AI Analytics Healthcare

AI Analytics Healthcare — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Decision list

Decision lists are a representation for Boolean functions which can be easily learned from examples. Single term decision lists are more expressive than disjunctions and conjunctions; however, 1-term decision lists are less expressive than the general disjunctive normal form and the conjunctive normal form. The language specified by a k-length decision list includes as a subset the language specified by a k-depth decision tree. Learning decision lists can be used for attribute efficient learning, a type of machine learning. == Definition == A decision list (DL) of length r is of the form: if f1 then output b1 else if f2 then output b2 ... else if fr then output br where fi is the ith formula and bi is the ith boolean for i ∈ { 1... r } {\displaystyle i\in \{1...r\}} . The last if-then-else is the default case, which means formula fr is always equal to true. A k-DL is a decision list where all of formulas have at most k terms. Sometimes "decision list" is used to refer to a 1-DL, where all of the formulas are either a variable or its negation.
Read more →
Parchive

Parchive (a portmanteau of parity archive, and formally known as Parity Volume Set Specification) is an erasure code system that produces par files for checksum verification of data integrity, with the capability to perform data recovery operations that can repair or regenerate corrupted or missing data. Parchive was originally written to solve the problem of reliable file sharing on Usenet, but it can be used for protecting any kind of data from data corruption, disc rot, bit rot, and accidental or malicious damage. Despite the name, Parchive uses more advanced techniques (specifically error correction codes) than simplistic parity methods of error detection. As of 2015, PAR1 is obsolete, PAR2 is mature for widespread use, and PAR3 is a discontinued experimental version developed by MultiPar author Yutaka Sawada. The original SourceForge Parchive project has been inactive since April 30, 2015. A new PAR3 specification has been worked on since April 28, 2019 by PAR2 specification author Michael Nahas. An alpha version of the PAR3 specification has been published on January 29, 2022 while the program itself is being developed. == History == Parchive was intended to increase the reliability of transferring files via Usenet newsgroups. Usenet was originally designed for informal conversations, and the underlying protocol, NNTP was not designed to transmit arbitrary binary data. Another limitation, which was acceptable for conversations but not for files, was that messages were normally fairly short in length and limited to 7-bit ASCII text. Various techniques were devised to send files over Usenet, such as uuencoding and Base64. Later Usenet software allowed 8 bit Extended ASCII, which permitted new techniques like yEnc. Large files were broken up to reduce the effect of a corrupted download, but the unreliable nature of Usenet remained. With the introduction of Parchive, parity files could be created that were then uploaded along with the original data files. If any of the data files were damaged or lost while being propagated between Usenet servers, users could download parity files and use them to reconstruct the damaged or missing files. Parchive included the construction of small index files (.par in version 1 and .par2 in version 2) that do not contain any recovery data. These indexes contain file hashes that can be used to quickly identify the target files and verify their integrity. Because the index files were so small, they minimized the amount of extra data that had to be downloaded from Usenet to verify that the data files were all present and undamaged, or to determine how many parity volumes were required to repair any damage or reconstruct any missing files. They were most useful in version 1 where the parity volumes were much larger than the short index files. These larger parity volumes contain the actual recovery data along with a duplicate copy of the information in the index files (which allows them to be used on their own to verify the integrity of the data files if there is no small index file available). In July 2001, Tobias Rieper and Stefan Wehlus proposed the Parity Volume Set specification, and with the assistance of other project members, version 1.0 of the specification was published in October 2001. Par1 used Reed–Solomon error correction to create new recovery files. Any of the recovery files can be used to rebuild a missing file from an incomplete download. Version 1 became widely used on Usenet, but it did suffer some limitations: It was restricted to handle at most 255 files. The recovery files had to be the size of the largest input file, so it did not work well when the input files were of various sizes. (This limited its usefulness when not paired with the proprietary RAR compression tool.) The recovery algorithm had a bug, due to a flaw in the academic paper on which it was based. It was strongly tied to Usenet and it was felt that a more general tool might have a wider audience. In January 2002, Howard Fukada proposed that a new Par2 specification should be devised with the significant changes that data verification and repair should work on blocks of data rather than whole files, and that the algorithm should switch to using 16 bit numbers rather than the 8 bit numbers that PAR1 used. Michael Nahas and Peter Clements took up these ideas in July 2002, with additional input from Paul Nettle and Ryan Gallagher (who both wrote Par1 clients). Version 2.0 of the Parchive specification was published by Michael Nahas in September 2002. Peter Clements then went on to write the first two Par2 implementations, QuickPar and par2cmdline. Abandoned since 2004, Paul Houle created phpar2 to supersede par2cmdline. Yutaka Sawada created MultiPar to supersede QuickPar. MultiPar uses par2j.exe (which is partially based on par2cmdline's optimization techniques) to use as MultiPar's backend engine. == Versions == Versions 1 and 2 of the file format are incompatible. (However, many clients support both.) === Par1 === For Par1, the files f1, f2, ..., fn, the Parchive consists of an index file (f.par), which is CRC type file with no recovery blocks, and a number of "parity volumes" (f.p01, f.p02, etc.). Given all of the original files except for one (for example, f2), it is possible to create the missing f2 given all of the other original files and any one of the parity volumes. Alternatively, it is possible to recreate two missing files from any two of the parity volumes and so forth. Par1 supports up to a total of 256 source and recovery files. === Par2 === Par2 files generally use this naming/extension system: filename.vol000+01.PAR2, filename.vol001+02.PAR2, filename.vol003+04.PAR2, filename.vol007+06.PAR2, etc. The number after the "+" in the filename indicates how many blocks it contains, and the number after "vol" indicates the number of the first recovery block within the PAR2 file. If an index file of a download states that 4 blocks are missing, the easiest way to repair the files would be by downloading filename.vol003+04.PAR2. However, due to the redundancy, filename.vol007+06.PAR2 is also acceptable. There is also an index file filename.PAR2, it is identical in function to the small index file used in PAR1. Par2 specification supports up to 32,768 source blocks and up to 65,535 recovery blocks. Input files are split into multiple equal-sized blocks so that recovery files do not need to be the size of the largest input file. Although Unicode is mentioned in the PAR2 specification as an option, most PAR2 implementations do not support Unicode. Directory support is included in the PAR2 specification, but most or all implementations do not support it. === Par3 === The Par3 specification was originally planned to be published as an enhancement over the Par2 specification. However, to date, it has remained closed source by specification owner Yutaka Sawada. A discussion on a new format started in the GitHub issue section of the maintained fork par2cmdline on January 29, 2019. The discussion led to a new format which is also named as Par3. The new Par3 format's specification is published on GitHub, but remains being an alpha draft as of January 28, 2022. The specification is written by Michael Nahas, the author of Par2 specification, with the help from Yutaka Sawada, animetosho and malaire. The new format claims to have multiple advantages over the Par2 format, including support for: More than 216 files and more than 216 blocks. Packing small files into one block, as well as deduplication when a block appears in multiple files. UTF-8 file names. File permissions, hard links, symbolic/soft links, and empty directories. Embedding PAR data inside other formats, like ZIP archives or ISO disk images. "Incremental backups", where a user creates recovery files for some file or folder, change some data, and create new recovery files reusing some of the older files. More error correction code algorithms (such as LDPC and sparse random matrix). BLAKE3 hashes, dropping support for the MD5 hashes used in PAR2. == Software == === Multi-platform === par2+tbb (GPLv2) — a concurrent (multithreaded) version of par2cmdline 0.4 using TBB. Only compatible with x86 based CPUs. It is available in the FreeBSD Ports system as par2cmdline-tbb. Original par2cmdline — (obsolete). Available in the FreeBSD Ports system as par2cmdline. par2cmdline maintained fork by BlackIkeEagle. par2cmdline-mt is another multithreaded version of par2cmdline using OpenMP, GPLv2, or later. Currently merged into BlackIkeEagle's fork and maintained there. ParPar (CC0) is a high performance, multithreaded PAR2 client and Node.js library. Does not support verifying or repair, it can currently only create PAR2 archives. par2deep (LGPL-3.0) — Produce, verify and repair par2 files recursively, both on the command line as well as with the aid of a graphical user interface. It is available in the Python Package Index system as par2deep. par2cron (MIT License) is an o
Read more →
Information and media literacy

