AI Coding Benchmark Ranking

AI Coding Benchmark Ranking — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

XRX (web application architecture)

In software development XRX is a web application architecture based on XForms, REST and XQuery. XRX applications store data on both the web client and on the web server in XML format and do not require a translation between data formats. XRX is considered a simple and elegant application architecture due to the minimal number of translations needed to transport data between client and server systems. The XRX architecture is also tightly coupled to W3C standards (CSS, XHTML 2.0, XPath, XML Schema) to ensure XRX applications will be robust in the future. Because XRX applications leverage modern declarative languages on the client and functional languages on the server they are designed to empower non-developers who are not familiar with traditional imperative languages such as JavaScript, Java or .Net. == Overview of XRX == XRX is a zero translation application architecture that uses XML to store data in the client web browser, on the application server and in the database server. It is because each of these layers uses XML as the same structural data model that XRX applications do not have to translate data structures to and from both object and relational data structures. Because of the lack of need for translation, XRX is considered to have a clean and elegant design. The XRX web application architecture allows developers to focus on the business problem and not the translation problem. XRX benefits from several advances in software technology: === Client Architectural Features === A model–view–controller (MVC) architecture that separates the data from its presentation and business logic. A single element (xf:submission) for all server submissions. This replaces much of the JavaScript code required in most AJAX applications. An advanced event model (XML Events) consistent with W3C standards that frees applications from having to deal with vendor-specific and browser-specific event handling. A Dependency graph that is used to store the dependency structure of the client controllers. This frees the developer from having to manually update either the model or the views when data changes in an application. This allows spreadsheet-like applications to be created on the client with very little effort. A declarative programming style that allows most client XForms applications to be created using a small set of approximately 20 elements. This allows rich client applications to be created without knowledge of JavaScript or other procedural scripting languages. An easy-to-extend system for creating new user interface controls using the EXtensible Bindings Language. This allows developers to add new controls at any time without fear of incompatibilities with W3C standards. === Server Architecture Features === Many native XML databases have built-in REST interfaces making each XQuery inherently a RESTful web service. A functional programming model that promotes side-effect free systems that are easier to debug and easier to run on multiple processors. An easy-to-extend system using XQuery function and modules. === Both Client and Server === Both XRX client and server components support a wide range of XML related standards such as XPath, XML Schema and XML Namespaces. Consistent use of REST interfaces to exchange data between the client and server for all transfers of data including as-you-type data checking and suggest functions. Consistent integration of W3C standards including use of XPath and XML Schema data types. A large library of standard of functions used on both the client and server. == Overall Benefits of XRX == One of the principal benefits of the XRX architecture is that it avoids the requirement to "shred" complex data structures into relational structures and then reconstitute the data back into structures when a record is edited on the client. Another benefits of the XRX Web application architecture is that it avoids most of the problems around the object-relational impedance mismatch. Another advantage is that the client developer does not have to learn JavaScript on the client. == Comparison with Traditional Object/Relational Web Application Architectures == Many traditional web application architectures created in the late 1990 were based on middle object tiers and persistence layers that used tabular data streams and relational database systems. Because each of these layers used different structures to store the models the systems required much additional complexity to translate between layers. == History of XRX == Early examples of using a zero-translation architecture in multi-tier systems can be traced back to the rise of object-oriented databases in the 1990s. See OODBMS History Mark Birbeck suggested that the combination of XForms, XQuery with REST interfaces between the two had many advantages in a meeting to the UK XML User Group in September 2006 . His presentation was one of the first to specifically suggest that the combination of three technologies: XForms and XQuery with REST interfaces would have surprisingly beneficial effects. Mark termed this process "Skimming" but that term did not seem to be contagious. Erik Bruchez of Orbeon spoke at the XML 2007 conference on Boston in December 2007. In his presentation "XForms and the eXist XML database: a perfect couple", Bruchez showed that many people were discovering synergistic benefits of XForms on the client and XQuery on the server. The label for XRX was suggested by a blog posting by Dan McCreary on December 14, 2007. It was in this article that Dan suggested the need for a contagious meme for the ideas behind the XRX architecture. == Generalizations of XRX == Although XRX was originally intended to connote the use of XForms on the client, REST as an interface and XQuery on the server, other proponents of the symmetrical use of XML on the client and server have generalized the term to encompass any XML-centric web client and any server that can store and query XML documents. This use of XRX is generally referred to as "shallow XRX". These generalizations do benefit from a simplified zero-translation architecture but many do not benefit from REST interfaces, XPath for consistent data selection, declarative systems in the client, and functional languages on the server (one of the key aspects of XRX). Use of all three technologies (XForms, REST and XQuery) is referred to as "deep XRX". Although XRX architecture is centred on XForms and XQuery, it does not preclude the use of other technologies that manipulate XML natively, such as XSLT, XProc, and XSL-FO.
Read more →
PL/Perl

PL/Perl (Procedural Language/Perl) is a procedural language supported by the PostgreSQL RDBMS. PL/Perl, as an imperative programming language, allows more control than the relational algebra of SQL. Programs created in the PL/Perl language are called functions and can use most of the features that the Perl programming language provides, including common flow control structures and syntax that has incorporated regular expressions directly. These functions can be evaluated as part of a SQL statement, or in response to a trigger or rule. The design goals of PL/Perl were to create a loadable procedural language that: can be used to create functions and trigger procedures, adds control structures to the SQL language, can perform complex computations, can be defined to be either trusted or untrusted by the server, is easy to use. PL/Perl is one of many "PL" languages available for PostgreSQL PL/pgSQL PL/Java, plPHP, PL/Python, PL/R, PL/Ruby, PL/sh, and PL/Tcl.
Read more →
Pointer algorithm

