AI Generator Book Cover

AI Generator Book Cover — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Mobile cloud storage

  Mobile cloud storage is a form of cloud storage that is accessible on mobile devices such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones. Mobile cloud storage providers offer services that allow the user to create and organize files, folders, music, and photos, similar to other cloud computing models. Services are used by both individuals and companies. Most cloud file storage providers offer limited free use but charge for additional storage once the free limit is exceeded. These costs are usually charged as a monthly subscription rate and have different rates depending on the amount of storage desired. In 2018, cloud services revenue was about $182.4 billion and in 2022 it is projected to grow to $331.2 billion. The cloud storage industry was projected to grow 17.2 percent in 2019 (Costello, 2019). == History == The concept of cloud computing trace back to 1960s, when the groundwork for modern internet and network technologies was being laid (Human for humans, 2024). One of the pivotal figures in this early period was J.C.R. Licklider, a visionary computer scientist who worked on ARPANET, the precursor to the internet. Licklider's ideas set the stage for the development of distributed computing systems, which are fundamental to cloud computing. Moving into the 1990s, AT&T introduced PersonaLink Services, a more advanced online platform offering electronic mail and online storage. Major turning point in 2006 The launch of Amazon Web Services (AWS) in 2006 marked a major turning point. AWS introduced Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service), which allowed businesses and developers to store and retrieve any amount of data, at any time, from anywhere on the web. This development was revolutionary, providing scalable, reliable, and low-cost data storage infrastructure that transformed how organizations managed their data. == Applications == Some mobile device manufacturers include mobile cloud storage apps with their product. These apps facilitate synchronization of user files across multiple platforms. Part of the process for setting up new mobile devices frequently includes configuring a cloud storage service to Backup the device's files and information. Apple iOS devices come pre-loaded and configured to use Apple's mobile cloud storage service iCloud. Google offers a similar feature with the Android operating system by backing up the device using a Google Drive account. The Samsung Galaxy smartphone has partnered with Dropbox, while Microsoft similarly offers Microsoft OneDrive. Some mobile cloud storage apps are platform-independent. For example, Nasuni's Mobile Access app is available on any Android or iOS device. Most companies offering Cloud Storage have secure website to access files allowing use on any device that can browse the Internet.

  Read more →
• 

  Object storage

  Object storage (also known as object-based storage or blob storage) is a computer data storage approach that manages data as "blobs" or "objects", as opposed to other storage architectures like file systems, which manage data as a file hierarchy, and block storage, which manages data as blocks within sectors and tracks. Each object is typically associated with a variable amount of metadata, and a globally unique identifier. Object storage can be implemented at multiple levels, including the device level (object-storage device), the system level, and the interface level. In each case, object storage seeks to enable capabilities not addressed by other storage architectures, like interfaces that are directly programmable by the application, a namespace that can span multiple instances of physical hardware, and data-management functions like data replication and data distribution at object-level granularity. Object storage systems allow retention of massive amounts of unstructured data in which data is written once and read once (or many times). Object storage is used for purposes such as storing objects like videos and photos on Facebook, songs on Spotify, or files in online collaboration services, such as Dropbox. One of the limitations with object storage is that it is not intended for transactional data, as object storage was not designed to replace NAS file access and sharing; it does not support the locking and sharing mechanisms needed to maintain a single, accurately updated version of a file. == History == === Origins === Jim Starkey coined the term blob working at Digital Equipment Corporation to refer to opaque data entities. The terminology was adopted for Rdb/VMS. Blob is often humorously explained to be an abbreviation for binary large object. According to Starkey, this backronym arose when Terry McKiever, working in marketing at Apollo Computer felt that the term needed to be an abbreviation. McKiever began using the expansion basic large object. This was later eclipsed by the retroactive explanation of blobs as binary large objects. According to Starkey, "Blob don't stand for nothin'." Rejecting the acronym, he explained his motivation behind the coinage, saying, "A blob is the thing that ate Cincinnatti [sic], Cleveland, or whatever", referring to the 1958 science fiction film The Blob. In 1995, research led by Garth Gibson on Network-Attached Secure Disks first promoted the concept of splitting less common operations, like namespace manipulations, from common operations, like reads and writes, to optimize the performance and scale of both. In the same year, a Belgian company – FilePool – was established to build the basis for archiving functions. Object storage was proposed at Gibson's Carnegie Mellon University lab as a research project in 1996. Another key concept was abstracting the writes and reads of data to more flexible data containers (objects). Fine grained access control through object storage architecture was further described by