AI Coding Benchmark Ranking

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

• 

  Netomi

  Netomi, formerly msg.ai, is an American artificial intelligence company and developer of chatbot technologies. == History == msg.ai was founded in May 2015 by Puneet Mehta. msg.ai worked with Sony Pictures to launch a chat bot on Facebook Messenger for a $100M film, Goosebumps and subsequently joined Y Combinator as a member of the Winter 2016 class. Later that year and in 2017, msg.ai completed two rounds of seed funding, led by Y Combinator and Index Ventures. In 2018, the company changed its name to Netomi. In 2019, the company raised $14.7 million in a Series A funding round also led by Index Ventures. In 2021, the company raised $30 million in a Series B funding round led by WndrCo LLC.

  Read more →
• 

  Vector-field consistency

  Vector-Field Consistency is a consistency model for replicated data (for example, objects), initially described in a paper which was awarded the best-paper prize in the ACM/IFIP/Usenix Middleware Conference 2007. It has since been enhanced for increased scalability and fault-tolerance in a recent paper. == Description == This consistency model was initially designed for replicated data management in ad hoc gaming in order to minimize bandwidth usage without sacrificing playability. Intuitively, it captures the notion that although players require, wish, and take advantage of information regarding the whole of the game world (as opposed to a restricted view to rooms, arenas, etc. of limited size employed in many multiplayer video games), they need to know information with greater freshness, frequency, and accuracy as other game entities are located closer and closer to the player's position. It prescribes a multidimensional divergence bounding scheme, based on a vector field that employs consistency vectors k=(θ,σ,ν), standing for maximum allowed time - or replica staleness, sequence - or missing updates, and value - or user-defined measured replica divergence, applied to all space coordinates in game scenario or world. The consistency vector-fields emanate from field-generators designated as pivots (for example, players) and field intensity attenuates as distance grows from these pivots in concentric or square-like regions. This consistency model unifies locality-awareness techniques employed in message routing and consistency enforcement for multiplayer games, with divergence bounding techniques traditionally employed in replicated database and web scenarios.

  Read more →
• 

  Semantic translation

  Semantic translation is the process of using semantic information to aid in the translation of data in one representation or data model to another representation or data model. Semantic translation takes advantage of semantics that associate meaning with individual data elements in one dictionary to create an equivalent meaning in a second system. An example of semantic translation is the conversion of XML data from one data model to a second data model using formal ontologies for each system such as the Web Ontology Language (OWL). This is frequently required by intelligent agents that wish to perform searches on remote computer systems that use different data models to store their data elements. The process of allowing a single user to search multiple systems with a single search request is also known as federated search. Semantic translation should be differentiated from data mapping tools that do simple one-to-one translation of data from one system to another without actually associating meaning with each data element. Semantic translation requires that data elements in the source and destination systems have "semantic mappings" to a central registry or registries of data elements. The simplest mapping is of course where there is equivalence. There are three types of Semantic equivalence: Class Equivalence - indicating that class or "concepts" are equivalent. For example: "Person" is the same as "Individual" Property Equivalence - indicating that two properties are equivalent. For example: "PersonGivenName" is the same as "FirstName" Instance Equivalence - indicating that two individual instances of objects are equivalent. For example: "Dan Smith" is the same person as "Daniel Smith" Semantic translation is very difficult if the terms in a particular data model do not have direct one-to-one mappings to data elements in a foreign data model. In that situation, an alternative approach must be used to find mappings from the original data to the foreign data elements. This problem can be alleviated by centralized metadata registries that use the ISO-11179 standards such as the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM).