In computer science, a pointer algorithm (sometimes called a pointer machine, or a reference machine; see the article Pointer machine for a close but non-identical concept) is a type of algorithm that manages a linked data structure. This concept is used as a model for lower-bound proofs and specific restrictions on the linked data structure and on the algorithm's access to the structure vary. This model has been used extensively with problems related to the disjoint-set data structure. Thus, Tarjan and La Poutré used this model to prove lower bounds on the amortized complexity of a disjoint-set data structure (La Poutré also addressed the interval split-find problem). Blum used this model to prove a lower bound on the single operation worst-case time of disjoint set data structure. Blum and Rochow proved a worst-case lower bound for the interval union-find problem. == Example == In Tarjan's lower bound for the disjoint set union problem, the assumptions on the algorithm are: The algorithm maintains a linked structure of nodes. Each element of the problem is associated with a node. Each set is represented by a node. The nodes of each set constitute a distinct connected component in the structure (this property is called separability). The find operation is performed by following links from the element node to the set node. Under these assumptions, the lower bound of Ω ( m α ( m , n ) ) {\displaystyle \Omega (m\alpha (m,n))} on the cost of a sequence of m operations is proven.
Read more →
Visual Peer Review

== Development and history == Visual Peer Review was first described in a 2017 classroom study by Friedman and Rosen, which examined how students evaluate peer-produced data visualizations using structured rubrics. Developed within the broader fields of data visualization, information visualization, and educational technology, the system emphasized clear labeling, visual integrity, and reduction of chartjunk. Students assigned rubric scores and provided written explanations, aligning the activity with established principles of peer review. Follow-up research expanded both the methodological and analytic dimensions of the framework. Friedman and colleagues applied natural language processing (NLP) to peer-review text to analyze part-of-speech patterns, sentence complexity, and comment length. These analyses offered insight into how students expressed critique and engaged with core design principles. Later studies incorporated advanced statistical modeling to evaluate system-level behavior, including peer review networks and reviewer typologies. Between 2021 and 2024, the framework underwent iterative refinement through a series of studies that explored interface design, behavioral nudges, reviewer engagement, and social network dynamics. The system was influenced by earlier work in computer-supported peer review—particularly My Reviewers, a rubric-based writing assessment platform developed by Joe Moxley at the University of South Florida. While Moxley's platform focused on text-based feedback, Visual Peer Review adapted its core structure to support critique of DataVis and visual analytics. To guide structured analysis and feedback, Friedman and Rosen also drew on the “what, why, and how” framework introduced by Liu and Stasko (2010), which emphasizes understanding a visualization's purpose, task alignment, and encoding strategy. == Framework and components == Visual Peer Review is designed to support critique, reflection, and learning in courses focusing on data visualization, visual analytics, and related fields in educational technology. The system consists of interconnected component. Core components include: Visual Artifacts: Students generate original visualizations using software such as R (e.g., ggplot2), Tableau, Python, or Adobe Illustrator. These artifacts may include statistical graphics, dashboards, or design-oriented infographics. Rubric-Based Assessment: Peer reviewers evaluate submitted visualizations using structured rubrics grounded in visualization theory and design heuristics. Rubric dimensions typically include: Use of labeling and axis scales Minimalization of chartjunk and clutter (following Tufte's principles) Optimization of the data–ink ratio Preservation of visual integrity through accurate representation (lie factor) Written Peer Comments: In addition to scoring, reviewers provide narrative feedback explaining their reasoning. These comments aim to improve design literacy, strengthen visual reasoning, and support the learning process common to peer review across educational contexts. Instructor Analytics Dashboard: Instructors access an analytics dashboard that displays peer-review activity across the course. Metrics include comment length, rubric coverage, participation patterns, and potential indicators of disengagement. These features position the framework within the domain of learning analytics, where visualized data helps instructors monitor student progress and identify support needs. == Ongoing development == Current work focuses on enhancing rubric structure, integrating principles from human–computer interaction, DataVis and expanding learning-analytics capabilities. Ongoing studies investigate how interface design, reviewer behavior, and classroom context influence the quality of feedback and overall engagement. Continuing development positions Visual Peer Review at the intersection of data visualization education, peer assessment, and educational technology.
Read more →
The AI Con

The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech's Hype and Create the Future We Want is a 2025 non-fiction book by linguist Emily M. Bender and sociologist Alex Hanna. It argues that much of what is labeled "artificial intelligence" is a misleading term that obscures ordinary automation while concentrating power in a small number of technology firms. The book was published in May 2025 by Harper in the United States and Bodley Head in the United Kingdom. It was developed alongside the authors' long-running podcast Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000, which critiques exaggerated claims about AI. == Synopsis == The authors present AI as a marketing umbrella that encourages audiences to infer understanding and agency where none exist. They argue readers should treat such language skeptically and to separate specific automated tasks from broad claims of intelligence. The book describes a recurring hype cycle in which corporate narratives justify data and labor extraction, the replacement of human services with cheaper substitutes, and the diversion of attention from present harms to speculative futures. While acknowledging limited uses such as pattern recognition, the authors argue that contemporary systems are best understood as text and media generators shaped by training data and human labor, not as thinking or reasoning entities. A central theme is the social and environmental cost of scaling these systems, including increased energy and water use, the appropriation of creative work for training, and the outsourcing of ghost work to low-paid data workers worldwide. These costs are linked to workplace effects, with the authors arguing that automation rarely eliminates jobs outright and more often degrades them through surveillance, work intensification, and unpaid oversight. As alternatives to passive adoption, the authors propose concrete responses: asking precise questions about what is being automated and why, demanding transparency about data and evaluation, and practicing what they call strategic refusal when deployment conflicts with evidence or values. The book also develops a vocabulary for public debate, rejecting both boosterish and doomerish narratives as grounded in the same assumption that AI is a singular, autonomous force. The authors recommend reading strategies such as favoring trusted human sources over automated summaries and using humor to deflate inflated claims. They describe a link between language to policy and power, arguing that precise terminology can help policymakers and the public resist austerity-driven automation and demand accountability for errors and harms. == Reception == The Guardian praised the book's myth-busting approach and its analysis of how hype erodes cultural and civic life by normalizing synthetic media as a substitute for human judgment. Kirkus Reviews described it as a contrarian account that catalogs concrete risks while cutting through speculative predictions. An interview in Business Insider highlighted the authors' accessible frameworks, including their proposal to describe chatbots as conversation simulators and to evaluate systems in terms of values, labor, and evidence. Coverage in GeekWire emphasized the book's call for resistance through collective bargaining, stronger data rights, and a norm of rejecting deployments that fail basic standards of necessity and evaluation. Some reviews were more critical. A review in LLRX argued that the book's tone could be overly polemical and that it gave limited attention to potential benefits claimed for generative systems. Coverage in the Financial Times, focused on Bender's broader public scholarship, situated the book within her long-standing critique of anthropomorphic narratives about large language models and her advocacy for more democratic oversight of automated systems.
Read more →
Upper ontology