one of the NASD team, Howard Gobioff, who later was one of the inventors of the Google File System. Other related work includes the Coda filesystem project at Carnegie Mellon, which started in 1987, and spawned the Lustre file system. There is also the OceanStore project at UC Berkeley, which started in 1999 and the Logistical Networking project at the University of Tennessee Knoxville, which started in 1998. In 1999, Gibson founded Panasas to commercialize the concepts developed by the NASD team. === Development === Seagate Technology played a central role in the development of object storage. According to the Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA), "Object storage originated in the late 1990s: Seagate specifications from 1999 Introduced some of the first commands and how operating system effectively removed from consumption of the storage." A preliminary version of the "OBJECT BASED STORAGE DEVICES Command Set Proposal" dated 10/25/1999 was submitted by Seagate as edited by Seagate's Dave Anderson and was the product of work by the National Storage Industry Consortium (NSIC) including contributions by Carnegie Mellon University, Seagate, IBM, Quantum, and StorageTek. This paper was proposed to INCITS T-10 (International Committee for Information Technology Standards) with a goal to form a committee and design a specification based on the SCSI interface protocol. This defined objects as abstracted data, with unique identifiers and metadata, how objects related to file systems, along with many other innovative concepts. Anderson presented many of these ideas at the SNIA conference in October 1999. The presentation revealed an IP Agreement that had been signed in February 1997 between the original collaborators (with Seagate represented by Anderson and Chris Malakapalli) and covered the benefits of object storage, scalable computing, platform independence, and storage management. == Architecture == === Abstraction of storage === One of the design principles of object storage is to abstract some of the lower layers of storage away from the administrators and applications. Thus, data is exposed and managed as objects instead of blocks or (exclusively) files. Objects contain additional descriptive properties which can be used for better indexing or management. Administrators do not have to perform lower-level storage functions like constructing and managing logical volumes to utilize disk capacity or setting RAID levels to deal with disk failure. Object storage also allows the addressing and identification of individual objects by more than just file name and file path. Object storage adds a unique identifier within a bucket, or across the entire system, to support much larger namespaces and eliminate name collisions. === Inclusion of rich custom metadata within the object === Object storage explicitly separates file metadata from data to support additional capabilities. As opposed to fixed metadata in file systems (filename, creation date, type, etc.), object storage provides for full function, custom, object-level metadata in order to: Capture application-specific or user-specific information for better indexing purposes Support data-management policies (e.g. a policy to drive object movement from one storage tier to another) Centralize management of storage across many individual nodes and clusters Optimize metadata storage (e.g. encapsulated, database or key value storage) and caching/indexing (when authoritative metadata is encapsulated with the metadata inside the object) independently from the data storage (e.g. unstructured binary storage) Additionally, in some object-based file-system implementations: The file system clients only contact metadata servers once when the file is opened and then get content directly via object-storage servers (vs. block-based file systems which would require constant metadata access) Data objects can be configured on a per-file basis to allow adaptive stripe width, even across multiple object-storage servers, supporting optimizations in bandwidth and I/O Object-based storage devices (OSD) as well as some software implementations (e.g., DataCore Swarm) manage metadata and data at the storage device level: Instead of providing a block-oriented interface that reads and writes fixed sized blocks of data, data is organized into flexible-sized data containers, called objects Each object has both data (an uninterpreted sequence of bytes) and metadata (an extensible set of attributes describing the object); physically encapsulating both together benefits recoverability. The command interface includes commands to create and delete objects, write bytes and read bytes to and from individual objects, and to set and get attributes on objects Security mechanisms provide per-object and per-command access control === Programmatic data management === Object storage provides programmatic interfaces to allow applications to manipulate data. At the base level, this includes Create, read, update and delete (CRUD) functions for basic read, write and delete operations. Some object storage implementations go further, supporting additional functionality like object/file versioning, object replication, life-cycle management and movement of objects between different tiers and types of storage. Most API implementations are REST-based, allowing the use of many standard HTTP calls. == Implementation == === Cloud storage === The vast majority of cloud storage available in the market leverages an object-storage architecture. Some notable examples are Amazon S3, which debuted in March 2006, Microsoft Azure Blob Storage, IBM Cloud Object Storage, Rackspace Cloud Files (whose code was donated in 2010 to Openstack project and released as OpenStack Swift), and Google Cloud Storage released in May 2010. === Object-based file systems === Some distributed file systems use an object-based architecture, where file metadata is stored in metadata servers and file data is stored i