  Read more →
• 

  Jump-and-Walk algorithm

  Jump-and-Walk is an algorithm for point location in triangulations (though most of the theoretical analysis were performed in 2D and 3D random Delaunay triangulations). Surprisingly, the algorithm does not need any preprocessing or complex data structures except some simple representation of the triangulation itself. The predecessor of Jump-and-Walk was due to Lawson (1977) and Green and Sibson (1978), which picks a random starting point S and then walks from S toward the query point Q one triangle at a time. But no theoretical analysis was known for these predecessors until after mid-1990s. Jump-and-Walk picks a small group of sample points and starts the walk from the sample point which is the closest to Q until the simplex containing Q is found. The algorithm was a folklore in practice for some time, and the formal presentation of the algorithm and the analysis of its performance on 2D random Delaunay triangulation was done by Devroye, Mucke and Zhu in mid-1990s (the paper appeared in Algorithmica, 1998). The analysis on 3D random Delaunay triangulation was done by Mucke, Saias and Zhu (ACM Symposium of Computational Geometry, 1996). In both cases, a boundary condition was assumed, namely, Q must be slightly away from the boundary of the convex domain where the vertices of the random Delaunay triangulation are drawn. In 2004, Devroye, Lemaire and Moreau showed that in 2D the boundary condition can be withdrawn (the paper appeared in Computational Geometry: Theory and Applications, 2004). Jump-and-Walk has been used in many famous software packages, e.g., QHULL, Triangle and CGAL.

  Read more →
• 

  Compute (machine learning)

  In machine learning and deep learning, compute is the amount of computing power or computational resources required to train machine learning models and large language models. More broadly, compute is the computational power or resources necessary for a computer or computer program to function. == Definition == Compute is commonly defined as the amount of computing power or computational resources required to train machine learning and large language models. The term "compute" has also been more broadly applied to cloud computing, referencing processing power, memory, networking, storage, and other resources required for the computation of any program. Compute is measured in petaflop/s-days and is used to document AI training. A petaflop/s-day (pfs-day) consists of performing 1015 neural net operations per second for one day, or a total of about 1020 operations. The compute-time product serves as a mental convenience, similar to kilowatt-hour for energy. An amount of compute is meant to give an idea of the number of actual operations performed. == History == In a 2018 analysis titled "AI and compute", artificial intelligence company OpenAI introduced the concept of compute. OpenAI identified two eras of training AI systems in terms of compute-usage. From 1959 to 2012, compute roughly followed Moore’s law. Between 2012 and 2018, the amount of compute used in the largest AI training runs increased exponentially, growing by more than 300,000 times — roughly doubling every 3.4 months. By comparison, Moore’s Law doubled every two years over the same period. One of the largest models, released in 2020, used 600,000 times more computing power than the 2012 model. After 2020, compute growth began to slow down, with the compute needed for the largest AI models continuing to slow down in 2023. The notion of compute has become increasingly used from the mid-2020s onwards. == Compute growth and AI progress == Larger AI models trained on more data and using more computational resources, tend to perform better. This happens even if the algorithms themselves remain unchanged. As early as 2018, OpenAI noted the exponential increase in compute to be have a key role in AI progress. OpenAI considers three factors drive the advance of AI: algorithmic innovation, data, and the amount of compute available for training. AI models with more compute not only improve in the tasks they were trained on but can develop emergent abilities. Incremental improvements can lead to more abrupt leaps in capabilities. AI provider SpaceXAI said in 2026 that their AI progress is driven by compute and used it a key metric in the AI training of its supercomputer Colossus, the which contains 1 million GPUs. Anthropic has a contract of $1.25 billion per month with SpaceXAI to buy all the compute capacity at Colossus 1 data center. === Criticism and policy === Increasing, promoting or constraining progress in artificial intelligence has often be done via controlling the amount of compute. Policymarkers have enacted policies and provided support to make compute resources more accessible to domestic AI researchers. In a January 2022 report, the Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) suggested to institutions that increasingly powerful and generalizable AI (AGI) will likely require other strategies than maximizing compute. Some AI researchers are also concerned that government might exclusively focus on scaling compute instead of other strategies. The CSET has reported on the various bottlenecks which could explain why deep learning needs for compute have slow down: training is expensive and training extremely large models generates traffic jams across many processors that are difficult to manage. there is a limited supply of AI chips (see AI chip memory shortage). CSET advances that the main resource is human capital, specifically talented researchers — according to a 2023 published survey of more than 400 AI researchers, academic and private sector workers. The survey found that AI researchers are not primarily or exclusively constrained by compute access. However, both academic and industry AI researchers equally report concerns that insufficient compute could prevent them from contributing meaningfully to AI research in the future. High compute users are more concerned about compute access. When asked about which resource provided by the government would be the most useful to them, some AI researchers select compute, other prefer grant funding. For this goal, CSET advised policymakers to ensure that even researchers with smaller budgets could effectively contribute to AI research. Other proposed strategies include using contemporary AI algorithms, managing modern AI infrastructure or focusing on interdisciplinary work between the AI field and other fields of computer science. A 2024 study on compute access found that academic-only AI research teams often have less compute intensive research topics, especially foundation models, compared to industry AI labs. As a consequence, academia is likely to play a smaller role in advancing such techniques. The researchers suggest nationally-sponsored computing infrastructure as well as open science initiatives to boost academic compute access. === Data === A 2022 study found that current large language models are significantly under-trained, a consequence of focusing on scaling language models whilst keeping the amount of training data constant. By training over 400 language models of various parameter and token size, they found that "for compute-optimal training", the model size and the number of training tokens should ideally be scaled equally: for every doubling of model size the number of training tokens should also be doubled.