In information science, an upper ontology (also known as a top-level ontology, upper model, or foundation ontology) is an ontology (in the sense used in information science) that consists of very general terms (such as "object", "property", "relation") that are common across all domains. An important function of an upper ontology is to support broad semantic interoperability among a large number of domain-specific ontologies by providing a common starting point for the formulation of definitions. Terms in the domain ontology are ranked under the terms in the upper ontology, e.g., the upper ontology classes are superclasses or supersets of all the classes in the domain ontologies. A number of upper ontologies have been proposed, each with its own proponents. Library classification systems predate upper ontology systems. Though library classifications organize and categorize knowledge using general concepts that are the same across all knowledge domains, neither system is a replacement for the other. == Development == Any standard foundational ontology is likely to be contested among different groups, each with its own idea of "what exists". One factor exacerbating the failure to arrive at a common approach has been the lack of open-source applications that would permit the testing of different ontologies in the same computational environment. The differences have thus been debated largely on theoretical grounds, or are merely the result of personal preferences. Foundational ontologies can however be compared on the basis of adoption for the purposes of supporting interoperability across domain ontologies. No particular upper ontology has yet gained widespread acceptance as a de facto standard. Different organizations have attempted to define standards for specific domains. The 'Process Specification Language' (PSL) created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is one example. Another important factor leading to the absence of wide adoption of any existing upper ontology is the complexity. Some upper ontologies—Cyc is often cited as an example in this regard—are very large, ranging up to thousands of elements (classes, relations), with complex interactions among them and with a complexity similar to that of a human natural language, and the learning process can be even longer than for a natural language because of the unfamiliar format and logical rules. The motivation to overcome this learning barrier is largely absent because of the paucity of publicly accessible examples of use. As a result, those building domain ontologies for local applications tend to create the simplest possible domain-specific ontology, not related to any upper ontology. Such domain ontologies may function adequately for the local purpose, but they are very time-consuming to relate accurately to other domain ontologies. To solve this problem, some genuinely top level ontologies have been developed, which are deliberately designed to have minimal overlap with any domain ontologies. Examples are Basic Formal Ontology and the DOLCE (see below). === Arguments for the infeasibility of an upper ontology === Historically, many attempts in many societies have been made to impose or define a single set of concepts as more primal, basic, foundational, authoritative, true or rational than all others. A common objection to such attempts points out that humans lack the sort of transcendent perspective — or God's eye view — that would be required to achieve this goal. Humans are bound by language or culture, and so lack the sort of objective perspective from which to observe the whole terrain of concepts and derive any one standard. Thomasson, under the headline "1.5 Skepticism about Category Systems", wrote: "category systems, at least as traditionally presented, seem to presuppose that there is a unique true answer to the question of what categories of entity there are – indeed the discovery of this answer is the goal of most such inquiries into ontological categories. [...] But actual category systems offered vary so much that even a short survey of past category systems like that above can undermine the belief that such a unique, true and complete system of categories may be found. Given such a diversity of answers to the question of what the ontological categories are, by what criteria could we possibly choose among them to determine which is uniquely correct?" Another objection is the problem of formulating definitions. Top level ontologies are designed to maximize support for interoperability across a large number of terms. Such ontologies must therefore consist of terms expressing very general concepts, but such concepts are so basic to our understanding that there is no way in which they can be defined, since the very process of definition implies that a less basic (and less well understood) concept is defined in terms of concepts that are more basic and so (ideally) more well understood. Very general concepts can often only be elucidated, for example by means of examples, or paraphrase. There is no self-evident way of dividing the world up into concepts, and certainly no non-controversial one There is no neutral ground that can serve as a means of translating between specialized (or "lower" or "application-specific") ontologies Human language itself is already an arbitrary approximation of just one among many possible conceptual maps. To draw any necessary correlation between English words and any number of intellectual concepts, that we might like to represent in our ontologies, is just asking for trouble. (WordNet, for instance, is successful and useful, precisely because it does not pretend to be a general-purpose upper ontology; rather, it is a tool for semantic / syntactic / linguistic disambiguation, which is richly embedded in the particulars and peculiarities of the English language.) Any hierarchical or topological representation of concepts must begin from some ontological, epistemological, linguistic, cultural, and ultimately pragmatic perspective. Such pragmatism does not allow for the exclusion of politics between persons or groups, indeed it requires they be considered as perhaps more basic primitives than any that are represented. Those who doubt the feasibility of general purpose ontologies are more inclined to ask "what specific purpose do we have in mind for this conceptual map of entities and what practical difference will this ontology make?" This pragmatic philosophical position surrenders all hope of devising the encoded ontology version of "The world is everything that is the case." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). Finally, there are objections similar to those against artificial intelligence. Technically, the complex concept acquisition and the social / linguistic interactions of human beings suggest any axiomatic foundation of "most basic" concepts must be cognitive biological or otherwise difficult to characterize since we don't have axioms for such systems. Ethically, any general-purpose ontology could quickly become an actual tyranny by recruiting adherents into a political program designed to propagate it and its funding means, and possibly defend it by violence. Historically, inconsistent and irrational belief systems have proven capable of commanding obedience to the detriment or harm of persons both inside and outside a society that accepts them. How much more harmful would a consistent rational one be, were it to contain even one or two basic assumptions incompatible with human life? === Arguments for the feasibility of an upper ontology === Many of those who doubt the possibility of developing wide agreement on a common upper ontology fall into one of two traps: they assert that there is no possibility of universal agreement on any conceptual scheme; but they argue that a practical common ontology does not need to have universal agreement, it only needs a large enough user community (as is the case for human languages) to make it profitable for developers to use it as a means to general interoperability, and for third-party developer to develop utilities to make it easier to use; and they point out that developers of data schemes find different representations congenial for their local purposes; but they do not demonstrate that these different representations are in fact logically inconsistent. In fact, different representations of assertions about the real world (though not philosophical models), if they accurately reflect the world, must be logically consistent, even if they focus on different aspects of the same physical object or phenomenon. If any two assertions about the real world are logically inconsistent, one or both must be wrong, and that is a topic for experimental investigation, not for ontological representation. In practice, representations of the real world are created as and known to be approximations to the basic reality, and their use is circumscribed by the limits of e
Read more →
Five safes