  Read more →
• 

  Unrestricted algorithm

  An unrestricted algorithm is an algorithm for the computation of a mathematical function that puts no restrictions on the range of the argument or on the precision that may be demanded in the result. The idea of such an algorithm was put forward by C. W. Clenshaw and F. W. J. Olver in a paper published in 1980. In the problem of developing algorithms for computing, as regards the values of a real-valued function of a real variable (e.g., g[x] in "restricted" algorithms), the error that can be tolerated in the result is specified in advance. An interval on the real line would also be specified for values when the values of a function are to be evaluated. Different algorithms may have to be applied for evaluating functions outside the interval. An unrestricted algorithm envisages a situation in which a user may stipulate the value of x and also the precision required in g(x) quite arbitrarily. The algorithm should then produce an acceptable result without failure.

  Read more →
• 

  Research data archiving

  Research data archiving is the long-term storage of scholarly research data, including the natural sciences, social sciences, and life sciences. The various academic journals have differing policies regarding how much of their data and methods researchers are required to store in a public archive, and what is actually archived varies widely between different disciplines. Similarly, the major grant-giving institutions have varying attitudes towards public archiving of data. In general, the tradition of science has been for publications to contain sufficient information to allow fellow researchers to replicate and therefore test the research. In recent years this approach has become increasingly strained as research in some areas depends on large datasets which cannot easily be replicated independently. Data archiving is more important in some fields than others. In a few fields, all of the data necessary to replicate the work is already available in the journal article. In drug development, a great deal of data is generated and must be archived so researchers can verify that the reports the drug companies publish accurately reflect the data. Often used interchangeably, Data preservation and data archiving are both about protecting data for the long term, but they serve different purposes. Data preservation focuses on preventing data from being lost, damaged, or destroyed by creating backups, storing data in secure locations, and ensuring it remains accessible when needed. Data archiving, on the other hand, involves moving data that is no longer actively used to a separate storage location for long-term keeping. Archived data is often combined and compressed, and while it can still be accessed, it is not intended for regular use or frequent updates. The requirement of data archiving is a recent development in the history of science. It was made possible by advances in information technology allowing large amounts of data to be stored and accessed from central locations. For example, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) adopted their first policy on data archiving in 1993, about three years after the beginning of the WWW. This policy mandates that datasets cited in AGU papers must be archived by a recognised data center; it permits the creation of "data papers"; and it establishes AGU's role in maintaining data archives. But it makes no requirements on paper authors to archive their data. Prior to organized data archiving, researchers wanting to evaluate or replicate a paper would have to request data and methods information from the author. The academic community expects authors to share supplemental data. This process was recognized as wasteful of time and energy and obtained mixed results. Information could become lost or corrupted over the years. In some cases, authors simply refuse to provide the information. The need for data archiving and due diligence is greatly increased when the research deals with health issues or public policy formation. == Selected policies by journals == === Biotropica === Biotropica requires, as a condition for publication, that the data supporting the results in the paper and metadata describing them must be archived in an appropriate public archive such as Dryad, Figshare, GenBank, TreeBASE, or NCBI. Authors may elect to make the data publicly available as soon as the article is published or, if the technology of the archive allows, embargo access to the data up to three years after article publication. A statement describing Data Availability will be included in the manuscript as described in the instructions to authors. Exceptions to the required archiving of data may be granted at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief for studies that include sensitive information (e.g., the location of endangered species). Our Editorial explaining the motivation for this policy can be found here. A more comprehensive list of data repositories is available here. Promoting a culture of collaboration with researchers who collect and archive data: The data collected by tropical biologists are often long-term, complex, and expensive to collect. The Board of Editors of Biotropica strongly encourages authors who re-use data archives archived data sets to include as fully engaged collaborators the scientists who originally collected them. We feel this will greatly enhance the quality and impact of the resulting research by drawing on the data collector’s profound insights into the natural history of the study system, reducing the risk of errors in novel analyses, and stimulating the cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural collaboration and training for which the ATBC and Biotropica are widely recognized. NB: Biotropica is one of only two journals that pays the fees for authors depositing data at Dryad. === The American Naturalist === The American Naturalist requires authors to deposit the data associated with accepted papers in a public archive. For gene sequence data and phylogenetic trees, deposition in GenBank or TreeBASE, respectively, is required. There are many possible archives that may suit a particular data set, including the Dryad repository for ecological and evolutionary biology data. All accession numbers for GenBank, TreeBASE, and Dryad must be included in accepted manuscripts before they go to Production. If the data is deposited somewhere else, please provide a link. If the data is culled from published literature, please deposit the collated data in Dryad for the convenience of your readers. Any impediments to data sharing should be brought to the attention of the editors at the time of submission so that appropriate arrangements can be worked out. === Journal of Heredity === The primary data underlying the conclusions of an article are critical to the verifiability and transparency of the scientific enterprise, and should be preserved in usable form for decades in the future. For this reason, Journal of Heredity requires that newly reported nucleotide or amino acid sequences, and structural coordinates, be submitted to appropriate public databases (e.g., GenBank; the EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database; DNA Database of Japan; the Protein Data Bank; and Swiss-Prot). Accession numbers must be included in the final version of the manuscript. For other forms of data (e.g., microsatellite genotypes, linkage maps, images), the Journal endorses the principles of the Joint Data Archiving Policy (JDAP) in encouraging all authors to archive primary datasets in an appropriate public archive, such as Dryad, TreeBASE, or the Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity. Authors are encouraged to make data publicly available at time of publication or, if the technology of the archive allows, opt to embargo access to the data for a period up to a year after publication. The American Genetic Association also recognizes the vast investment of individual researchers in generating and curating large datasets. Consequently, we recommend that this investment be respected in secondary analyses or meta-analyses in a gracious collaborative spirit. === Molecular Ecology === Molecular Ecology expects that data supporting the results in the paper should be archived in an appropriate public archive, such as GenBank, Gene Expression Omnibus, TreeBASE, Dryad, the Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity, your own institutional or funder repository, or as Supporting Information on the Molecular Ecology web site. Data are important products of the scientific enterprise, and they should be preserved and usable for decades in the future. Authors may elect to have the data publicly available at time of publication, or, if the technology of the archive allows, may opt to embargo access to the data for a period up to a year after publication. Exceptions may be granted at the discretion of the editor, especially for sensitive information such as human subject data or the location of endangered species. === Nature === Such material must be hosted on an accredited independent site (URL and accession numbers to be provided by the author), or sent to the Nature journal at submission, either uploaded via the journal's online submission service, or if the files are too large or in an unsuitable format for this purpose, on CD/DVD (five copies). Such material cannot solely be hosted on an author's personal or institutional web site. Nature requires the reviewer to determine if all of the supplementary data and methods have been archived. The policy advises reviewers to consider several questions, including: "Should the authors be asked to provide supplementary methods or data to accompany the paper online? (Such data might include source code for modelling studies, detailed experimental protocols or mathematical derivations.) === Science === Science supports the efforts of databases that aggregate published data for the use of the scientific community. Therefore, before publication, large data sets (including microarray data, protein or DNA sequences, and atomic c