  Read more →
• 

  Bibliometrician

  A bibliometrician is a researcher or a specialist in bibliometrics. It is near-synonymous with an informetrican (who studies informetrics), a scientometrican (who study scientometrics) and a webometrician, who study webometrics. == Notable bibliometricians == Christine L. Borgman Samuel C. Bradford Blaise Cronin Margaret Elizabeth Egan Eugene Garfield (developer of the Science Citation Index and the Impact factor) Jorge E. Hirsch (developer of the h-index) Alfred J. Lotka Vasily Nalimov Derek J. de Solla Price Ronald Rousseau George Kingsley Zipf

  Read more →
• 

  Energy informatics

  Energy informatics is a research field covering the use of information and communication technology to address energy utilization and management challenges. Methods used for "smart" implementations often combine IoT sensors with artificial intelligence and machine learning. Energy Informatics is founded on flow networks that are the major suppliers and consumers of energy. Their efficiency can be improved by collecting and analyzing information. == Application areas == The field among other consider application areas within: Smart Buildings by developing ICT-centred solutions for improving the energy-efficiency of buildings. Smart Cities by investigating the synergies between demand patterns and supply availability of energy flows in cities and communities to improve energy efficiency, increase integration of renewable sources, and provide resilience towards system faults caused by extreme situations, like hurricanes and flooding. Smart Industries including the development of ICT-centred solutions for improving the energy efficiency and predictability of energy intensive industrial processes, without compromising process and product quality. Smart Energy Networks by developing ICT-centred solutions for coordinating the supply and demand in environmentally sustainable energy networks.

  Read more →
• 

  Operational historian

  In manufacturing, an operational historian is a time-series database application that is developed for operational process data. Historian software is often embedded or used in conjunction with standard DCS and PLC control systems to provide enhanced data capture, validation, compression, and aggregation capabilities. Historians have been deployed in almost every industry and contribute to functions such as supervisory control, performance monitoring, quality assurance, and, more recently, machine learning applications which can learn from vast quantities of historical data. These systems were originally developed to capture instrumentation and control data, which led many to use the term "tag" for a stream of process data, referring to the physical "tags" which had been placed on instrumentation for manually capturing data. Raw data may be accessed via OPC HDA, SQL, or REST API interfaces. == Operational Support == Operational historians are typically used within the manufacturing facility by engineers and operators for supervisory functions and analysis. An operational historian will typically capture all instrumentation and control data, whereas an enterprise historian that is deployed to support business functions will capture only a subset of the plant data. Typically, these applications offer data access through dedicated APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) and SDKs (Software Development Kits) which offer high-performance read and write operations. These operate through vendor-specific or custom applications. Front-end tools for trending process data over time are the most common interfaces to these databases. Because these applications are typically deployed next to or near the source of their process data, they are often marketed and sold as 'real-time database systems.' This distinction varies among vendors, who often have to make tradeoffs in performance between data capture and presentation, and application and analysis functionality. The following is a list of typical challenges for operational historians: data collection from instrumentation and controls storage and archiving of very large volumes of data organization of data in the form of "tags" or "points" limiting of monitoring (alarms) and validation aggregation and interpolation manual data entry (MDE) == Data access == As opposed to enterprise historians, the data access layer in the operational historian is designed to offer sophisticated data fetching modes without complex information analysis facilities. The following settings are typically available for data access operations: Data scope (single point or tag, history based on time range, history based on sample count) Request modes (raw data, last-known value, aggregation, interpolation) Sampling (single point, all points without sampling, all points with interval sampling) Data omission (based on the sample quality, based on the sample value, based on the count) Even though the operational historians are rarely relational database management systems, they often offer SQL-based interfaces to query the database. In most of such implementations, the dialect does not follow the SQL standard in order to provide syntax for specifying data access operations parameters.

