptions of their own in order to account for their experimental results. They also assumed that the analysis of phonetic input can only become available to other parts of the system by process of how the input affects the logogen system. Finally, Marslen-Wilson and Welch assume that the first syllable of a given word will increase the activation level of a given logogen more than those of the latter syllables, which supported the data found at the time. == Analysis == The logogen model can be used to help linguists explain particular occurrences in the human language. The most-helpful application of the model is to show how one accesses words and their meanings in the lexicon. The word-frequency effect is best explained by the logogen model in that words (or logogens) that have a higher frequency (or are more common) have a lower threshold. This means that they require less perceptual power in the brain to be recognized and decoded from the lexicon and are recognized faster than those words that are less common. Also, with high-frequency words, the recovery from lowering the item's threshold is less fulfilled compared to low-frequency words so less sensory information is needed for that particular item's recognition. There are ways to lower thresholds, such as repetition and semantic priming. Also, each time a word is encountered through these methods, the threshold for that word is temporarily lowered partially because of its recovering ability. This model also conveys that specific concrete words are recalled better because they use images and logogens, whereas abstract words are not as easily recalled well because they only use logogens, hence showing the difference in thresholds between these two types of words. At the time of its conception, Morton's logogen model was one of the most influential models in springing up other parallel word access models and served as the essential basis for these subsequent models. Morton's model also strongly influenced other contemporary theories on lexical access. However, despite the advantages that the logogen theory presents, it also displays some negative facets. First and foremost, the logogen model does not explain all occurrences in language, such as the introduction of new words or non-words into a person's lexicon. Also, because of the distinctive model application, it may vary in its effectiveness in different languages. == Criticisms == While this model does a reasonable job of understanding the underlying semantics of many aspects in psycholinguistics, there are some flaws that have been pointed out in the logogen model. It has been argued that the prior stimulus patterns that have been seen in the logogen theory are not centrally localized in the logogen itself but are actually distributed throughout the different pathways over which the stimulus is being processed. What this directs at is that the notion and proliferation of logogens was due to modality. In essence, the logogen is unnecessary in the idea of attaining the title of being a recognition unit because of the variety of pathways that it is open to, not just logogens. Another criticism has been that this model essentially ignores larger and more critical structures in language and phonetics such as the different syntactic rules or grammatical construction that innately exists in language. Since this model overtly limits itself to the scope of lexical access then this model is seen as biased and misunderstood. To many psychologists, the logogen model does not meet the functional or representational adequacy that a theory should include to sufficiently comprehend language. Also, another criticism is that the logogen theory was supposed to predict that stimulus degradation should affect priming and word frequency in humans. However, many psychologists have conducted studies and researched the model to show that only priming and not word frequency is interacted with stimulus degradation. Priming is supposed to deteriorate a stimulus because it postulates that the semantic characteristics of previously known words are fed back into the detector of a person which in turn raises the threshold of related items. In word frequency, stimulus degradation is supposed to occur because it postulates that familiar words have lower thresholds than their low-frequency counterparts. However, in studies, priming is the only structure that does show observable and notable stimulus decadence. Even though the logogen theory has many unfilled holes, Morton was a revolutionary of his field whose speculation and research has opened up a remarkable era of psycholinguistics. == Other models to consider == cohort model – This model was proposed by Marslen-Wilson and was designed specifically to account for auditory word recognition. It works by breaking the word down and states that when a word is heard all words that begin with the first sound of the target word are activated. This set of words is considered the cohort. Once the first cohort has been activated, the other information, or sounds in the word narrow down the choices. The person recognizes the word when you are left with a single choice; this is considered the "recognition point". checking model – This model was developed by Norris in 1986. In this particular model, he took the approach that any word that partially matches the input is analyzed and checked to see if it fits with the context of the situation. interactive-activation model – This model is considered a connectionist model. Proposed by McClelland and Rumelhart in the 1981 to 1982 period, it is based around nodes, which are visual features, and positions of letters within a given word. They also act as word detectors which have inhibitory and excitatory connections between them. This model starts with first letter and suggests that all the words with that first letter are activated at first and then going through the word one can determine what the word is they are looking at. The main principle is that mental phenomena can be described by interconnected networks of simple units. verification model – The model was developed by Curtis Becker in 1970. The main idea is that a small number of candidates that are activated in parallel are subject to a serial-verification process. This model starts the word-recognition process with a basic representation of the stimulus. Then, sensory trace, consisting of line features is used to activate word detectors. When an acceptable number of detectors are activated these are used to generate a search set. These items are drawn from the lexicon on the basis of similarity to the sensory trace, which help with the identity of the stimulus. Then, in a serial process the candidates are compared to the representation of the sensory-trace input. == Related concepts == word frequency – This is the belief that the speed and accuracy with which a word is recognized is related to how frequently the word occurs in our language. Each logogen has a threshold (for identification) and words with higher frequencies have lower thresholds. Words with higher freq

Feed forward (control)