  Read more →
• 

  Inception score

  The Inception Score (IS) is an algorithm used to assess the quality of images created by a generative image model such as a generative adversarial network (GAN). The score is calculated based on the output of a separate, pretrained Inception v3 image classification model applied to a sample of (typically around 30,000) images generated by the generative model. The Inception Score is maximized when the following conditions are true: The entropy of the distribution of labels predicted by the Inceptionv3 model for the generated images is minimized. In other words, the classification model confidently predicts a single label for each image. Intuitively, this corresponds to the desideratum of generated images being "sharp" or "distinct". The predictions of the classification model are evenly distributed across all possible labels. This corresponds to the desideratum that the output of the generative model is "diverse". It has been somewhat superseded by the related Fréchet inception distance. While the Inception Score only evaluates the distribution of generated images, the FID compares the distribution of generated images with the distribution of a set of real images ("ground truth"). == Definition == Let there be two spaces, the space of images Ω X {\displaystyle \Omega _{X}} and the space of labels Ω Y {\displaystyle \Omega _{Y}} . The space of labels is finite. Let p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} be a probability distribution over Ω X {\displaystyle \Omega _{X}} that we wish to judge. Let a discriminator be a function of type p d i s : Ω X → M ( Ω Y ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}:\Omega _{X}\to M(\Omega _{Y})} where M ( Ω Y ) {\displaystyle M(\Omega _{Y})} is the set of all probability distributions on Ω Y {\displaystyle \Omega _{Y}} . For any image x {\displaystyle x} , and any label y {\displaystyle y} , let p d i s ( y | x ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(y|x)} be the probability that image x {\displaystyle x} has label y {\displaystyle y} , according to the discriminator. It is usually implemented as an Inception-v3 network trained on ImageNet. The Inception Score of p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} relative to p d i s {\displaystyle p_{dis}} is I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) := exp ⁡ ( E x ∼ p g e n [ D K L ( p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ‖ ∫ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) p g e n ( x ) d x ) ] ) {\displaystyle IS(p_{gen},p_{dis}):=\exp \left(\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}\left[D_{KL}\left(p_{dis}(\cdot |x)\|\int p_{dis}(\cdot |x)p_{gen}(x)dx\right)\right]\right)} Equivalent rewrites include ln ⁡ I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) := E x ∼ p g e n [ D K L ( p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ‖ E x ∼ p g e n [ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ] ) ] {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis}):=\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}\left[D_{KL}\left(p_{dis}(\cdot |x)\|\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[p_{dis}(\cdot |x)]\right)\right]} ln ⁡ I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) := H [ E x ∼ p g e n [ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ] ] − E x ∼ p g e n [ H [ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ] ] {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis}):=H[\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[p_{dis}(\cdot |x)]]-\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[H[p_{dis}(\cdot |x)]]} ln ⁡ I S {\displaystyle \ln IS} is nonnegative by Jensen's inequality. Pseudocode:INPUT discriminator p d i s {\displaystyle p_{dis}} . INPUT generator g {\displaystyle g} . Sample images x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from generator. Compute p d i s ( ⋅ | x i ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(\cdot |x_{i})} , the probability distribution over labels conditional on image x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . Sum up the results to obtain p ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {p}}} , an empirical estimate of ∫ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) p g e n ( x ) d x {\displaystyle \int p_{dis}(\cdot |x)p_{gen}(x)dx} . Sample more images x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from generator, and for each, compute D K L ( p d i s ( ⋅ | x i ) ‖ p ^ ) {\displaystyle D_{KL}\left(p_{dis}(\cdot |x_{i})\|{\hat {p}}\right)} . Average the results, and take its exponential. RETURN the result. === Interpretation === A higher inception score is interpreted as "better", as it means that p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} is a "sharp and distinct" collection of pictures. ln ⁡ I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) ∈ [ 0 , ln ⁡ N ] {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis})\in [0,\ln N]} , where N {\displaystyle N} is the total number of possible labels. ln ⁡ I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) = 0 {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis})=0} iff for almost all x ∼ p g e n {\displaystyle x\sim p_{gen}} p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) = ∫ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) p g e n ( x ) d x {\displaystyle p_{dis}(\cdot |x)=\int p_{dis}(\cdot |x)p_{gen}(x)dx} That means p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} is completely "indistinct". That is, for any image x {\displaystyle x} sampled from p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} , discriminator returns exactly the same label predictions p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(\cdot |x)} . The highest inception score N {\displaystyle N} is achieved if and only if the two conditions are both true: For almost all x ∼ p g e n {\displaystyle x\sim p_{gen}} , the distribution p d i s ( y | x ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(y|x)} is concentrated on one label. That is, H y [ p d i s ( y | x ) ] = 0 {\displaystyle H_{y}[p_{dis}(y|x)]=0} . That is, every image sampled from p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} is exactly classified by the discriminator. For every label y {\displaystyle y} , the proportion of generated images labelled as y {\displaystyle y} is exactly E x ∼ p g e n [ p d i s ( y | x ) ] = 1 N {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[p_{dis}(y|x)]={\frac {1}{N}}} . That is, the generated images are equally distributed over all labels.

  Read more →
• 

  Metadirectory

  A metadirectory system provides for the flow of data between one or more directory services and databases in order to maintain synchronization of that data. It is an important part of identity management systems. The data being synchronized typically are collections of entries that contain user profiles and possibly authentication or policy information. Most metadirectory deployments synchronize data into at least one LDAP-based directory server, to ensure that LDAP-based applications such as single sign-on and portal servers have access to recent data, even if the data is mastered in a non-LDAP data source. Metadirectory products support filtering and transformation of data in transit. Most identity management suites from commercial vendors include a metadirectory product, or a user provisioning product.

  Read more →
• 

  SIGMOD Edgar F. Codd Innovations Award

  The ACM SIGMOD Edgar F. Codd Innovations Award is a lifetime research achievement award given by the ACM Special Interest Group on Management of Data, at its yearly flagship conference (also called SIGMOD). According to its homepage, it is given "for innovative and highly significant contributions of enduring value to the development, understanding, or use of database systems and databases". The award has been given since 1992. Until 2003, this award was known as the “SIGMOD Innovations Award.” In 2004, SIGMOD, with the unanimous approval of ACM Council, decided to rename the award to honor Dr. E.F. (Ted) Codd (1923 – 2003) who invented the relational data model and was responsible for the significant development of the database field as a scientific discipline. == Recipients ==

  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 →
• 

  1.58-bit large language model

  A 1.58-bit large language model (also known as a ternary LLM) is a type of large language model (LLM) designed to be computationally efficient. It achieves this by using weights that are restricted to only three values: -1, 0, and +1. This restriction significantly reduces the model's memory footprint and allows for faster processing, as computationally expensive multiplication operations can be replaced with lower-cost additions. This contrasts with traditional models that use 16-bit floating-point numbers (FP16 or BF16) for their weights. Studies have shown that for models up to several billion parameters, the performance of 1.58-bit LLMs on various tasks is comparable to their full-precision counterparts. This approach could enable powerful AI to run on less specialized and lower-power hardware. The name "1.58-bit" comes from the fact that a system with three states contains log 2 ⁡ 3 ≈ 1.58 {\displaystyle \log _{2}3\approx 1.58} bits of information. These models are sometimes also referred to as 1-bit LLMs in research papers, although this term can also refer to true binary models (with weights of -1 and +1). == BitNet == In 2024, Ma et al., researchers at Microsoft, declared that their 1.58-bit model, BitNet b1.58 is comparable in performance to the 16-bit Llama 2 and opens the era of 1-bit LLM. BitNet creators did not use the post-training quantization of weights but instead relied on the new BitLinear transform that replaced the nn.Linear layer of the traditional transformer design. In 2025, Microsoft researchers had released an open-weights and open inference code model BitNet b1.58 2B4T demonstrating performance competitive with the full precision models at 2B parameters and 4T training tokens. == Post-training quantization == BitNet derives its performance from being trained natively in 1.58 bit instead of being quantized from a full-precision model after training. Still, training is an expensive process and it would be desirable to be able to somehow convert an existing model to 1.58 bits. In 2024, HuggingFace reported a way to gradually ramp up the 1.58-bit quantization in fine-tuning an existing model down to 1.58 bits. == Critique == Some researchers point out that the scaling laws of large language models favor the low-bit weights only in case of undertrained models. As the number of training tokens increases, the deficiencies of low-bit quantization surface.