The Five Safes is a framework for helping make decisions about making effective use of data which is confidential or sensitive. It is mainly used to describe or design research access to statistical data held by government and health agencies, and by data archives such as the UK Data Service. It is not an internationally accepted standard. Two of the Five Safes refer to statistical disclosure control, and so the Five Safes is usually used to contrast statistical and non-statistical controls when comparing data management options. == Concept == The Five Safes proposes that data management decisions be considered as solving problems in five 'dimensions': projects, people, settings, data and outputs. The combination of the controls leads to 'safe use'. These are most commonly expressed as questions, for example: These dimensions are scales, not limits. That is, solutions can have a mix of more or fewer controls in each dimension, but the overall aim of 'safe use' independent of the particular mix. For example, a public use file available for open download cannot control who uses it, where or for what purpose, and so all the control (protection) must be in the data itself. In contrast, a file which is only accessed through a secure environment with certified users can contain very sensitive information: the non-statistical controls allow the data to be 'unsafe'. One academic likened the process to a graphic equalizer, where bass and treble can be combined independently to produce a sound the listener likes, which has proven to be a very useful metaphor. This 2023 Data Foundation webinar is an expert discussion of how the elements interact, including an excellent introductory representation. There is no 'order' to the Five Safes, in that one is necessarily more important than the others. However, Ritchie argued that the 'managerial' controls (projects, people, setting) should be addressed before the 'statistical' controls (data, output). The Five Safes concept is associated with other topics which developed from the same programme at ONS, although these are not necessarily implemented. Safe people is associated with 'active researcher management', while safe outputs is linked with principles-based output statistical disclosure control. The Five Safes is a positive framework, describing what is and is not. The EDRU ('evidence-based, default-open, risk-managed, user-centred') attitudinal model is sometimes used to give a normative context == The 'data access spectrum' == From 2003 the Five Safes was also represented in a simpler form as a 'Data Access Spectrum'. The non-data controls (project, people, setting, outputs) tend to work together, in that organisations often see these as a complementary set of restrictions on access. These can then be contrasted with choices about data anonymisation to present a linear representation of data access options. This presentation is consistent with the idea of 'data as a residual', as well as data protection laws of the time which often characterised data simply as anonymous or not anonymous. A similar idea had already been developed independently in 2001 by Chuck Humphrey of the Canadian RDC network, the 'continuum of access'. More recently, The Open Data Institute has developed a 'Data Spectrum toolkit' which includes industry-specific examples. == History and terminology == The Five Safes was devised in the winter of 2002/2003 by Felix Ritchie at the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) to describe its secure remote-access Virtual Microdata Laboratory (VML). It was described at this time as the 'VML Security Model'. This was adopted by the NORC data enclave, and more widely in the US, as the 'portfolio model' (although this is now also used to refer to a slightly different legal/statistical/educational breakdown). In 2012 the framework as was still being referred to as the 'VML security model', but its increasing use among non-UK organisations led to the adoption of the more general and informative phrase 'Five Safes'. The original framework only had four safes (projects, people, settings and outputs): the framework was used to describe highly detailed data access through a secure environment, and so the 'data' dimension was irrelevant. From 2007 onwards, 'safe data' was included as the framework was used to a describe a wider range of ONS activities. As the US version was based upon the 2005 specification, some US iterations uses have the original four dimensions (eg). Some discussions, such as the OECD, use the term 'secure' instead 'safe'. However, the use of both these terms can cause presentational problems: less control in a particular dimension could be seen to imply 'unsafe users' or 'insecure settings', for example, which distracts from the main message. Hence, the Australian government uses the term "five data sharing principles". The 'Anonymisation Decision-Making Framework' uses a framework based on the Five Safes but relabelling "projects", "people", and "settings" as "governance", "agency" and "infrastructure", respectively; "Output" is omitted, and "safe use" becomes "functional anonymisation". There is no reference to the Five Safes or any associated literature. The Australian version was required to include references to the Five Safes, and presented it as an alternative without comment. == Application == The framework has had three uses: pedagogical, descriptive, and design. Since 2016, it has also been used, directly and indirectly in legislation. See for more detailed examples. === Pedagogy === The first significant use of the framework, other than internal administrative use, was to structure researcher training courses at the UK Office for National Statistics from 2003. UK Data Archive, Administrative Data Research Network, Eurostat, Statistics New Zealand, the Mexican National Institute of Statistics and Geography, NORC, Statistics Canada and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, amongst others, have also used this framework. Most of these courses are for researchers using restricted-access facilities; the Eurostat courses are unusual in that they are designed for all users of sensitive data. === Description === The framework is often used to describe existing data access solutions (e.g. UK HMRC Data Lab, UK Data Service, Statistics New Zealand) or planned/conceptualised ones (e.g. Eurostat in 2011). An early use was to help identify areas where ONS' still had 'irreducible risks' in its provision of secure remote access. The framework is mostly used for confidential social science data. To date it appears to have made little impact on medical research planning, although it is now included in the revised guidelines on implementing HIPAA regulations in the US, and by Cancer Research UK and the Health Foundation in the UK. It has also been used to describe a security model for the Scottish Health Informatics Programme. === Design === In general the Five Safes has been used to describe solutions post-factum, and to explain/justify choices made, but an increasing number of organisations have used the framework to design data access solutions. For example, the Hellenic Statistical Agency developed a data strategy built around the Five Safes in 2016; the UK Health Foundation used the Five Safes to design its data management and training programmes. Use in the private sector is less common but some organisations have incorporated the Five Safes into consulting services. In 2015 the UK Data Service organized a workshop to encourage data users from the academic and private sectors to think about how to manage confidential research data, using the Five Safes to demonstrate alternative options and best practice. Early adopters for strategic design use were in Australia: both the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Department of Social Service used the Five Safes as an ex ante design tool. In 2017 the Australian Productivity Commission recommended adopting a version of the framework to support cross-government data sharing and re-use. This underwent extensive consultation and culminated in the DAT Act 2022. Since 2020 the Five Safes has been the overriding framework for the design of new secure facilities and data sharing arrangements in the UK for public health and social sciences. This has been promoted by the Office for Statistics Regulation, the UK Statistics Authority, NHS DIgital, and the research funding bodies Administrative Data Research UK and DARE UK. === Regulation and legislation === Three laws have incorporated the Fives Safes. They are explicit in the South Australian Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act 2016, and implicit in the research provisions of the UK Digital Economy Act 2017. The Australian Data Availability and Transparency Act 2022 renames the Five Safes as the Five Data Sharing Principles.A 2025 statutory review of the DAT Act 2022 found "that the DAT Act has not been effective in achieving its objectives.". The review includes specific referen
Read more →
Lancichinetti–Fortunato–Radicchi benchmark