  Read more →
• 

  Webmail

  Webmail (or web-based email) is an email service that can be accessed using a standard web browser. It contrasts with email service accessible through a specialised email client software. Additionally, many internet service providers (ISP) provide webmail as part of their internet service package. Similarly, some web hosting providers also provide webmail as a part of their hosting package. As with any web application, webmail's main advantage over the use of a desktop email client is the ability to send and receive email anywhere from a web browser. == History == === Early implementations === The first Web Mail implementation was developed at CERN in 1993 by Phillip Hallam-Baker as a test of the HTTP protocol stack, but was not developed further. In the next two years, however, several people produced working webmail applications. In Europe, there were three implementations, Søren Vejrum's "WWW Mail", Luca Manunza's "WebMail", and Remy Wetzels' "WebMail". Søren Vejrum's "WWW Mail" was written when he was studying and working at the Copenhagen Business School in Denmark, and was released on February 28, 1995. Luca Manunza's "WebMail" was written while he was working at CRS4 in Sardinia, from an idea of Gianluigi Zanetti, with the first source release on March 30, 1995. Remy Wetzels' "WebMail" was written while he was studying at the Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands for the DSE and was released early January 1995. In the United States, Matt Mankins wrote "Webex", and Bill Fitler, while at Lotus cc:Mail, began working on an implementation which he demonstrated publicly at Lotusphere on January 24, 1995. Customers who saw the cc:Mail demonstration were very enthusiastic, one recalling that they were "like an angry mob. People were yelling, 'We want this now!'". Matt Mankins, under the supervision of Dr. Burt Rosenberg at the University of Miami, released his "Webex" application source code in a post to comp.mail.misc on August 8, 1995, although it had been in use as the primary email application at the School of Architecture where Mankins worked for some months prior. Bill Fitler's webmail implementation was further developed as a commercial product, which Lotus announced and released in the fall of 1995 as cc:Mail for the World Wide Web 1.0; thereby providing an alternative means of accessing a cc:Mail message store (the usual means being a cc:Mail desktop application that operated either via dialup or within the confines of a local area network). Early commercialization of webmail was also achieved when "Webex" began to be sold by Mankins' company, DotShop, Inc., at the end of 1995. Within DotShop, "Webex" changed its name to "EMUmail"; which would be sold to companies like UPS and Rackspace until its sale to Accurev in 2001. EMUmail was one of the first applications to feature a free version that included embedded advertising, as well as a licensed version that did not. Hotmail and Four11's RocketMail both launched in 1996 as free services and immediately became very popular. === Widespread deployment === As the 1990s progressed, and into the 2000s, it became more common for the general public to have access to webmail because: many Internet service providers (such as EarthLink) and web hosting providers (such as Verio) began bundling webmail into their service offerings (often in parallel with POP/SMTP services); many other enterprises (such as universities and large corporations) also started offering webmail as a way for their user communities to access their email (either locally managed or outsourced); webmail service providers (such as Hotmail and RocketMail) emerged in 1996 as a free service to the general public, and rapidly gained in popularity. In some cases, webmail application software is developed in-house by the organizations running and managing the application, and in some cases it is obtained from software companies that develop and sell such applications, usually as part of an integrated mail server package (an early example being Netscape Messaging Server). The market for webmail application software has continued into the 2010s. == Rendering and compatibility == Email users may find the use of both a webmail client and a desktop client using the POP3 protocol presents some difficulties. For example, email messages that are downloaded by the desktop client and are removed from the server will no longer be available on the webmail client. The user is limited to previewing messages using the web client before they are downloaded by the desktop email client. However, one may choose to leave the emails on the server, in which case this problem does not occur. The use of both a webmail client and a desktop client using the IMAP4 protocol allows the contents of the mailbox to be consistently displayed in both the webmail and desktop clients and any action the user performs on messages in one interface will be reflected when the email is accessed via the other interface. There are significant differences in rendering capabilities for many popular webmail services such as Gmail, Outlook.com and Yahoo! Mail. Due to the varying treatment of HTML tags, such as