  Read more →
• 

  AIVA

  AIVA (Artificial Intelligence Virtual Artist) is an electronic composer recognized by the SACEM. == Description == Created in February 2016, AIVA specializes in classical and symphonic music composition. It became the world's first virtual composer to be recognized by a music society (SACEM). By reading a large collection of existing works of classical music (written by human composers such as Bach, Beethoven, Mozart) AIVA is capable of detecting regularities in music and on this base composing on its own. The algorithm AIVA is based on deep learning and reinforcement learning architectures. Since January 2019, the company offers a commercial product, Music Engine, capable of generating short (up to 3 minutes) compositions in various styles (rock, pop, jazz, fantasy, shanty, tango, 20th century cinematic, modern cinematic, and Chinese). AIVA was presented at TED by Pierre Barreau. == Discography == AIVA is a published composer; its first studio album "Genesis" was released in November 2016. Second album "Among the Stars" in 2018. 2016 CD album « Genesis » Hv-Com – LEPM 048427. Track listing "Genesis": 2018 CD album « Among the Stars » Hv-Com – LEPM 048708 Avignon Symphonic Orchestra [ORAP] also performed Aiva's compositions [2] in April 2017.

  Read more →
• 

  Information behavior

  Information behavior is a field of information science research that seeks to understand the way people search for and use information in various contexts. It can include information seeking and information retrieval, but it also aims to understand why people seek information and how they use it. The term 'information behavior' was coined by Thomas D. Wilson in 1982 and sparked controversy upon its introduction. The term has now been adopted and Wilson's model of information behavior is widely cited in information behavior literature. In 2000, Wilson defined information behavior as "the totality of human behavior in relation to sources and channels of information". A variety of theories of information behavior seek to understand the processes that surround information seeking. An analysis of the most cited publications on information behavior during the early 21st century shows its theoretical nature. Information behavior research can employ various research methodologies grounded in broader research paradigms from psychology, sociology and education. In 2003, a framework for information-seeking studies was introduced that aims to guide the production of clear, structured descriptions of research objects and positions information-seeking as a concept within information behavior. == Concepts of information behavior == === Information need === Information need is a concept introduced by Wilson. Understanding the information need of an individual involved three elements: Why the individual decides to look for information, What purpose the information they find will serve, and How the information is used once it is retrieved === Information-seeking behavior === Information-seeking behavior is a more specific concept of information behavior. It specifically focuses on searching, finding, and retrieving information. Information-seeking behavior research can focus on improving information systems or, if it includes information need, can also focus on why the user behaves the way they do. A review study on information search behavior of users highlighted that behavioral factors, personal factors, product/service factors and situational factors affect information search behavior. Information-seeking behavior can be more or less explicit on the part of users: users might seek to solve some task or to establish some piece of knowledge which can be found in the data in question, or alternatively the search process itself is part of the objective of the user, in use cases for exploring visual content or for familiarising oneself with the content of an information service. In the general case, information-seeking needs to be understood and analysed as a session rather than as a one-off transaction with a search engine, and in a broader context which includes user high-level intentions in addition to the immediate information need. === Information use === An information need is the recognition that a gap exists in one’s knowledge, prompting a desire to seek information to fill that gap. It often arises when a person encounters a problem or question they cannot resolve with their current understanding. === Information poverty and barriers === Introduced by Elfreda Chatman in 1987, information poverty is informed by the understanding that information is not equally accessible to all people. Information poverty does not describe a lack of information, but rather a worldview in which one's own experiences inside their own small world may create a distrust in the information provided by those outside their own lived experiences. == Metatheories == In Library and Information Science (LIS), a metatheory is described "a set of assumptions that orient and direct theorizing about a given phenomenon". Library and information science researchers have adopted a number of different metatheories in their research. A common concern among LIS researchers, and a prominent discussion in the field, is the broad spectrum of theories that inform the study of information behavior, information users, or information use. This variation has been noted as a cause of concern because it makes individual studies difficult to compare or synthesize if they are not guided by the same theory. This sentiment has been expressed in studies of information behavior literature from the early 1980s and more recent literature reviews have declared it necessary to refine their reviews to specific contexts or situations due to the sheer breadth of information behavior research available. Below are descriptions of some, but not all, metatheories that have guided LIS research. === Cognitivist approach === A cognitive approach to understanding information behavior is grounded in psychology. It holds the assumption that a person's thinking influences how they seek, retrieve, and use information. Researchers that approach information behavior with the assumption that it is influenced by cognition, seek to understand what someone is thinking while they engage in information behavior and how those thoughts influence their behavior. Wilson's attempt to understand information-seeking behavior by defining information need includes a cognitive approach. Wilson theorizes that information behavior is influenced by the cognitive need of an individual. By understanding the cognitive information need of an individual, we may gain insight into their information behavior. Nigel Ford takes a cognitive approach to information-seeking, focusing on the intellectual processes of information-seeking. In 2004, Ford proposed an information-seeking model using a cognitive approach that focuses on how to improve information retrieval systems and serves to establish information-seeking and information behavior as concepts in and of themselves, rather than synonymous terms. === Constructionist approach === The constructionist approach to information behavior has roots in the humanities and social sciences. It relies on social constructionism, which assumes that a person's information behavior is influenced by their experiences in society. In order to understand information behavior, constructionist researchers must first understand the social discourse that surrounds the behavior. The most popular thinker referenced in constructionist information behavior research is Michel Foucault, who famously rejected the concept of a universal human nature. The constructionist approach to information behavior research creates space for contextualizing the behavior based on the social experiences of the individual. One study that approaches information behavior research through the social constructionist approach is a study of the information behavior of a public library knitting group. The authors use a collectivist theory to frame their research, which denies the universality of information behavior and focuses on "understanding the ways that discourse communities collectively construct information needs, seeking, sources, and uses". === Constructivist approach === The constructivist approach is born out of education and sociology in which, "individuals are seen as actively constructing an understanding of their worlds, heavily influenced by the social world(s) in which they are operating". Constructivist approaches to information behavior research generally treat the individual's reality as constructed within their own mind rather than built by the society in which they live. The constructivist metatheory makes space for the influence of society and culture with social constructivism, "which argues that, while the mind constructs reality in its relationship to the world, this mental process is significantly informed by influences received from societal conventions, history and interaction with significant others". == Theories == A common concern among LIS researchers, and a prominent discussion in the field, is the broad spectrum of theories that inform LIS research. This variation has been noted as a cause of concern because it makes individual studies difficult to compare if they are not guided by the same theory. Recent studies have shown that the impact of these theories and theoretical models is very limited. LIS researchers have applied concepts and theories from many disciplines, including sociology, psychology, communication, organizational behavior, and computer science. === Wilson's theory of information behavior (1981) === The term was coined by Thomas D. Wilson in his 1981 paper, on the grounds that the current term, 'information needs' was unhelpful since 'need' could not be directly observed, while how people behaved in seeking information could be observed and investigated. However, there is increasing work in the information-searching field that is relating behaviors to underlying needs. In 2000, Wilson described information behavior as the totality of human behavior in relation to sources and channels of information, including both active and passive information-seeking, and information use. He described info