Lancichinetti–Fortunato–Radicchi benchmark is an algorithm that generates benchmark networks (artificial networks that resemble real-world networks). They have a priori known communities and are used to compare different community detection methods. The advantage of the benchmark over other methods is that it accounts for the heterogeneity in the distributions of node degrees and of community sizes. == The algorithm == The node degrees and the community sizes are distributed according to a power law, with different exponents. The benchmark assumes that both the degree and the community size have power law distributions with different exponents, γ {\displaystyle \gamma } and β {\displaystyle \beta } , respectively. N {\displaystyle N} is the number of nodes and the average degree is ⟨ k ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle k\rangle } . There is a mixing parameter μ {\displaystyle \mu } , which is the average fraction of neighboring nodes of a node that do not belong to any community that the benchmark node belongs to. This parameter controls the fraction of edges that are between communities. Thus, it reflects the amount of noise in the network. At the extremes, when μ = 0 {\displaystyle \mu =0} all links are within community links, if μ = 1 {\displaystyle \mu =1} all links are between nodes belonging to different communities. One can generate the benchmark network using the following steps. Step 1: Generate a network with nodes following a power law distribution with exponent γ {\displaystyle \gamma } and choose extremes of the distribution k min {\displaystyle k_{\min }} and k max {\displaystyle k_{\max }} to get desired average degree is ⟨ k ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle k\rangle } . Step 2: ( 1 − μ ) {\displaystyle (1-\mu )} fraction of links of every node is with nodes of the same community, while fraction μ {\displaystyle \mu } is with the other nodes. Step 3: Generate community sizes from a power law distribution with exponent β {\displaystyle \beta } . The sum of all sizes must be equal to N {\displaystyle N} . The minimal and maximal community sizes s min {\displaystyle s_{\min }} and s max {\displaystyle s_{\max }} must satisfy the definition of community so that every non-isolated node is in at least in one community: s min > k min {\displaystyle s_{\min }>k_{\min }} s max > k max {\displaystyle s_{\max }>k_{\max }} Step 4: Initially, no nodes are assigned to communities. Then, each node is randomly assigned to a community. As long as the number of neighboring nodes within the community does not exceed the community size a new node is added to the community, otherwise stays out. In the following iterations the “homeless” node is randomly assigned to some community. If that community is complete, i.e. the size is exhausted, a randomly selected node of that community must be unlinked. Stop the iteration when all the communities are complete and all the nodes belong to at least one community. Step 5: Implement rewiring of nodes keeping the same node degrees but only affecting the fraction of internal and external links such that the number of links outside the community for each node is approximately equal to the mixing parameter μ {\displaystyle \mu } . == Testing == Consider a partition into communities that do not overlap. The communities of randomly chosen nodes in each iteration follow a p ( C ) {\displaystyle p(C)} distribution that represents the probability that a randomly picked node is from the community C {\displaystyle C} . Consider a partition of the same network that was predicted by some community finding algorithm and has p ( C 2 ) {\displaystyle p(C_{2})} distribution. The benchmark partition has p ( C 1 ) {\displaystyle p(C_{1})} distribution. The joint distribution is p ( C 1 , C 2 ) {\displaystyle p(C_{1},C_{2})} . The similarity of these two partitions is captured by the normalized mutual information. I n = ∑ C 1 , C 2 p ( C 1 , C 2 ) log 2 ⁡ p ( C 1 , C 2 ) p ( C 1 ) p ( C 2 ) 1 2 H ( { p ( C 1 ) } ) + 1 2 H ( { p ( C 2 ) } ) {\displaystyle I_{n}={\frac {\sum _{C_{1},C_{2}}p(C_{1},C_{2})\log _{2}{\frac {p(C_{1},C_{2})}{p(C_{1})p(C_{2})}}}{{\frac {1}{2}}H(\{p(C_{1})\})+{\frac {1}{2}}H(\{p(C_{2})\})}}} If I n = 1 {\displaystyle I_{n}=1} the benchmark and the detected partitions are identical, and if I n = 0 {\displaystyle I_{n}=0} then they are independent of each other.
Read more →
Decorrelation