Information and media literacy (IML) is a combination of information literacy and media literacy. It enables people to show and make informed judgments as users of information and media, as well as to become skillful creators and producers of information and media messages. The transformative nature of IML includes creative works and creating new knowledge; to publish and collaborate responsibly requires ethical, cultural and social understanding. IML is also known as media and information literacy (MIL). UNESCO first adopted the term MIL in 2008 as a "composite concept" combining the competencies of information literacy and media literacy. UNESCO emphasizes the importance of global education in media and information literacy, and in 2013 defined Media and Information Literacy (MIL) as the ability to access, evaluate, use, and create information and media content in critical and ethical ways. Prior to the 1990s, the primary focus of information literacy was research skills. Media literacy, a study that emerged around the 1970s, traditionally focuses on the analysis and the delivery of information through various forms of media. Information literacy, as a skill proposed as early as 1974, centers on an individual's ability to recognize information needs and effectively locate, evaluate, and use information. These days, the study of information literacy has been extended to include the study of media literacy in many countries like the UK, Australia and New Zealand. It is also referred to as information and communication technologies (ICT) in the United States. Educators such as Gregory Ulmer have also defined the field as electracy.Media literacy is the ability to actively inquire into and think critically about information. It includes the ability to understand, evaluate, and create media content, and is an essential skill in today's information society. Livingstone, Van Couvering, and Thumim (2008) described the distinction between media literacy and information literacy: "Media literacy views media as lenses or windows for observing the world and expressing the self, whereas information literacy sees information as a tool for taking action in the world." == Integration of media and information literacy == Historically, the fields of information and media literacy have been separate, but over the course of the 21st century there have been calls to integrate both fields. Most definitions of information and media literacy include not only the abilities to locate, access, and analyze information but also the ability to create information. Only by integrating media literacy with information literacy can students better understand the sources of information and how it is used. Media education has primarily taken place in educational institutions, while information education has primarily occurred in libraries. Discussions surrounding the overlap of information literacy and media literacy came to fruition in the mid-to-late 2000s and 2010s as noted by Marcus Leaning. == In the digital age == The definition of literacy is "the ability to read and write". In practice many more skills are needed to locate, critically assess and make effective use of information. By extension, literacy now also includes the ability to manage and interact with digital information and media, in personal, shared and public domains. Historically, "information literacy" has largely been seen from the relatively top-down, organisational viewpoint of library and information sciences. However the same term is also used to describe a generic "information literacy" skill. The modern digital age has led to the proliferation of information spread across the Internet. Individuals must be able to recognize whether information is true or false and better yet know how to locate, evaluate, use, and communicate information in various formats; this is called information literacy. Towards the end of the 20th century, literacy was redefined to include "new literacies" relating to the new skills needed in everyday experience. "Multiliteracies" recognised the multiplicity of literacies, which were often used in combination. "21st century skills" frameworks link new literacies to wider life skills such as creativity, critical thinking, accountability. What these approaches have in common is a focus on the multiple skills needed by individuals to navigate changing personal, professional and public "information landscapes". As the conventional definition of literacy itself continues to evolve among practitioners, so too has the definition of information literacies. Noteworthy definitions include: Zurkowski defined information literacy as "the ability to find known or knowable content on any subject." CILIP, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Practitioners, defines information literacy as "the ability to think critically and make balanced judgements about any information we find and use". In the United States, the definition proposed by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) is the most widely recognized. It defines information literacy as "a set of abilities requiring individuals to recognize when information is needed and to locate, evaluate, and use the needed information effectively." JISC, the Joint Information Systems Committee, refers to information literacy as one of six "digital capabilities", seen as an interconnected group of elements centered on "ICT literacy". Mozilla groups digital and other literacies as "21st century skills", a "broad set of knowledge, skills, habits and traits that are important to succeed in today's world". UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, recognizing the necessity of teaching and learning both traditional and new types of information, the global importance of education was emphasized in 2008 through the "Teacher Media and Information Literacy (MIL) Curriculum". It defines MIL as a set of competencies that enable citizens to access, retrieve, understand, evaluate, use, create, and share information and media content in all formats through various tools in a critical, ethical, and effective manner, so as to participate in and carry out personal, professional, and social activities. Besides this, UNESCO also asserts information literacy as a "universal human right". == 21st-century students == In modern society, although the overall level of education has improved, the channels for knowledge production and dissemination have become increasingly diverse and commercialized, and traditional authoritative institutions no longer hold a monopoly over knowledge validation. While digital platforms have broadened access to information, they have also weakened trust mechanisms and evaluation standards, making epistemological skepticism a norm. Moreover, with the rise and spread of social media, misinformation and disinformation can be just as easily accessed in both densely and sparsely populated areas. These factors further underscore the importance of information literacy education. The IML learning capacities prepare students to be 21st century literate. According to Jeff Wilhelm (2000), "technology has everything to do with literacy. And being able to use the latest electronic technologies has everything to do with being literate." He supports his argument with J. David Bolter's statement that "if our students are not reading and composing with various electronic technologies, then they are illiterate. They are not just unprepared for the future; they are illiterate right now, in our current time and context". In a broader sense, developing this advanced competency of media and information literacy is essential, as it is crucial for students to exercise their freedom of expression in the 21st century. Wilhelm's statement is supported by the 2005 Wired World Phase II (YCWW II) survey conducted by the Media Awareness Network of Canada on 5000 Grade 4 – 11 students. The key findings of the survey were: 62% of Grade 4 students prefer the Internet. 38% of Grade 4 students prefer the library. 91% of Grade 11 students prefer the Internet. 9% of Grade 11 students prefer the library. Marc Prensky (2001) uses the term "digital native" to describe people who have been brought up in a digital world. The Internet has been a pervasive element of young people's home lives. 94% of kids reported that they had Internet access at home, and a significant majority (61%) had a high-speed connection. By the time kids reach Grade 11, half of them (51 percent) have their own Internet-connected computer, separate and apart from the family computer. The survey also showed that young Canadians are now among the most wired in the world. Contrary to the earlier stereotype of the isolated and awkward computer nerd, today's wired kid is a social kid. In general, many students are better networked through the use of technology than most teachers and parents, who may not understand the abilities of technology.
Read more →
Collaborative diffusion

Collaborative Diffusion is a type of pathfinding algorithm which uses the concept of antiobjects, objects within a computer program that function opposite to what would be conventionally expected. Collaborative Diffusion is typically used in video games, when multiple agents must path towards a single target agent. For example, the ghosts in Pac-Man. In this case, the background tiles serve as antiobjects, carrying out the necessary calculations for creating a path and having the foreground objects react accordingly, whereas having foreground objects be responsible for their own pathing would be conventionally expected. Collaborative Diffusion is favored for its efficiency over other pathfinding algorithms, such as A, when handling multiple agents. Also, this method allows elements of competition and teamwork to easily be incorporated between tracking agents. Notably, the time taken to calculate paths remains constant as the number of agents increases.
Read more →
Drush