  Read more →
• 

  Birkhoff algorithm

  Birkhoff's algorithm (also called Birkhoff-von-Neumann algorithm) is an algorithm for decomposing a bistochastic matrix into a convex combination of permutation matrices. It was published by Garrett Birkhoff in 1946. It has many applications. One such application is for the problem of fair random assignment: given a randomized allocation of items, Birkhoff's algorithm can decompose it into a lottery on deterministic allocations. == Terminology == A bistochastic matrix (also called: doubly-stochastic) is a matrix in which all elements are greater than or equal to 0 and the sum of the elements in each row and column equals 1. An example is the following 3-by-3 matrix: ( 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}0.2&0.3&0.5\\0.6&0.2&0.2\\0.2&0.5&0.3\end{pmatrix}}} A permutation matrix is a special case of a bistochastic matrix, in which each element is either 0 or 1 (so there is exactly one "1" in each row and each column). An example is the following 3-by-3 matrix: ( 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}0&1&0\\0&0&1\\1&0&0\end{pmatrix}}} A Birkhoff decomposition (also called: Birkhoff-von-Neumann decomposition) of a bistochastic matrix is a presentation of it as a sum of permutation matrices with non-negative weights. For example, the above matrix can be presented as the following sum: 0.2 ( 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 ) + 0.2 ( 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ) + 0.1 ( 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 ) + 0.5 ( 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 ) {\displaystyle 0.2{\begin{pmatrix}0&1&0\\0&0&1\\1&0&0\end{pmatrix}}+0.2{\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\\0&1&0\\0&0&1\end{pmatrix}}+0.1{\begin{pmatrix}0&1&0\\1&0&0\\0&0&1\end{pmatrix}}+0.5{\begin{pmatrix}0&0&1\\1&0&0\\0&1&0\end{pmatrix}}} Birkhoff's algorithm receives as input a bistochastic matrix and returns as output a Birkhoff decomposition. == Tools == A permutation set of an n-by-n matrix X is a set of n entries of X containing exactly one entry from each row and from each column. A theorem by Dénes Kőnig says that: Every bistochastic matrix has a permutation-set in which all entries are positive.The positivity graph of an n-by-n matrix X is a bipartite graph with 2n vertices, in which the vertices on one side are n rows and the vertices on the other side are the n columns, and there is an edge between a row and a column if the entry at that row and column is positive. A permutation set with positive entries is equivalent to a perfect matching in the positivity graph. A perfect matching in a bipartite graph can be found in polynomial time, e.g. using any algorithm for maximum cardinality matching. Kőnig's theorem is equivalent to the following:The positivity graph of any bistochastic matrix admits a perfect matching.A matrix is called scaled-bistochastic if all elements are non-negative, and the sum of each row and column equals c, where c is some positive constant. In other words, it is c times a bistochastic matrix. Since the positivity graph is not affected by scaling:The positivity graph of any scaled-bistochastic matrix admits a perfect matching. == Algorithm == Birkhoff's algorithm is a greedy algorithm: it greedily finds perfect matchings and removes them from the fractional matching. It works as follows. Let i = 1. Construct the positivity graph GX of X. Find a perfect matching in GX, corresponding to a positive permutation set in X. Let z[i] > 0 be the smallest entry in the permutation set. Let P[i] be a permutation matrix with 1 in the positive permutation set. Let X := X − z[i] P[i]. If X contains nonzero elements, Let i = i + 1 and go back to step 2. Otherwise, return the sum: z[1] P[1] + ... + z[2] P[2] + ... + z[i] P[i]. The algorithm is correct because, after step 6, the sum in each row and each column drops by z[i]. Therefore, the matrix X remains scaled-bistochastic. Therefore, in step 3, a perfect matching always exists. == Run-time complexity == By the selection of z[i] in step 4, in each iteration at least one element of X becomes 0. Therefore, the algorithm must end after at most n2 steps. However, the last step must simultaneously make n elements 0, so the algorithm ends after at most n2 − n + 1 steps, which implies O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} . In 1960, Joshnson, Dulmage and Mendelsohn showed that Birkhoff's algorithm actually ends after at most n2 − 2n + 2 steps, which is tight in general (that is, in some cases n2 − 2n + 2 permutation matrices may be required). == Application in fair division == In the fair random assignment problem, there are n objects and n people with different preferences over the objects. It is required to give an object to each person. To attain fairness, the allocation is randomized: for each (person, object) pair, a probability is calculated, such that the sum of probabilities for each person and for each object is 1. The probabilistic-serial procedure can compute the probabilities such that each agent, looking at the matrix of probabilities, prefers his row of probabilities over the rows of all other people (this property is called envy-freeness). This raises the question of how to implement this randomized allocation in practice? One cannot just randomize for each object separately, since this may result in allocations in which some people get many objects while other people get no objects. Here, Birkhoff's algorithm is useful. The matrix of probabilities, calculated by the probabilistic-serial algorithm, is bistochastic. Birkhoff's algorithm can decompose it into a convex combination of permutation matrices. Each permutation matrix represents a deterministic assignment, in which every agent receives exactly one object. The coefficient of each such matrix is interpreted as a probability; based on the calculated probabilities, it is possible to pick one assignment at random and implement it. == Extensions == The problem of computing the Birkhoff decomposition with the minimum number of terms has been shown to be NP-hard, but some heuristics for computing it are known. This theorem can be extended for the general stochastic matrix with deterministic transition matrices. Budish, Che, Kojima and Milgrom generalize Birkhoff's algorithm to non-square matrices, with some constraints on the feasible assignments. They also present a decomposition algorithm that minimizes the variance in the expected values. Vazirani generalizes Birkhoff's algorithm to non-bipartite graphs. Valls et al. showed that it is possible to obtain an ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } -approximate decomposition with O ( log ⁡ ( 1 / ϵ 2 ) ) {\displaystyle O(\log(1/\epsilon ^{2}))} permutations.