Decorrelation is a general term for any process that is used to reduce autocorrelation within a signal, or cross-correlation within a set of signals, while preserving other aspects of the signal. A frequently used method of decorrelation is the use of a matched linear filter to reduce the autocorrelation of a signal as far as possible. Since the minimum possible autocorrelation for a given signal energy is achieved by equalising the power spectrum of the signal to be similar to that of a white noise signal, this is often referred to as signal whitening. == Process == === Signal processing === Most decorrelation algorithms are linear, but there are also non-linear decorrelation algorithms. Many data compression algorithms incorporate a decorrelation stage. For example, many transform coders first apply a fixed linear transformation that would, on average, have the effect of decorrelating a typical signal of the class to be coded, prior to any later processing. This is typically a Karhunen–Loève transform, or a simplified approximation such as the discrete cosine transform. By comparison, sub-band coders do not generally have an explicit decorrelation step, but instead exploit the already-existing reduced correlation within each of the sub-bands of the signal, due to the relative flatness of each sub-band of the power spectrum in many classes of signals. Linear predictive coders can be modelled as an attempt to decorrelate signals by subtracting the best possible linear prediction from the input signal, leaving a whitened residual signal. Decorrelation techniques can also be used for many other purposes, such as reducing crosstalk in a multi-channel signal, or in the design of echo cancellers. In image processing decorrelation techniques can be used to enhance or stretch, colour differences found in each pixel of an image. This is generally termed as 'decorrelation stretching'. === Neuroscience === In neuroscience, decorrelation is used in the analysis of the neural networks in the human visual system. The raw inputs from cone cells and rod cells under go many steps of processing before it is handled by the visual cortex. These steps generally perform decorrelation, both spatial (surround suppression in the retina) and temporal (handling of movement in the lateral geniculate nucleus). === Cryptography === In cryptography, decorrelation is used in cipher design (see Decorrelation theory) and in the design of hardware random number generators.
Read more →
Data Science Africa

Data Science Africa (DSA) is a non-profit knowledge sharing professional group that aims at bringing together leading researchers and practitioners working on data science methods or applications relevant to Africa, and providing training on state of the art data science methods to students and others interested in developing practical skills. Since 2013, DSA has been organizing conference, workshops and summer schools on machine learning and data science across East Africa. Facilitators of Summer School and workshops are researchers and practitioners from the academia, private and public institutions across the world. == Summer schools and workshops == The first summer school which started as Gaussian Process Summer School was held at Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda from 6th to 9 August 2013. The First Data Science Summer School and Workshop was held at Dedan Kimathi University of Technology in Nyeri, Kenya from 15th to 19 June 2015. The Second Data Science Summer School was held at Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda from 27th to 29 July 2016, and the workshop was held at Pulse Lab, Kampala, Uganda from 30 July to 1 August 2016. The Third Data Science Summer School and Workshop was held at Nelson Mandela African Institute of Science and Technology, Tanzania from 19th to 21 July 2017. Among the sponsors of the event was ARM
Read more →
Ubiquitous robot

Ubiquitous robot is a term used in an analogous way to ubiquitous computing. Software useful for "integrating robotic technologies with technologies from the fields of ubiquitous and pervasive computing, sensor networks, and ambient intelligence". The emergence of mobile phone, wearable computers and ubiquitous computing makes it likely that human beings will live in a ubiquitous world in which all devices are fully networked. The existence of ubiquitous space resulting from developments in computer and network technology will provide motivations to offer desired services by any IT device at any place and time through user interactions and seamless applications. This shift has hastened the ubiquitous revolution, which has further manifested itself in the new multidisciplinary research area, ubiquitous robotics. It initiates the third generation of robotics following the first generation of the industrial robot and the second generation of the personal robot. Ubiquitous robot (Ubibot) is a robot incorporating three components including virtual software robot or avatar, real-world mobile robot and embedded sensor system in surroundings. Software robot within a virtual world can control a real-world robot as a brain and interact with human beings. Researchers of KAIST, Korea describe these three components as a Sobot (Software robot), Mobot (Mobile robot), and Embot (Embedded robot).
Read more →
Reservoir sampling

Reservoir sampling is a family of randomized algorithms for choosing a simple random sample, without replacement, of k items from a population of unknown size n in a single pass over the items. The size of the population n is not known to the algorithm and is typically too large for all n items to fit into main memory. The population is revealed to the algorithm over time, and the algorithm cannot look back at previous items. At any point, the current state of the algorithm must permit extraction of a simple random sample without replacement of size k over the part of the population seen so far. == Motivation == Suppose we see a sequence of items, one at a time. We want to keep 10 items in memory, and we want them to be selected at random from the sequence. If we know the total number of items n and can access the items arbitrarily, then the solution is easy: select 10 distinct indices i between 1 and n with equal probability, and keep the i-th elements. The problem is that we do not always know the exact n in advance. == Simple: Algorithm R == A simple and popular but slow algorithm, Algorithm R, was created by Jeffrey Vitter. Initialize an array R {\displaystyle R} indexed from 1 {\displaystyle 1} to k {\displaystyle k} , containing the first k items of the input x 1 , . . . , x k {\displaystyle x_{1},...,x_{k}} . This is the reservoir. For each new input x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} , generate a random number j uniformly in { 1 , . . . , i } {\displaystyle \{1,...,i\}} . If j ∈ { 1 , . . . , k } {\displaystyle j\in \{1,...,k\}} , then set R [ j ] := x i . {\displaystyle R[j]:=x_{i}.} Otherwise, discard x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . Return R {\displaystyle R} after all inputs are processed. This algorithm works by induction on i ≥ k {\displaystyle i\geq k} . While conceptually simple and easy to understand, this algorithm needs to generate a random number for each item of the input, including the items that are discarded. The algorithm's asymptotic running time is thus O ( n ) {\displaystyle O(n)} . Generating this amount of randomness and the linear run time causes the algorithm to be unnecessarily slow if the input population is large. This is Algorithm R, implemented as follows: == Optimal: Algorithm L == If we generate n {\displaystyle n} random numbers u 1 , . . . , u n ∼ U [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle u_{1},...,u_{n}\sim U[0,1]} independently, then the indices of the smallest k {\displaystyle k} of them is a uniform sample of the k {\displaystyle k} -subsets of { 1 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle \{1,...,n\}} . The process can be done without knowing n {\displaystyle n} : Keep the smallest k {\displaystyle k} of u 1 , . . . , u i {\displaystyle u_{1},...,u_{i}} that has been seen so far, as well as w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} , the index of the largest among them. For each new u i + 1 {\displaystyle u_{i+1}} , compare it with u w i {\displaystyle u_{w_{i}}} . If u i + 1 < u w i {\displaystyle u_{i+1} Read more →
Open information extraction

