The algorithm derivation mentioned in the original paper does not match the algorithm itself.

[SmokerX]

This code is one of the worst of the code series I have seen from the original author. Whether it's code correctness, operational efficiency, variable name naming, or code structure, there is nothing to be desired. It’s incredible that the original text of the paper is so clear and concise that it’s so badly implemented.

[SmokerX]

c˜s = βc0 + (1 − β)cs, c0 ⊥ cs

论文第3页提到了这个公式。

然后论文第4页提到了
So assume that Zc˜s is roughly the same, say Z for all c˜s.

疑问点1：算法中红框部分的Vs是否就是论文第3页提到了这个公式中提到的c˜s

疑问点2： u·uT·Vs 是否对应的是c0

疑问点3：Vs-u·uT·Vs 是怎么和论文3的这个包含β的公式对应起来的，而且整个代码中，β也并没有用到。