  Read more →
• 

  Automatic acquisition of sense-tagged corpora

  The knowledge acquisition bottleneck is perhaps the major impediment to solving the word-sense disambiguation (WSD) problem. Unsupervised learning methods rely on knowledge about word senses, which is barely formulated in dictionaries and lexical databases. Supervised learning methods depend heavily on the existence of manually annotated examples for every word sense, a requisite that can so far be met only for a handful of words for testing purposes, as it is done in the Senseval exercises. == Existing methods == Therefore, one of the most promising trends in WSD research is using the largest corpus ever accessible, the World Wide Web, to acquire lexical information automatically. WSD has been traditionally understood as an intermediate language engineering technology which could improve applications such as information retrieval (IR). In this case, however, the reverse is also true: Web search engines implement simple and robust IR techniques that can be successfully used when mining the Web for information to be employed in WSD. The most direct way of using the Web (and other corpora) to enhance WSD performance is the automatic acquisition of sense-tagged corpora, the fundamental resource to feed supervised WSD algorithms. Although this is far from being commonplace in the WSD literature, a number of different and effective strategies to achieve this goal have already been proposed. Some of these strategies are: acquisition by direct Web searching (searches for monosemous synonyms, hypernyms, hyponyms, parsed gloss' words, etc.), Yarowsky algorithm (bootstrapping), acquisition via Web directories, and acquisition via cross-language meaning evidences. == Summary == === Optimistic results === The automatic extraction of examples to train supervised learning algorithms reviewed has been, by far, the best explored approach to mine the web for word-sense disambiguation. Some results are certainly encouraging: In some experiments, the quality of the Web data for WSD equals that of human-tagged examples. This is the case of the monosemous relatives plus bootstrapping with Semcor seeds technique and the examples taken from the ODP Web directories. In the first case, however, Semcor-size example seeds are necessary (and only available for English), and it has only been tested with a very limited set of nouns; in the second case, the coverage is quite limited, and it is not yet clear whether it can be grown without compromising the quality of the examples retrieved. It has been shown that a mainstream supervised learning technique trained exclusively with web data can obtain better results than all unsupervised WSD systems which participated at Senseval-2. Web examples made a significant contribution to the best Senseval-2 English all-words system. === Difficulties === There are, however, several open research issues related to the use of Web examples in WSD: High precision in the retrieved examples (i.e., correct sense assignments for the examples) does not necessarily lead to good supervised WSD results (i.e., the examples are possibly not useful for training). The most complete evaluation of Web examples for supervised WSD indicates that learning with Web data improves over unsupervised techniques, but the results are nevertheless far from those obtained with hand-tagged data, and do not even beat the most-frequent-sense baseline. Results are not always reproducible; the same or similar techniques may lead to different results in different experiments. Compare, for instance, Mihalcea (2002) with Agirre and Martínez (2004), or Agirre and Martínez (2000) with Mihalcea and Moldovan (1999). Results with Web data seem to be very sensitive to small differences in the learning algorithm, to when the corpus was extracted (search engines change continuously), and on small heuristic issues (e.g., differences in filters to discard part of the retrieved examples). Results are strongly dependent on bias (i.e., on the relative frequencies of examples per word sense). It is unclear whether this is simply a problem of Web data, or an intrinsic problem of supervised learning techniques, or just a problem of how WSD systems are evaluated (indeed, testing with rather small Senseval data may overemphasize sense distributions compared to sense distributions obtained from the full Web as corpus). In any case, Web data has an intrinsic bias, because queries to search engines directly constrain the context of the examples retrieved. There are approaches that alleviate this problem, such as using several different seeds/queries per sense or assigning senses to Web directories and then scanning directories for examples; but this problem is nevertheless far from being solved. Once a Web corpus of examples is built, it is not entirely clear whether its distribution is safe from a legal perspective. === Future === Besides automatic acquisition of examples from the Web, there are some other WSD experiments that have profited from the Web: The Web as a social network has been successfully used for cooperative annotation of a corpus (OMWE, Open Mind Word Expert project), which has already been used in three Senseval-3 tasks (English, Romanian and Multilingual). The Web has been used to enrich WordNet senses with domain information: topic signatures and Web directories, which have in turn been successfully used for WSD. Also, some research benefited from the semantic information that the Wikipedia maintains on its disambiguation pages. It is clear, however, that most research opportunities remain largely unexplored. For instance, little is known about how to use lexical information extracted from the Web in knowledge-based WSD systems; and it is also hard to find systems that use Web-mined parallel corpora for WSD, even though there are already efficient algorithms that use parallel corpora in WSD.