In natural language processing, open information extraction (OIE) is the task of generating a structured, machine-readable representation of the information in text, usually in the form of triples or n-ary propositions. == Overview == A proposition can be understood as truth-bearer, a textual expression of a potential fact (e.g., "Dante wrote the Divine Comedy"), represented in an amenable structure for computers [e.g., ("Dante", "wrote", "Divine Comedy")]. An OIE extraction normally consists of a relation and a set of arguments. For instance, ("Dante", "passed away in" "Ravenna") is a proposition formed by the relation "passed away in" and the arguments "Dante" and "Ravenna". The first argument is usually referred as the subject while the second is considered to be the object. The extraction is said to be a textual representation of a potential fact because its elements are not linked to a knowledge base. Furthermore, the factual nature of the proposition has not yet been established. In the above example, transforming the extraction into a full fledged fact would first require linking, if possible, the relation and the arguments to a knowledge base. Second, the truth of the extraction would need to be determined. In computer science transforming OIE extractions into ontological facts is known as relation extraction. In fact, OIE can be seen as the first step to a wide range of deeper text understanding tasks such as relation extraction, knowledge-base construction, question answering, semantic role labeling. The extracted propositions can also be directly used for end-user applications such as structured search (e.g., retrieve all propositions with "Dante" as subject). OIE was first introduced by TextRunner developed at the University of Washington Turing Center headed by Oren Etzioni. Other methods introduced later such as Reverb, OLLIE, ClausIE or CSD helped to shape the OIE task by characterizing some of its aspects. At a high level, all of these approaches make use of a set of patterns to generate the extractions. Depending on the particular approach, these patterns are either hand-crafted or learned. == OIE systems and contributions == Reverb suggested the necessity to produce meaningful relations to more accurately capture the information in the input text. For instance, given the sentence "Faust made a pact with the devil", it would be erroneous to just produce the extraction ("Faust", "made", "a pact") since it would not be adequately informative. A more precise extraction would be ("Faust", "made a pact with", "the devil"). Reverb also argued against the generation of overspecific relations. OLLIE stressed two important aspects for OIE. First, it pointed to the lack of factuality of the propositions. For instance, in a sentence like "If John studies hard, he will pass the exam", it would be inaccurate to consider ("John", "will pass", "the exam") as a fact. Additionally, the authors indicated that an OIE system should be able to extract non-verb mediated relations, which account for significant portion of the information expressed in natural language text. For instance, in the sentence "Obama, the former US president, was born in Hawaii", an OIE system should be able to recognize a proposition ("Obama", "is", "former US president"). ClausIE introduced the connection between grammatical clauses, propositions, and OIE extractions. The authors stated that as each grammatical clause expresses a proposition, each verb mediated proposition can be identified by solely recognizing the set of clauses expressed in each sentence. This implies that to correctly recognize the set of propositions in an input sentence, it is necessary to understand its grammatical structure. The authors studied the case in the English language that only admits seven clause types, meaning that the identification of each proposition only requires defining seven grammatical patterns. The finding also established a separation between the recognition of the propositions and its materialization. In a first step, the proposition can be identified without any consideration of its final form, in a domain-independent and unsupervised way, mostly based on linguistic principles. In a second step, the information can be represented according to the requirements of the underlying application, without conditioning the identification phase. Consider the sentence "Albert Einstein was born in Ulm and died in Princeton". The first step will recognize the two propositions ("Albert Einstein", "was born", "in Ulm") and ("Albert Einstein", "died", "in Princeton"). Once the information has been correctly identified, the propositions can take the particular form required by the underlying application [e.g., ("Albert Einstein", "was born in", "Ulm") and ("Albert Einstein", "died in", "Princeton")]. CSD introduced the idea of minimality in OIE. It considers that computers can make better use of the extractions if they are expressed in a compact way. This is especially important in sentences with subordinate clauses. In these cases, CSD suggests the generation of nested extractions. For example, consider the sentence "The Embassy said that 6,700 Americans were in Pakistan". CSD generates two extractions [i] ("6,700 Americans", "were", "in Pakistan") and [ii] ("The Embassy", "said", "that [i]"). This is usually known as reification.
Read more →
Artificial empathy