Drush (DRUpal SHell) is a computer software shell-based application used to control, manipulate, and administer Drupal websites. == Details == Drush was originally developed by Arto Bendiken for Drupal 4.7. In May 2007, it was partly rewritten and redesigned for Drupal 5 by Franz Heinzmann. Drush is maintained by Moshe Weitzman with the support of Owen Barton, greg.1.anderson, jonhattan, Mark Sonnabaum, Jonathan Hedstrom and Christopher Gervais.
Read more →
ISO 15926

ISO 15926 is a standard for data integration, sharing, exchange, and hand-over between computer systems. The title, "Industrial automation systems and integration—Integration of life-cycle data for process plants including oil and gas production facilities", is regarded too narrow by the present ISO 15926 developers. Having developed a generic data model and reference data library for process plants, it turned out that this subject is already so wide, that actually any state information may be modelled with it. == History == In 1991 a European Union ESPRIT-, named ProcessBase, started. The focus of this research project was to develop a data model for lifecycle information of a facility that would suit the requirements of the process industries. At the time that the project duration had elapsed, a consortium of companies involved in the process industries had been established: EPISTLE (European Process Industries STEP Technical Liaison Executive). Initially individual companies were members, but later this changed into a situation where three national consortia were the only members: PISTEP (UK), POSC/Caesar (Norway), and USPI-NL (Netherlands). (later PISTEP merged into POSC/Caesar, and USPI-NL was renamed to USPI). EPISTLE took over the work of the ProcessBase project. Initially this work involved a standard called ISO 10303-221 (referred to as "STEP AP221"). In that AP221 we saw, for the first time, an Annex M with a list of standard instances of the AP221 data model, including types of objects. These standard instances would be for reference and would act as a knowledge base with knowledge about the types of objects. In the early nineties EPISTLE started an activity to extend Annex M to become a library of such object classes and their relationships: STEPlib. In the STEPlib activities a group of approx. 100 domain experts from all three member consortia, spread over the various expertises (e.g. Electrical, Piping, Rotating equipment, etc.), worked together to define the "core classes". The development of STEPlib was extended with many additional classes and relationships between classes and published as Open source data. Furthermore, the concepts and relation types from the AP221 and ISO 15926-2 data models were also added to the STEPlib dictionary. This resulted in the development of Gellish English, whereas STEPlib became the Gellish English dictionary. Gellish English is a structured subset of natural English and is a modeling language suitable for knowledge modeling, product modeling and data exchange. It differs from conventional modeling languages (meta languages) as used in information technology as it not only defines generic concepts, but also includes an English dictionary. The semantic expression capability of Gellish English was significantly increased by extending the number of relation types that can be used to express knowledge and information. For modelling-technical reasons POSC/Caesar proposed another standard than ISO 10303, called ISO 15926. EPISTLE (and ISO) supported that proposal, and continued the modelling work, thereby writing Part 2 of ISO 15926. This Part 2 has official ISO IS (International Standard) status since 2003. POSC/Caesar started to put together their own RDL (Reference Data Library). They added many specialized classes, for example for ANSI (American National Standards Institute) pipe and pipe fittings. Meanwhile, STEPlib continued its existence, mainly driven by some members of USPI. Since it was clear that it was not in the interest of the industry to have two libraries for, in essence, the same set of classes, the Management Board of EPISTLE decided that the core classes of the two libraries shall be merged into Part 4 of ISO 15926. This merging process has been finished. Part 4 should act as reference data for part 2 of ISO 15926 as well as for ISO 10303-221 and replaced its Annex M. On June 5, 2007 ISO 15926-4 was signed off as a TS (Technical Specification). In 1999 the work on an earlier version of Part 7 started. Initially this was based on XML Schema (the only useful W3C Recommendation available then), but when Web Ontology Language (OWL) became available it was clear that provided a far more suitable environment for Part 7. Part 7 passed the first ISO ballot by the end of 2005, and an implementation project started. A formal ballot for TS (Technical Specification) was planned for December 2007. However, it was decided then to split Part 7 into more than one part, because the scope was too wide. == Need for ISO15926 == In 2004, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released a report on the impact of the lack of digital interoperability in the capital projects industry. The report estimated the cost of inadequate interoperability in the U.S. capital facilities industry to be $15.8 billion per year. This was considered likely to be a conservative figure. == The standard == ISO 15926 has thirteen parts (as of February 2022): Part 1 - Overview and fundamental principles Part 2 - Data model Part 3 - Reference data for geometry and topology Part 4 - Reference Data, the terms used within facilities for the process industry Part 6 - Methodology for the development and validation of reference data (under development) Part 7 - Template methodology Part 8 - OWL/RDF implementation Part 9 - Implementation standards, with the focus on standard web servers, web services, and security (under development) Part 10 - Conformance testing Part 11 - Methodology for simplified industrial usage of reference data (under development) Part 12 - Life cycle integration ontology in Web Ontology Language (OWL2) Part 13 - Integrated lifecycle asset planning === Description === The model and the library are suitable for representing lifecycle information about technical installations and their components. They can also be used for defining the terms used in product catalogs in e-commerce. Another, more limited, use of the standard is as a reference classification for harmonization purposes between shared databases and product catalogues that are not based on ISO 15926. The purpose of ISO 15926 is to provide a Lingua Franca for computer systems, thereby integrating the information produced by them. Although set up for the process industries with large projects involving many parties, and involving plant operations and maintenance lasting decades, the technology can be used by anyone willing to set up a proper vocabulary of reference data in line with Part 4. In Part 7 the concept of Templates is introduced. These are semantic constructs, using Part 2 entities, that represent a small piece of information. These constructs then are mapped to more efficient classes of n-ary relations that interlink the Nodes that are involved in the represented information. In Part 8 the Part 7 Templates are defined in OWL and instantiated in RDF. For validation and reasoning purposes all are represented in First-Order Logic as well. In Part 9 these Node and Template instances are stored in an RDF triple store, set up to a standard schema and an API. Each participating computer system maps its data from its internal format to such ISO-standard Node and Template instances. Data can be "handed over" from one triple store to another in cases where data custodianship is handed over (e.g. from a contractor to a plant owner, or from a manufacturer to the owners of the manufactured goods). Hand-over can be for a part of all data, whilst maintaining full referential integrity. Documents are user-definable. They are defined in XML Schema and they are, in essence, only a structure containing cells that make reference to instances of Templates. This represents a view on all lifecycle data: since the data model is a 4D (space-time) model, it is possible to present the data that was valid at any given point in time, thus providing a true historical record. It is expected that this will be used for Knowledge Mining. Data can be queried by means of SPARQL. In any implementation a restricted number of triple stores can be involved, with different access rights. This is done by means of creating a CPF Server (= Confederation of Participating Façades). An Ontology Browser allows for access to one or more triple stores in a given CPF, depending on the access rights. == Projects and applications == There are a number of projects working on the extension of the ISO 15926 standard in different application areas. === Capital-intensive projects === Within the application of Capital Intensive projects, some cooperating implementation projects are running: The DEXPI project: The objective of DEXPI is to develop and promote a general standard for the process industry covering all phases of the lifecycle of a (petro-)chemical plant, ranging from specification of functional requirements to assets in operation. Finalised projects include: The EDRC Project of FIATECH Capturing Equipment Data Requirements Using ISO 15926 and Assessing Conforma
Read more →
Informationist