  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 →
• 

  Recommender system

  A recommender system, also called a recommendation algorithm, recommendation engine, or recommendation platform, is a type of information filtering system that suggests items most relevant to a particular user. The value of these systems becomes particularly evident in scenarios where users must select from a large number of options, such as products, media, or content. Major social media platforms and streaming services rely on recommender systems that employ machine learning to analyze user behavior and preferences, thereby enabling personalized content feeds. Typically, the suggestions refer to a variety decision-making processes, including the selection of a product, musical selection, or online news source to read. The implementation of recommender systems is pervasive, with commonly recognised examples including the generation of playlist for video and music services, the provision of product recommendations for e-commerce platforms, and the recommendation of content on social media platforms and the open web. These systems can operate using a single type of input, such as music, or multiple inputs from diverse platforms, including news, books and search queries. Additionally, popular recommender systems have been developed for specific topics, such as restaurants and online dating services. Recommender systems have also been developed to explore research articles and experts, collaborators, and financial services. A content discovery platform is a software recommendation platform that employs recommender system tools. It utilizes user metadata in order to identify and suggest relevant content, whilst reducing ongoing maintenance and development costs. A content discovery platform delivers personalized content to websites, mobile devices, and set-top boxes. A large range of content discovery platforms currently exist for various forms of content ranging from news articles and academic journal articles to television. As operators compete to serve as the gateway to home entertainment, personalized television emerges as a key service differentiator. Academic content discovery has recently become another area of interest, the emergence of numerous companies dedicated to assisting academic researchers in keeping up to date with relevant academic content and facilitating serendipitous discovery of new content. == Overview == Recommender systems usually make use of either or both collaborative filtering and content-based filtering, as well as other systems such as knowledge-based systems. Collaborative filtering approaches build a model from a user's past behavior (e.g., items previously purchased or selected and/or numerical ratings given to those items) as well as similar decisions made by other users. This model is then used to predict items (or ratings for items) that the user may have an interest in. Content-based filtering approaches utilize a series of discrete, pre-tagged characteristics of an item in order to recommend additional items with similar properties. === Example === The differences between collaborative and content-based filtering can be demonstrated by comparing two early music recommender systems, Last.fm and Pandora Radio. We can also look at how these methods are applied in e-commerce, for example, on platforms like Amazon. Last.fm creates a "station" of recommended songs by observing what bands and individual tracks the user has listened to on a regular basis and comparing those against the listening behavior of other users. Last.fm will play tracks that do not appear in the user's library, but are often played by other users with similar interests. As this approach leverages the behavior of users, it is an example of a collaborative filtering technique. Pandora uses the properties of a song or artist (a subset of the 450 attributes provided by the Music Genome Project) to seed a "station" that plays music with similar properties. User feedback is used to refine the station's results, deemphasizing certain attributes when a user "dislikes" a particular song and emphasizing other attributes when a user "likes" a song. This is an example of a content-based approach. In e-commerce, Amazon's well-known "customers who bought X also bought Y" feature is a prime example of collaborative filtering. It also uses content-based filtering when it recommends a book by the same author you've previously read or a pair of shoes in a similar style to ones you've viewed. Each type of system has its strengths and weaknesses. In the above example, Last.fm requires a large amount of information about a user to make accurate recommendations. This is an example of the cold start problem, and is common in collaborative filtering systems. Whereas Pandora needs very little information to start, it is far more limited in scope (for example, it can only make recommendations that are similar to the original seed). === Alternative implementations === Recommender systems are a useful alternative to search algorithms since they help users discover items they might not have found otherwise. Of note, recommender systems are often implemented using search engines indexing non-traditional data. In some cases, like in the Gonzalez v. Google Supreme Court case, may argue that search and recommendation algorithms are different technologies. Recommender systems have been the focus of several granted patents, and there are more than 50 software libraries that support the development of recommender systems including LensKit, RecBole, ReChorus and RecPack. == History == Elaine Rich created the first recommender system in 1979, called Grundy. She looked for a way to recommend users books they might like. Her idea was to create a system that asks users specific questions and classifies them into classes of preferences, or "stereotypes", depending on their answers. Depending on users' stereotype membership, they would then get recommendations for books they might like. Another early recommender system, called a "digital bookshelf", was described in a 1990 technical report by Jussi Karlgren at Columbia University, and implemented at scale and worked through in technical reports and publications from 1994 onwards by Jussi Karlgren, then at SICS, and research groups led by Pattie Maes at MIT, Will Hill at Bellcore, and Paul Resnick, also at MIT, whose work with GroupLens was awarded the 2010 ACM Software Systems Award. Montaner provided the first overview of recommender systems from an intelligent agent perspective. Adomavicius provided a new, alternate overview of recommender systems. Herlocker provides an additional overview of evaluation techniques for recommender systems, and Beel et al. discussed the problems of offline evaluations. Beel et al. have also provided literature surveys on available research paper recommender systems and existing challenges. == Approaches == === Collaborative filtering === One approach to the design of recommender systems that has wide use is collaborative filtering. Collaborative filtering is based on the assumption that people who agreed in the past will agree in the future, and that they will like similar kinds of items as they liked in the past. The system generates recommendations using only information about rating profiles for different users or items. By locating peer users/items with a rating history similar to the current user or item, they generate recommendations using this neighborhood. This approach is a cornerstone for e-commerce sites that analyze the purchasing patterns of thousands of users to suggest what you might like. Collaborative filtering methods are classified as memory-based and model-based. A well-known example of memory-based approaches is the user-based algorithm, while that of model-based approaches is matrix factorization (recommender systems). A key advantage of the collaborative filtering approach is that it does not rely on machine analyzable content and therefore it is capable of accurately recommending complex items such as movies without requiring an "understanding" of the item itself. Many algorithms have been used in measuring user similarity or item similarity in recommender systems. For example, the k-nearest neighbor (k-NN) approach and the Pearson Correlation as first implemented by Allen. When building a model from a user's behavior, a distinction is often made between explicit and implicit forms of data collection. Examples of explicit data collection include the following: Asking a user to rate an item on a sliding scale. Asking a user to search. Asking a user to rank a collection of items from favorite to least favorite. Presenting two items to a user and asking him/her to choose the better one of them. Asking a user to create a list of items that he/she likes (see Rocchio classification or other similar techniques). Examples of implicit data collection include the following: Observing the items that a user views in an online store, media library, or other repository of med

  Read more →