Artificial empathy or computational empathy is the development of AI systems—such as companion robots or virtual agents—that can detect emotions and respond to them in an empathic way. Although such technology can be perceived as scary or threatening, it could also have a significant advantage over humans for roles in which emotional expression can be important, such as in the health care sector. An October 2025 review and meta-analysis in the British Medical Bulletin found that AI chatbots were rated as showing more empathy than human healthcare professionals in 13 of 15 studies that compared them. Care-givers who perform emotional labor above and beyond the requirements of paid labor can experience chronic stress or burnout, and can become desensitized to patients. Artificial empathy could also help the socialization of care-givers, or serve as role model for emotional detachment. A broader definition of artificial empathy is "the ability of nonhuman models to predict a person's internal state (e.g., cognitive, affective, physical) given the signals (s)he emits (e.g., facial expression, voice, gesture) or to predict a person's reaction (including, but not limited to internal states) when he or she is exposed to a given set of stimuli (e.g., facial expression, voice, gesture, graphics, music, etc.)". A 2025 study reported that some multimodal large language models can recognize basic facial expressions with human-level accuracy on a commonly used research dataset of posed facial expressions. == Areas of research == There are a variety of philosophical, theoretical, and applicative questions related to artificial empathy. For example: Which conditions would have to be met for a robot to respond competently to a human emotion? What models of empathy can or should be applied to Social and Assistive Robotics? Must the interaction of humans with robots imitate affective interaction between humans? Can a robot help science learn about affective development of humans? Would robots create unforeseen categories of inauthentic relations? What relations with robots can be considered authentic? How can we assess artificial empathy in AI systems? == Examples of artificial empathy research and practice == People often communicate and make decisions based on inferences about each other's internal states (e.g., emotional, cognitive, and physical states) that are in turn based on signals emitted by the person such as facial expression, body gesture, voice, and words. Broadly speaking, artificial empathy focuses on developing non-human models that achieve similar objectives using similar data. === Streams of artificial empathy research === Artificial empathy has been applied in various research disciplines, including artificial intelligence and business. Two main streams of research in this domain are: the use of nonhuman models to predict a person's internal state (e.g., cognitive, affective, physical) given the signals he or she emits (e.g., facial expression, voice, gesture) the use of nonhuman models to predict a person's reaction when he or she is exposed to a given set of stimuli (e.g., facial expression, voice, gesture, graphics, music, etc.). Research on affective computing, such as emotional speech recognition and facial expression detection, falls within the first stream of artificial empathy. Contexts that have been studied include oral interviews, call centers, human-computer interaction, sales pitches, and financial reporting. The second stream of artificial empathy has been researched more in marketing contexts, such as advertising, branding, customer reviews, in-store recommendation systems, movies, and online dating. === Artificial empathy applications in practice === With the increasing volume of visual, audio, and text data in commerce, many business applications for artificial empathy have followed. For example, Affectiva analyses viewers' facial expressions from video recordings while they are watching video advertisements in order to optimize the content design of video ads. Software like HireVue, BarRaiser, a hiring intelligence firm, helps firms make recruitment decisions by analyzing audio and video information from candidates' video interviews. Lapetus Solutions develops a model to estimate an individual's longevity, health status, and disease susceptibility from a face photo. Their technology has been applied in the insurance industry. == Artificial empathy and human services == Although artificial intelligence cannot yet replace social workers themselves, the technology has been deployed in that field. Florida State University published a study about Artificial Intelligence being used in the human services field. The research used computer algorithms to analyze health records for combinations of risk factors that could predict a future suicide attempt. The article reports, "machine learning—a future frontier for artificial intelligence—can predict with 80% to 90% accuracy whether someone will attempt suicide as far off as two years into the future. The algorithms become even more accurate as a person's suicide attempt gets closer. For example, the accuracy climbs to 92% one week before a suicide attempt when artificial intelligence focuses on general hospital patients". Such algorithmic machines can help social workers. Social work operates on a cycle of engagement, assessment, intervention, and evaluation with clients. Earlier assessment for risk of suicide can lead to earlier interventions and prevention, therefore saving lives. The system would learn, analyze, and detect risk factors, alerting the clinician of a patient's suicide risk score (analogous to a patient's cardiovascular risk score). Then, social workers could step in for further assessment and preventive intervention.
Read more →
Non-personal data

Non-Personal Data (NPD) is electronic data that does not contain any information that can be used to identify a natural person. Thus, it can either be data that has no personal information to begin with (such as weather data, stock prices, data from anonymous IoT sensors); or it is data that had personal data that was subsequently pseudoanonymized (for example, identifiable strings substituted with random strings) or anonymized (such as by irreversibly removing all personal data). NPD is part of the overall Data Governance Strategy of a region or country. While personal data are covered by Data Protection Legislation such as GDPR, other kinds of data would fall under the scope of NPD Regulation. == Importance of non-personal data == It has been pointed out that the future is data-driven. What this means is that much of the present innovation taking place in domains such as Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence is fueled by data, which is needed for calibrating the complex models (comprising neural network-based as well as other kinds). The larger the volume, diversity and quality of the data, the higher is the quality of the model, leading to better predictions and explanations. However, there is a flip-side to data availability. The newly-emerging awareness of privacy and the consequent need for powerful Data Protection Regulations (such as GDPR) makes it increasingly difficult or impossible to obtain data in the quantities required. This is a contradiction, and the only way out would be to remove all personal data from data sets (either by Data anonymization or Pseudonymization coupled with noise injection, at which point it becomes NPD. Therefore, many innovation-friendly countries are coming out with regulatory regimes that would ensure that personal data is protected, while, at the same time, non-personal data can be extracted from personal data so that innovation is fostered. In other words, NPD 'unlocks' value that was locked away in data sets that have personally-identifiable information. It is expected that multiple NPD data sets will begin to be available on free or commercial basis from different providers once the regulations are in place. == Emerging regulatory frameworks == Non-Personal Data has significant uses that may be economic, social, political or security-related. Several countries and regions are in the process of regulating the use of NPD. In May 2019, the European Union operationalized its Regulation of the Free Flow of NPD. India announced a nine-member expert committee to make recommendations on the regulation of NPD in 2019, which published its first report in mid-2020. The report was opened for public comments, after which it was revised and published in December 2020. == Proposed NPD regulatory framework in India == The following were the objectives of the proposed Indian regulation as per the revised report: Sovereignty: India has rights over the data of India, its people and organisations. Benefit India: Benefits of data must accrue to India and its people. Benefits the world: Innovation, new models and algorithms for the world. Privacy: Misuse, reidentification and harms must be prevented. Simplicity: The regulations should be simple, digital and unambiguous. Innovation and entrepreneurship: The data should be freely available for innovation and entrepreneurship in India. == Concerns == The major concern in the use of NPD is if there are techniques (statistical or AI-based) by which multiple data sets can be used to extract personally-identifiable data.
Read more →