An informationist (or information specialist in context) provides research and knowledge management services in the context of clinical care or biomedical research. Although there is no one educational pathway or formalized set of skills or knowledge for informationists, one way to think of the informationist is as one who possesses the knowledge and skill of a medical librarian with extensive research specialization and some formal clinical or public health education that goes beyond on-the-job osmosis. Medical librarians and other biomedical professional organizations have been exploring the possibilities for evaluating how informationists are being used and whether their activities supplement or replace medical library activity. More generally, an informationist is a professional who works with information within a particular business, analytic or scientific context to drive toward outcomes based on evidence, analysis, prediction and execution. For example, an extension of the term is increasingly emerging in financial services, life sciences and health care industries. Though still nascently in use, its adoption applies to individuals with extensive industry expertise, acute familiarity with organizational structures and processes, deep domain level information mastery and information systems technical savvy. Informationists in this context support transformational initiatives within and across functional areas of an enterprise as architects, governance experts, continuous improvement advocates and strategists. == Background == The term was proposed in 2000 by Davidoff & Florance. Their editorial suggested that physicians should be delegating their information needs to informationists, just as they currently order CT scans from radiologists or cardiac catheterizations from cardiologists. They conceived of an information professional who was embedded in (and indeed, supported by) the clinical departments. Supporters of the concept see it as a means for librarians to reinvigorate connections with the faculty/clinicians, as well as provide superior service by dint of informationists' biomedical training. Critics complained that the idea is nothing new; librarians already provide in-depth, high quality information services and clinical medical librarians have been working alongside physicians, nurses and other clinicians for years. Large informationist programs in the U.S. exist at the National Institutes of Health and at Vanderbilt University. Welch Medical Library at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) is developing an informationist service model in which its 10 clinical and public health librarians are moving from serving as liaison librarians for assigned departments toward becoming embedded informationists within their departments. To prepare for the embedded informationist role, librarians are undertaking education as needed to supplement their backgrounds. For example, librarians bring experience in clinical behavior counseling, public health, nursing, and more. Informationist training can then focus upon filling gaps in research methods knowledge more so than on gaining additional knowledge in the librarian's area of expertise. Courses, seminars and workshops being undertaken include those covering systematic reviews, evidence-based medicine, critical appraisal, medical language, anatomy and physiology, biostatistics, and clinical research. The term informationist is related to that of informatician—also informaticist—and many informationists do possess skills in clinical topics, bioinformatics, and biomedical informatics. Harvard University, the University of Pittsburgh, and Washington University in St. Louis are examples of institutional libraries which have hired PhD-level scientists (who may or may not have library degrees) to provide informatics support for biomedical research.
Read more →
Pseudonymization

Pseudonymization is a data management and de-identification procedure by which personally identifiable information fields within a data record are replaced by one or more artificial identifiers, or pseudonyms. A single pseudonym for each replaced field or collection of replaced fields makes the data record less identifiable while remaining suitable for data analysis and data processing. Pseudonymization (or pseudonymisation, the spelling under European guidelines) is one way to comply with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) demands for secure data storage of personal information. Pseudonymized data can be restored to its original state with the addition of information which allows individuals to be re-identified. In contrast, anonymization is intended to prevent re-identification of individuals within the dataset. Clause 18, Module Four, footnote 2 of the Adoption by the European Commission of the Implementing Decisions (EU) 2021/914 "requires rendering the data anonymous in such a way that the individual is no longer identifiable by anyone ... and that this process is irreversible." == Impact of Schrems II ruling == The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on 9 December 2021 highlighted pseudonymization as the top technical supplementary measure for Schrems II compliance. Less than two weeks later, the EU Commission highlighted pseudonymization as an essential element of the equivalency decision for South Korea, which is the status that was lost by the United States under the Schrems II ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The importance of GDPR-compliant pseudonymization increased dramatically in June 2021 when the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Commission highlighted GDPR-compliant pseudonymization as the state-of-the-art technical supplementary measure for the ongoing lawful use of EU personal data when using third country (i.e., non-EU) cloud processors or remote service providers under the "Schrems II" ruling by the CJEU. Under the GDPR and final EDPB Schrems II Guidance, the term pseudonymization requires a new protected "state" of data, producing a protected outcome that: Protects direct, indirect, and quasi-identifiers, together with characteristics and behaviors; Protects at the record and data set level versus only the field level so that the protection travels wherever the data goes, including when it is in use; and Protects against unauthorized re-identification via the mosaic effect by generating high entropy (uncertainty) levels by dynamically assigning different tokens at different times for various purposes. The combination of these protections is necessary to prevent the re-identification of data subjects without the use of additional information kept separately, as required under GDPR Article 4(5) and as further underscored by paragraph 85(4) of the final EDPB Schrems II guidance: Article 4(5) "Definitions" of the GDPR defines pseudonymization as "the processing of personal data in such a manner that the personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information, provided that such additional information is kept separately and is subject to technical and organisational measures to ensure that the personal data are not attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person." "Use Case 2: Transfer of pseudonymised Data Paragraph 85(4)" of the final EDPB Schrems II Guidance requires that “the controller has established by means of a thorough analysis of the data in question – taking into account any information that the public authorities of the recipient country may be expected to possess and use – that the pseudonymised personal data cannot be attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person even if cross-referenced with such information." GDPR-compliant pseudonymization requires that data is "anonymous" in the strictest EU sense of the word – globally anonymous – but for the additional information held separately and made available under controlled conditions as authorized by the data controller for permitted re-identification of individual data subjects. Clause 18, Module Four, footnote 2 of the Adoption by the European Commission of the Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/914 "requires rendering the data anonymous in such a way that the individual is no longer identifiable by anyone, in line with recital 26 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and that this process is irreversible." Before the Schrems II ruling, pseudonymization was a technique used by security experts or government officials to hide personally identifiable information to maintain data structure and privacy of information. Some common examples of sensitive information include postal code, location of individuals, names of individuals, race and gender, etc. After the Schrems II ruling, GDPR-compliant pseudonymization must satisfy the above-noted elements as an "outcome" versus merely a technique. == Data fields == The choice of which data fields are to be pseudonymized is partly subjective. Less selective fields, such as birth date or postal code are often also included because they are usually available from other sources and therefore make a record easier to identify. Pseudonymizing these less identifying fields removes most of their analytic value and is therefore normally accompanied by the introduction of new derived and less identifying forms, such as year of birth or a larger postal code region. Data fields that are less identifying, such as date of attendance, are usually not pseudonymized. This is because too much statistical utility is lost in doing so, not because the data cannot be identified. For example, given prior knowledge of a few attendance dates it is easy to identify someone's data in a pseudonymized dataset by selecting only those people with that pattern of dates. This is an example of an inference attack. The weakness of pre-GDPR pseudonymized data to inference attacks is commonly overlooked. A famous example is the AOL search data scandal. The AOL example of unauthorized re-identification did not require access to separately kept "additional information" that was under the control of the data controller as is now required for GDPR-compliant pseudonymization, outlined below under the section "New Definition for Pseudonymization Under GDPR". Protecting statistically useful pseudonymized data from re-identification requires: a sound information security base controlling the risk that the analysts, researchers or other data workers cause a privacy breach The pseudonym allows tracking back of data to its origins, which distinguishes pseudonymization from anonymization, where all person-related data that could allow backtracking has been purged. Pseudonymization is an issue in, for example, patient-related data that has to be passed on securely between clinical centers. The application of pseudonymization to e-health intends to preserve the patient's privacy and data confidentiality. It allows primary use of medical records by authorized health care providers and privacy preserving secondary use by researchers. In the US, HIPAA provides guidelines on how health care data must be handled and data de-identification or pseudonymization is one way to simplify HIPAA compliance. However, plain pseudonymization for privacy preservation often reaches its limits when genetic data are involved (see also genetic privacy). Due to the identifying nature of genetic data, depersonalization is often not sufficient to hide the corresponding person. Potential solutions are the combination of pseudonymization with fragmentation and encryption. An example of application of pseudonymization procedure is creation of datasets for de-identification research by replacing identifying words with words from the same category (e.g. replacing a name with a random name from the names dictionary), however, in this case it is in general not possible to track data back to its origins. == New definition under GDPR == Effective as of May 25, 2018, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) defines pseudonymization for the very first time at the EU level in Article 4(5). Under Article 4(5) definitional requirements, data is pseudonymized if it cannot be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of separately kept "additional information". Pseudonymized data embodies the state of the art in Data Protection by Design and by Default because it requires protection of both direct and indirect identifiers (not just direct). GDPR Data Protection by Design and by Default principles as embodied in pseudonymization require protection of both direct and indirect identifiers so that personal data is not cross-referenceable (or re-identifiable) via the "mosaic effect" without access to "additional information" that is kept separately by the controller. Because access to separately kept "additional information" is required
Read more →
Cinema 4D