A feed forward (sometimes written feedforward) is an element or pathway within a control system that passes a controlling signal from a source in its external environment to a load elsewhere in its external environment. This is often a command signal from an external operator. In control engineering, a feedforward control system is a control system that uses sensors to detect disturbances affecting the system and then applies an additional input to minimize the effect of the disturbance. This requires a mathematical model of the system so that the effect of disturbances can be properly predicted. A control system which has only feed-forward behavior responds to its control signal in a pre-defined way without responding to the way the system reacts; it is in contrast with a system that also has feedback, which adjusts the input to take account of how it affects the system, and how the system itself may vary unpredictably. In a feed-forward system, the control variable adjustment is not error-based. Instead it is based on knowledge about the process in the form of a mathematical model of the process and knowledge about, or measurements of, the process disturbances. Some prerequisites are needed for control scheme to be reliable by pure feed-forward without feedback: the external command or controlling signal must be available, and the effect of the output of the system on the load should be known (that usually means that the load must be predictably unchanging with time). Sometimes pure feed-forward control without feedback is called 'ballistic', because once a control signal has been sent, it cannot be further adjusted; any corrective adjustment must be by way of a new control signal. In contrast, 'cruise control' adjusts the output in response to the load that it encounters, by a feedback mechanism. These systems could relate to control theory, physiology, or computing. == Overview == With feed-forward or feedforward control, the disturbances are measured and accounted for before they have time to affect the system. In the house example, a feed-forward system may measure the fact that the door is opened and automatically turn on the heater before the house can get too cold. The difficulty with feed-forward control is that the effects of the disturbances on the system must be accurately predicted, and there must not be any unmeasured disturbances. For instance, if a window was opened that was not being measured, the feed-forward-controlled thermostat might let the house cool down. The term has specific meaning within the field of CPU-based automatic control. The discipline of feedforward control as it relates to modern, CPU based automatic controls is widely discussed, but is seldom practiced due to the difficulty and expense of developing or providing for the mathematical model required to facilitate this type of control. Open-loop control and feedback control, often based on canned PID control algorithms, are much more widely used. There are three types of control systems: open-loop, feed-forward, and feedback. An example of a pure open-loop control system is manual non-power-assisted steering of a motor car; the steering system does not have access to an auxiliary power source and does not respond to varying resistance to turning of the direction wheels; the driver must make that response without help from the steering system. In comparison, power steering has access to a controlled auxiliary power source, which depends on the engine speed. When the steering wheel is turned, a valve is opened which allows fluid under pressure to turn the wheels. A sensor monitors that pressure so that the valve only opens enough to cause the correct pressure to reach the wheel turning mechanism. This is feed-forward control where the output of the system, the change in direction of travel of the vehicle, plays no part in the system. See Model predictive control. If the driver is included in the system, then they do provide a feedback path by observing the direction of travel and compensating for errors by turning the steering wheel. In that case you have a feedback system, and the block labeled System in Figure(c) is a feed-forward system. In other words, systems of different types can be nested, and the overall system regarded as a black-box. Feedforward control is distinctly different from open-loop control and teleoperator systems. Feedforward control requires a mathematical model of the plant (process and/or machine being controlled) and the plant's relationship to any inputs or feedback the system might receive. Neither open-loop control nor teleoperator systems require the sophistication of a mathematical model of the physical system or plant being controlled. Control based on operator input without integral processing and interpretation through a mathematical model of the system is a teleoperator system and is not considered feedforward control. == History == Historically, the use of the term feedforward is found in works by Harold S. Black in US patent 1686792 (invented 17 March 1923) and D. M. MacKay as early as 1956. While MacKay's work is in the field of biological control theory, he speaks only of feedforward systems. MacKay does not mention feedforward control or allude to the discipline of feedforward controls. MacKay and other early writers who use the term feedforward are generally writing about theories of how human or animal brains work. Black also has US patent 2102671 invented 2 August 1927 on the technique of feedback applied to electronic systems. The discipline of feedforward controls was largely developed by professors and graduate students at Georgia Tech, MIT, Stanford and Carnegie Mellon. Feedforward is not typically hyphenated in scholarly publications. Meckl and Seering of MIT and Book and Dickerson of Georgia Tech began the development of the concepts of Feedforward Control in the mid-1970s. The discipline of Feedforward Controls was well defined in many scholarly papers, articles and books by the late 1980s. == Benefits == The benefits of feedforward control are significant and can often justify the extra cost, time and effort required to implement the technology. Control accuracy can often be improved by as much as an order of magnitude if the mathematical model is of sufficient quality and implementation of the feedforward control law is well thought out. Energy consumption by the feedforward control system and its driver is typically substantially lower than with other controls. Stability is enhanced such that the controlled device can be built of lower cost, lighter weight, springier materials while still being highly accurate and able to operate at high speeds. Other benefits of feedforward control include reduced wear and tear on equipment, lower maintenance costs, higher reliability and a substantial reduction in hysteresis. Feedforward control is often combined with feedback control to optimize performance. == Model == The mathematical model of the plant (machine, process or organism) used by the feedforward control system may be created and input by a control engineer or it may be learned by the control system. Control systems capable of learning and/or adapting their mathematical model have become more practical as microprocessor speeds have increased. The discipline of modern feedforward control was itself made possible by the invention of microprocessors. Feedforward control requires integration of the mathematical model into the control algorithm such that it is used to determine the control actions based on what is known about the state of the system being controlled. In the case of control for a lightweight, flexible robotic arm, this could be as simple as compensating between when the robot arm is carrying a payload and when it is not. The target joint angles are adjusted to place the payload in the desired position based on knowing the deflections in the arm from the mathematical model's interpretation of the disturbance caused by the payload. Systems that plan actions and then pass the plan to a different system for execution do not satisfy the above definition of feedforward control. Unless the system includes a means to detect a disturbance or receive an input and process that input through the mathematical model to determine the required modification to the control action, it is not true feedforward control. === Open system === In control theory, an open system is a feed forward system that does not have any feedback loop to control its output. In contrast, a closed system uses on a feedback loop to control the operation of the system. In an open system, the output of the system is not fed back into the input to the system for control or operation. == Applications == === Physiological feed-forward system === In physiology, feed-forward control is exemplified by the normal anticipatory regulation of heartbeat in advance of actual physical exertion by the central autonomic network. Feed-forward