Cinema 4D is a 3D software suite developed by the German company Maxon. == Overview == As of R21, only a single version of Cinema 4D is available. It replaces all previous variants, including BodyPaint 3D, and includes all features of the past 'Studio' variant. With R21, all binaries were unified. There is no technical difference between commercial, educational, or demo versions. The difference is now only in licensing. 2014 saw the release of Cinema 4D Lite, which came packaged with Adobe After Effects Creative Cloud 2014. "Lite" acts as an introductory version, with many features withheld. This is part of a partnership between the two companies, where a Maxon-produced plug-in, called Cineware, allows any variant to create a seamless workflow with After Effects. The "Lite" variant is dependent on After Effects CC, needing the latter application running to launch, and is only sold as a package component included with After Effects CC through Adobe. Initially, Cinema 4D was developed for Amiga computers in the early 1990s, and the first three versions of the program were available exclusively for that platform. With v4, however, Maxon began to develop the application for Windows and Macintosh computers as well, citing the wish to reach a wider audience and the growing instability of the Amiga market following Commodore's bankruptcy. It was also released for BeOS. On Linux, Cinema 4D is available as a commandline rendering version. == Modules and older variants == From R12 to R20, Cinema 4D was available in four variants. A core Cinema 4D 'Prime' application, a 'Broadcast' version with additional motion-graphics features, 'Visualize,' which adds functions for architectural design and 'Studio,' which includes all modules. From Release 8 until Release 11.5, Cinema 4D had a modular approach to the application, with the ability to expand upon the core application with various modules. This ended with Release 12, though the functionality of these modules remains in the different flavors of Cinema 4D (Prime, Broadcast, Visualize, Studio) The old modules were: Advanced Render (global illumination/HDRI, caustics, ambient occlusion and sky simulation) BodyPaint 3D (direct painting on UVW meshes; now included in the core. In essence Cinema 4D Core/Prime and the BodyPaint 3D products are identical. The only difference between the two is the splash screen that is shown at startup and the default user interface.) Dynamics (for simulating soft body and rigid body dynamics) Hair (simulates hair, fur, grass, etc.) MOCCA (character animation and cloth simulation) MoGraph (Motion Graphics procedural modelling and animation toolset) NET Render (to render animations over a TCP/IP network in render farms) PyroCluster (simulation of smoke and fire effects) Prime (the core application) Broadcast (adds MoGraph2) Visualize (adds Virtual Walkthrough, Advanced Render, Sky, Sketch and Toon, data exchange, camera matching) Studio (the complete package) == Version history == == Use in industry == A number of films and related works have been modeled and rendered in Cinema 4D, including: == Cinebench == Cinebench is a cross-platform test suite which tests a computer's hardware capabilities. It can be used as a test for Cinema 4D's 3D modeling, animation, motion graphic and rendering performance on multiple CPU cores. The program "target[s] a certain niche and [is] better suited for high-end desktop and workstation platforms". Cinebench is commonly used to demonstrate hardware capabilities at tech shows to show a CPU performance, especially by tech YouTubers and review sites.
Read more →
Interviewer effect

The interviewer effect (also called interviewer variance or interviewer error) is the distortion of response to an interviewer-administered data collection effort which results from differential reactions to the social style and personality of interviewers or to their presentation of particular questions. The use of fixed-wording questions is one method of reducing interviewer bias. Anthropological research and case-studies are also affected by the problem, which is exacerbated by the self-fulfilling prophecy, when the researcher is also the interviewer it is also any effect on data gathered from interviewing people that is caused by the behavior or characteristics (real or perceived) of the interviewer. Interviewer effects can also be associated with the characteristics of the interviewer, such as race. Whether black respondents are interviewed by white interviewers or black interviewers has a strong impact on their responses to both attitude questions and behavioral ones. In the latter case, for example, if black respondents are interviewed by black interviewers in pre-election surveys, they are more likely to actually vote in the upcoming election than if they are interviewed by white interviewers. Furthermore, the race of the interviewer can also affect answers to factual questions that might take the form of a test of how informed the respondent is. Black respondents in a survey of political knowledge, for example, get fewer correct answers to factual questions about politics when interviewed by white interviewers than when interviewed by black interviewers. This is consistent with the research literature on stereotype threat, which finds diminished test performance of potentially stigmatised groups when the interviewer or test supervisor is from a perceived higher status group. Interviewer effects can be mitigated somewhat by randomly assigning subjects to different interviewers, or by using tools such as computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI).
Read more →
Broadcast (parallel pattern)

Broadcast is a collective communication primitive in parallel programming to distribute programming instructions or data to nodes in a cluster. It is the reverse operation of reduction. The broadcast operation is widely used in parallel algorithms, such as matrix-vector multiplication, Gaussian elimination and shortest paths. The Message Passing Interface implements broadcast in MPI_Bcast. == Definition == A message M [ 1.. m ] {\displaystyle M[1..m]} of length m {\displaystyle m} should be distributed from one node to all other p − 1 {\displaystyle p-1} nodes. T byte {\displaystyle T_{\text{byte}}} is the time it takes to send one byte. T start {\displaystyle T_{\text{start}}} is the time it takes for a message to travel to another node, independent of its length. Therefore, the time to send a package from one node to another is t = s i z e × T byte + T start {\displaystyle t=\mathrm {size} \times T_{\text{byte}}+T_{\text{start}}} . p {\displaystyle p} is the number of nodes and the number of processors. == Binomial Tree Broadcast == With Binomial Tree Broadcast the whole message is sent at once. Each node that has already received the message sends it on further. This grows exponentially as each time step the amount of sending nodes is doubled. The algorithm is ideal for short messages but falls short with longer ones as during the time when the first transfer happens only one node is busy. Sending a message to all nodes takes log 2 ⁡ ( p ) t {\displaystyle \log _{2}(p)t} time which results in a runtime of log 2 ⁡ ( p ) ( m T byte + T start ) {\displaystyle \log _{2}(p)(mT_{\text{byte}}+T_{\text{start}})} == Linear Pipeline Broadcast == The message is split up into k {\displaystyle k} packages and sent piecewise from node n {\displaystyle n} to node n + 1 {\displaystyle n+1} . The time needed to distribute the first message piece is p t = m k T byte + T start {\textstyle pt={\frac {m}{k}}T_{\text{byte}}+T_{\text{start}}} whereby t {\displaystyle t} is the time needed to send a package from one processor to another. Sending a whole message takes ( p + k ) ( m T byte k + T start ) = ( p + k ) t = p t + k t {\displaystyle (p+k)\left({\frac {mT_{\text{byte}}}{k}}+T_{\text{start}}\right)=(p+k)t=pt+kt} . Optimal is to choose k = m ( p − 2 ) T byte T start {\displaystyle k={\sqrt {\frac {m(p-2)T_{\text{byte}}}{T_{\text{start}}}}}} resulting in a runtime of approximately m T byte + p T start + m p T start T byte {\displaystyle mT_{\text{byte}}+pT_{\text{start}}+{\sqrt {mpT_{\text{start}}T_{\text{byte}}}}} The run time is dependent on not only message length but also the number of processors that play roles. This approach shines when the length of the message is much larger than the amount of processors. == Pipelined Binary Tree Broadcast == This algorithm combines Binomial Tree Broadcast and Linear Pipeline Broadcast, which makes the algorithm work well for both short and long messages. The aim is to have as many nodes work as possible while maintaining the ability to send short messages quickly. A good approach is to use Fibonacci trees for splitting up the tree, which are a good choice as a message cannot be sent to both children at the same time. This results in a binary tree structure. We will assume in the following that communication is full-duplex. The Fibonacci tree structure has a depth of about d ≈ log Φ ⁡ ( p ) {\displaystyle d\approx \log _{\Phi }(p)} whereby Φ = 1 + 5 2 {\displaystyle \Phi ={\frac {1+{\sqrt {5}}}{2}}} the golden ratio. The resulting runtime is ( m k T byte + T start ) ( d + 2 k − 2 ) {\textstyle ({\frac {m}{k}}T_{\text{byte}}+T_{\text{start}})(d+2k-2)} . Optimal is k = n ( d − 2 ) T byte 3 T start {\displaystyle k={\sqrt {\frac {n(d-2)T_{\text{byte}}}{3T_{\text{start}}}}}} . This results in a runtime of 2 m T byte + T start log Φ ⁡ ( p ) + 2 m log Φ ⁡ ( p ) T start T byte {\displaystyle 2mT_{\text{byte}}+T_{\text{start}}\log _{\Phi }(p)+{\sqrt {2m\log _{\Phi }(p)T_{\text{start}}T_{\text{byte}}}}} . == Two Tree Broadcast (23-Broadcast) == === Definition === This algorithm aims to improve on some disadvantages of tree structure models with pipelines. Normally in tree structure models with pipelines (see above methods), leaves receive just their data and cannot contribute to send and spread data. The algorithm concurrently uses two binary trees to communicate over. Those trees will be called tree A and B. Structurally in binary trees there are relatively more leave nodes than inner nodes. Basic Idea of this algorithm is to make a leaf node of tree A be an inner node of tree B. It has also the same technical function in opposite side from B to A tree. This means, two packets are sent and received by inner nodes and leaves in different steps. === Tree construction === The number of steps needed to construct two parallel-working binary trees is dependent on the amount of processors. Like with other structures one processor can is the root node who sends messages to two trees. It is not necessary to set a root node, because it is not hard to recognize that the direction of sending messages in binary tree is normally top to bottom. There is no limitation on the number of processors to build two binary trees. Let the height of the combined tree be h = ⌈log(p + 2)⌉. Tree A and B can have a height of h − 1 {\displaystyle h-1} . Especially, if the number of processors correspond to p = 2 h − 1 {\displaystyle p=2^{h}-1} , we can make both sides trees and a root node. To construct this model efficiently and easily with a fully built tree, we can use two methods called "Shifting" and "Mirroring" to get second tree. Let assume tree A is already modeled and tree B is supposed to be constructed based on tree A. We assume that we have p {\displaystyle p} processors ordered from 0 to p − 1 {\displaystyle p-1} . ==== Shifting ==== The "Shifting" method, first copies tree A and moves every node one position to the left to get tree B. The node, which will be located on -1, becomes a child of processor p − 2 {\displaystyle p-2} . ==== Mirroring ==== "Mirroring" is ideal for an even number of processors. With this method tree B can be more easily constructed by tree A, because there are no structural transformations in order to create the new tree. In addition, a symmetric process makes this approach simple. This method can also handle an odd number of processors, in this case, we can set processor p − 1 {\displaystyle p-1} as root node for both trees. For the remaining processors "Mirroring" can be used. === Coloring === We need to find a schedule in order to make sure that no processor has to send or receive two messages from two trees in a step. The edge, is a communication connection to connect two nodes, and can be labelled as either 0 or 1 to make sure that every processor can alternate between 0 and 1-labelled edges. The edges of A and B can be colored with two colors (0 and 1) such that no processor is connected to its parent nodes in A and B using edges of the same color- no processor is connected to its children nodes in A or B using edges of the same color. In every even step the edges with 0 are activated and edges with 1 are activated in every odd step. === Time complexity === In this case the number of packet k is divided in half for each tree. Both trees are working together the total number of packets k = k / 2 + k / 2 {\displaystyle k=k/2+k/2} (upper tree + bottom tree) In each binary tree sending a message to another nodes takes 2 i {\displaystyle 2i} steps until a processor has at least a packet in step i {\displaystyle i} . Therefore, we can calculate all steps as d := log 2 ⁡ ( p + 1 ) ⇒ log 2 ⁡ ( p + 1 ) ≈ log 2 ⁡ ( p ) {\displaystyle d:=\log _{2}(p+1)\Rightarrow \log _{2}(p+1)\approx \log _{2}(p)} . The resulting run time is T ( m , p , k ) ≈ ( m k T byte + T start ) ( 2 d + k − 1 ) {\textstyle T(m,p,k)\approx ({\frac {m}{k}}T_{\text{byte}}+T_{\text{start}})(2d+k-1)} . (Optimal k = m ( 2 d − 1 ) T byte / T start {\textstyle k={\sqrt {{m(2d-1)T_{\text{byte}}}/{T_{\text{start}}}}}} ) This results in a run time of T ( m , p ) ≈ m T byte + T start ⋅ 2 log 2 ⁡ ( p ) + m ⋅ 2 log 2 ⁡ ( p ) T start T byte {\displaystyle T(m,p)\approx mT_{\text{byte}}+T_{\text{start}}\cdot 2\log _{2}(p)+{\sqrt {m\cdot 2\log _{2}(p)T_{\text{start}}T_{\text{byte}}}}} . == ESBT-Broadcasting (Edge-disjoint Spanning Binomial Trees) == In this section, another broadcasting algorithm with an underlying telephone communication model will be introduced. A Hypercube creates network system with p = 2 d ( d = 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , . . . ) {\displaystyle p=2^{d}(d=0,1,2,3,...)} . Every node is represented by binary 0 , 1 {\displaystyle {0,1}} depending on the number of dimensions. Fundamentally ESBT(Edge-disjoint Spanning Binomial Trees) is based on hypercube graphs, pipelining( m {\displaystyle m} messages are divided by k {\displaystyle k} packets) and binomial trees. The Processor 0 d {\displaystyle 0^{d}} cyclically spreads packets to roots of ESB
Read more →
Species distribution modelling

Species distribution modelling (SDM), also known as environmental (or ecological) niche modelling (ENM), habitat suitability modelling, predictive habitat distribution modelling, and range mapping uses ecological models to predict the distribution of a species across geographic space and time using environmental data. The environmental data are most often climate data (e.g. temperature, precipitation), but can include other variables such as soil type, water depth, and land cover. SDMs are used in several research areas in conservation biology, ecology and evolution. These models can be used to understand how environmental conditions influence the occurrence or abundance of a species, and for predictive purposes (ecological forecasting). Predictions from an SDM may be of a species' future distribution under climate change, a species' past distribution in order to assess evolutionary relationships, or the potential future distribution of an invasive species. Predictions of current and/or future habitat suitability can be useful for management applications (e.g. reintroduction or translocation of vulnerable species, reserve placement in anticipation of climate change). There are two main types of SDMs. Correlative SDMs, also known as climate envelope models, bioclimatic models, or resource selection function models, model the observed distribution of a species as a function of environmental conditions. Mechanistic SDMs, also known as process-based models or biophysical models, use independently derived information about a species' physiology to develop a model of the environmental conditions under which the species can exist. The extent to which such modelled data reflect real-world species distributions will depend on a number of factors, including the nature, complexity, and accuracy of the models used and the quality of the available environmental data layers; the availability of sufficient and reliable species distribution data as model input; and the influence of various factors such as barriers to dispersal, geologic history, or biotic interactions, that increase the difference between the realized niche and the fundamental niche. Environmental niche modelling may be considered a part of the discipline of biodiversity informatics. == History == A. F. W. Schimper used geographical and environmental factors to explain plant distributions in his 1898 Pflanzengeographie auf physiologischer Grundlage (Plant Geography Upon a Physiological Basis) and his 1908 work of the same name. Andrew Murray used the environment to explain the distribution of mammals in his 1866 The Geographical Distribution of Mammals. Robert Whittaker's work with plants and Robert MacArthur's work with birds strongly established the role the environment plays in species distributions. Elgene O. Box constructed environmental envelope models to predict the range of tree species. His computer simulations were among the earliest uses of species distribution modelling. The adoption of more sophisticated generalised linear models (GLMs) made it possible to create more sophisticated and realistic species distribution models. The expansion of remote sensing and the development of GIS-based environmental modelling increase the amount of environmental information available for model-building and made it easier to use. == Correlative vs mechanistic models == === Correlative SDMs === SDMs originated as correlative models. Correlative SDMs model the observed distribution of a species as a function of geographically referenced climatic predictor variables using multiple regression approaches. Given a set of geographically referred observed presences of a species and a set of climate maps, a model defines the most likely environmental ranges within which a species lives. Correlative SDMs assume that species are at equilibrium with their environment and that the relevant environmental variables have been adequately sampled. The models allow for interpolation between a limited number of species occurrences. For these models to be effective, it is required to gather observations not only of species presences, but also of absences, that is, where the species does not live. Records of species absences are typically not as common as records of presences, thus often "random background" or "pseudo-absence" data are used to fit these models. If there are incomplete records of species occurrences, pseudo-absences can introduce bias. Since correlative SDMs are models of a species' observed distribution, they are models of the realized niche (the environments where a species is found), as opposed to the fundamental niche (the environments where a species can be found, or where the abiotic environment is appropriate for the survival). For a given species, the realized and fundamental niches might be the same, but if a species is geographically confined due to dispersal limitation or species interactions, the realized niche will be smaller than the fundamental niche. Correlative SDMs are easier and faster to implement than mechanistic SDMs, and can make ready use of available data. Since they are correlative however, they do not provide much information about causal mechanisms and are not good for extrapolation. They will also be inaccurate if the observed species range is not at equilibrium (e.g. if a species has been recently introduced and is actively expanding its range). In standard SDMs, the distribution of a single species is often modeled, with unique parameters describing how environmental (abiotic) factors influence its occurrence probability. This allows for differentiated responses to environmental drivers among species, but can be problematic for data-deficient species. In contrast, similarities in environmental responses can be accounted for in multi-species SDMs, which model several species jointly using shared or hierarchically related parameters. However, neither approach explicitly accounts for community-level biotic interactions, which can be important in explaining species diversity patterns. Joint species distribution models (joint SDMs or J-SDMs) address this by modeling species co-occurrence patterns directly. The occurrence probability of a given species is thus influenced not only by abiotic drivers but also by inferred biotic associations with other species. This can improve accuracy for rarer taxa and provide insights into community ecology. Both standard SDMs and J-SDMs can be used to generate community-level metrics, such as species richness, by aggregating outputs across multiple species. These can be important for decision-making such as conservation planning. === Mechanistic SDMs === Mechanistic SDMs are more recently developed. In contrast to correlative models, mechanistic SDMs use physiological information about a species (taken from controlled field or laboratory studies) to determine the range of environmental conditions within which the species can persist. These models aim to directly characterize the fundamental niche, and to project it onto the landscape. A simple model may simply identify threshold values outside of which a species can't survive. A more complex model may consist of several sub-models, e.g. micro-climate conditions given macro-climate conditions, body temperature given micro-climate conditions, fitness or other biological rates (e.g. survival, fecundity) given body temperature (thermal performance curves), resource or energy requirements, and population dynamics. Geographically referenced environmental data are used as model inputs. Because the species distribution predictions are independent of the species' known range, these models are especially useful for species whose range is actively shifting and not at equilibrium, such as invasive species. Mechanistic SDMs incorporate causal mechanisms and are better for extrapolation and non-equilibrium situations. However, they are more labor-intensive to create than correlational models and require the collection and validation of a lot of physiological data, which may not be readily available. The models require many assumptions and parameter estimates, and they can become very complicated. Dispersal, biotic interactions, and evolutionary processes present challenges, as they aren't usually incorporated into either correlative or mechanistic models. Correlational and mechanistic models can be used in combination to gain additional insights. For example, a mechanistic model could be used to identify areas that are clearly outside the species' fundamental niche, and these areas can be marked as absences or excluded from analysis. See for a comparison between mechanistic and correlative models. == Niche models (correlative) == There are a variety of mathematical methods that can be used for fitting, selecting, and evaluating correlative SDMs. Models include "profile" methods, which are simple statistical techniques that use e.g. environmental distance to known sites of occurrence such as
Read more →
LMArena

Arena (formerly LMArena and Chatbot Arena) is a public, web-based platform that evaluates large language models (LLMs). Users enter prompts for two anonymous models to respond to and vote on the model that gave the better response, after which the models' identities are revealed. Users can also choose models to test themselves via the "Direct" selection. Companies which have supplied the company with their large language models include OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic. The website has been used for preview releases of upcoming models. Chinese company DeepSeek tested its prototype models in the Arena months before its R1 model gained attention in Western media. Other notable pre-release models include OpenAI's GPT-5 under the codename "summit" and Google DeepMind's Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (an image-generation and editing model) under the codename "Nano Banana". Research has identified specific limitations in Arena's methodology. == History == Chatbot Arena was released on April 24, 2023. In June 2024, Chatbot Arena added image support. In September 2024, Chatbot Arena moved to its own dedicated domain name, lmarena.ai (or LMArena). In April 2025, Meta released Llama 4. Llama 4 Maverick beat GPT-4o and Gemini 2.0 Flash on LMArena, but the version of Maverick on LMArena unfairly differed from the publicly available version. LMArena updated their policies in response. In April 2025, LMArena incorporated as an independent company. That May, LMArena raised $100 million in a seed funding round, valuing the company at $600 million. Participants in the seed funding round included Andreessen Horowitz, UC Investments, Lightspeed Venture Partners, Felicis Ventures, and Kleiner Perkins. On January 6, 2026, LMArena announced the closing of a $150 million Series A funding round, bringing the company’s post-money valuation to approximately $1.7 billion. The round was led by Felicis and UC Investments (University of California), with participation from Andreessen Horowitz, The House Fund, LDVP, Kleiner Perkins, Lightspeed Venture Partners, and Laude Ventures. In January 2026, LMArena added video support. On January 28, 2026, LMArena rebranded to "Arena".
Read more →
Leiden algorithm

The Leiden algorithm is a community detection algorithm developed by Traag et al at Leiden University. It was developed as a modification of the Louvain method. Like the Louvain method, the Leiden algorithm attempts to optimize modularity in extracting communities from networks; however, it addresses key issues present in the Louvain method, namely poorly connected communities and the resolution limit of modularity. == Improvement over Louvain method == Broadly, the Leiden algorithm uses the same two primary phases as the Louvain algorithm: a local node moving step (though, the method by which nodes are considered in Leiden is more efficient) and a graph aggregation step. However, to address the issues with poorly-connected communities and the merging of smaller communities into larger communities (the resolution limit of modularity), the Leiden algorithm employs an intermediate refinement phase in which communities may be split to guarantee that all communities are well-connected. Consider, for example, the following graph: Three communities are present in this graph (each color represents a community). Additionally, the center "bridge" node (represented with an extra circle) is a member of the community represented by blue nodes. Now consider the result of a node-moving step which merges the communities denoted by red and green nodes into a single community (as the two communities are highly connected): Notably, the center "bridge" node is now a member of the larger red community after node moving occurs (due to the greedy nature of the local node moving algorithm). In the Louvain method, such a merging would be followed immediately by the graph aggregation phase. However, this causes a disconnection between two different sections of the community represented by blue nodes. In the Leiden algorithm, the graph is instead refined: The Leiden algorithm's refinement step ensures that the center "bridge" node is kept in the blue community to ensure that it remains intact and connected, despite the potential improvement in modularity from adding the center "bridge" node to the red community. == Graph components == Before defining the Leiden algorithm, it will be helpful to define some of the components of a graph. === Vertices and edges === A graph is composed of vertices (nodes) and edges. Each edge is connected to two vertices, and each vertex may be connected to zero or more edges. Edges are typically represented by straight lines, while nodes are represented by circles or points. In set notation, let V {\displaystyle V} be the set of vertices, and E {\displaystyle E} be the set of edges: V := { v 1 , v 2 , … , v n } E := { e i j , e i k , … , e k l } {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}V&:=\{v_{1},v_{2},\dots ,v_{n}\}\\E&:=\{e_{ij},e_{ik},\dots ,e_{kl}\}\end{aligned}}} where e i j {\displaystyle e_{ij}} is the directed edge from vertex v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} to vertex v j {\displaystyle v_{j}} . We can also write this as an ordered pair: e i j := ( v i , v j ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}e_{ij}&:=(v_{i},v_{j})\end{aligned}}} === Community === A community is a unique set of nodes: C i ⊆ V C i ⋂ C j = ∅ ∀ i ≠ j {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}C_{i}&\subseteq V\\C_{i}&\bigcap C_{j}=\emptyset ~\forall ~i\neq j\end{aligned}}} and the union of all communities must be the total set of vertices: V = ⋃ i = 1 C i {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}V&=\bigcup _{i=1}C_{i}\end{aligned}}} === Partition === A partition is the set of all communities: P = { C 1 , C 2 , … , C n } {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\mathcal {P}}&=\{C_{1},C_{2},\dots ,C_{n}\}\end{aligned}}} == Partition quality == How communities are partitioned is an integral part on the Leiden algorithm. How partitions are decided can depend on how their quality is measured. Additionally, many of these metrics contain parameters of their own that can change the outcome of their communities. === Modularity === Modularity is a highly used quality metric for assessing how well a set of communities partition a graph. The equation for this metric is defined for an adjacency matrix, A, as: Q = 1 2 m ∑ i j ( A i j − k i k j 2 m ) δ ( c i , c j ) {\displaystyle Q={\frac {1}{2m}}\sum _{ij}(A_{ij}-{\frac {k_{i}k_{j}}{2m}})\delta (c_{i},c_{j})} where: A i j {\displaystyle A_{ij}} represents the edge weight between nodes i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} ; see Adjacency matrix; k i {\displaystyle k_{i}} and k j {\displaystyle k_{j}} are the sum of the weights of the edges attached to nodes i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} , respectively; m {\displaystyle m} is the sum of all of the edge weights in the graph; c i {\displaystyle c_{i}} and c j {\displaystyle c_{j}} are the communities to which the nodes i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} belong; and δ {\displaystyle \delta } is Kronecker delta function: δ ( c i , c j ) = { 1 if c i and c j are the same community 0 otherwise {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\delta (c_{i},c_{j})&={\begin{cases}1&{\text{if }}c_{i}{\text{ and }}c_{j}{\text{ are the same community}}\\0&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}\end{aligned}}} === Reichardt Bornholdt Potts Model (RB) === One of the most well used metrics for the Leiden algorithm is the Reichardt Bornholdt Potts Model (RB). This model is used by default in most mainstream Leiden algorithm libraries under the name RBConfigurationVertexPartition. This model introduces a resolution parameter γ {\displaystyle \gamma } and is highly similar to the equation for modularity. This model is defined by the following quality function for an adjacency matrix, A, as: Q = ∑ i j ( A i j − γ k i k j 2 m ) δ ( c i , c j ) {\displaystyle Q=\sum _{ij}(A_{ij}-\gamma {\frac {k_{i}k_{j}}{2m}})\delta (c_{i},c_{j})} where: γ {\displaystyle \gamma } represents a linear resolution parameter === Constant Potts Model (CPM) === Another metric similar to RB is the Constant Potts Model (CPM). This metric also relies on a resolution parameter γ {\displaystyle \gamma } The quality function is defined as: H = − ∑ i j ( A i j w i j − γ ) δ ( c i , c j ) {\displaystyle H=-\sum _{ij}(A_{ij}w_{ij}-\gamma )\delta (c_{i},c_{j})} === Understanding Potts Model resolution parameters/Resolution limit === Typically Potts models such as RB or CPM include a resolution parameter in their calculation. Potts models are introduced as a response to the resolution limit problem that is present in modularity maximization based community detection. The resolution limit problem is that, for some graphs, maximizing modularity may cause substructures of a graph to merge and become a single community and thus smaller structures are lost. These resolution parameters allow modularity adjacent methods to be modified to suit the requirements of the user applying the Leiden algorithm to account for small substructures at a certain granularity. The figure on the right illustrates why resolution can be a helpful parameter when using modularity based quality metrics. In the first graph, modularity only captures the large scale structures of the graph; however, in the second example, a more granular quality metric could potentially detect all substructures in a graph. == Algorithm == The Leiden algorithm starts with a graph of disorganized nodes (a) and sorts it by partitioning them to maximize modularity (the difference in quality between the generated partition and a hypothetical randomized partition of communities). The method it uses is similar to the Louvain algorithm, except that after moving each node it also considers that node's neighbors that are not already in the community it was placed in. This process results in our first partition (b), also referred to as P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} . Then the algorithm refines this partition by first placing each node into its own individual community and then moving them from one community to another to maximize modularity. It does this iteratively until each node has been visited and moved, and each community has been refined - this creates partition (c), which is the initial partition of P refined {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{\text{refined}}} . Then an aggregate network (d) is created by turning each community into a node. P refined {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{\text{refined}}} is used as the basis for the aggregate network while P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} is used to create its initial partition. Because we use the original partition P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} in this step, we must retain it so that it can be used in future iterations. These steps together form the first iteration of the algorithm. In subsequent iterations, the nodes of the aggregate network (which each represent a community) are once again placed into their own individual communities and then sorted according to modularity to form a new P refined {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{\text{refined}}} , forming (e) in the above graphic. In the case depicted by the graph, the nodes were already sorted optimally, so no change too
Read more →
System of record

A system of record (SOR) or source system of record (SSoR) is a data management term for an information storage system (commonly implemented on a computer system running a database management system) that is the authoritative data source for a given data element or piece of information, like for example a row (or record) in a table. In data vault it is referred to as the record source. == Background == The need to identify systems of record can become acute in organizations where management information systems have been built by taking output data from multiple source systems, re-processing this data, and then re-presenting the result for a new business use. In these cases, multiple information systems may disagree about the same piece of information. These disagreements may stem from semantic differences, differences in opinion, use of different sources, differences in the timing of the extract, transform, load processes that create the data they report against, or may simply be the result of bugs. == Use == The integrity and validity of any data set is open to question when there is no traceable connection to a good source, and listing a source system of record is a solution to this. Where the integrity of the data is vital, if there is an agreed system of record, the data element must either be linked to, or extracted directly from it. In other cases, the provenance and estimated data quality should be documented. The "system of record" approach is a good fit for environments where both: there is a single authority over all data consumers, and all consumers have similar needs == Trade-offs == In diverse environments, one instead needs to support the presence of multiple opinions. Consumers may accept different authorities or may differ on what constitutes an authoritative source—researchers may prefer carefully vetted data, while tactical military systems may require the most recent credible report.
Read more →