AI Generator Free No Sign Up

AI Generator Free No Sign Up — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Wetware (brain)

Wetware is a term drawn from the computer-related idea of hardware or software, but applied to biological life forms. == Usage == The prefix "wet" is a reference to the water found in living creatures. Wetware is used to describe the elements equivalent to hardware and software found in a person, especially the central nervous system (CNS) and the human mind. The term wetware finds use in works of fiction, in scholarly publications and in popularizations. The "hardware" component of wetware concerns the bioelectric and biochemical properties of the CNS, specifically the brain. If the sequence of impulses traveling across the various neurons are thought of symbolically as software, then the physical neurons would be the hardware. The amalgamated interaction of this software and hardware is manifested through continuously changing physical connections, and chemical and electrical influences that spread across the body. The process by which the mind and brain interact to produce the collection of experiences that we define as self-awareness is in question. == History == Although the exact definition has shifted over time, the term Wetware and its fundamental reference to "the physical mind" has been around at least since the mid-1950s. Mostly used in relatively obscure articles and papers, it was not until the heyday of cyberpunk, however, that the term found broad adoption. Among the first uses of the term in popular culture was the Bruce Sterling novel Schismatrix (1985) and the Michael Swanwick novel Vacuum Flowers (1987). Rudy Rucker references the term in a number of books, including one entitled Wetware (1988): ... all sparks and tastes and tangles, all its stimulus/response patterns – the whole bio-cybernetic software of mind. Rucker did not use the word to simply mean a brain, nor in the human-resources sense of employees. He used wetware to stand for the data found in any biological system, analogous perhaps to the firmware that is found in a ROM chip. In Rucker's sense, a seed, a plant graft, an embryo, or a biological virus are all wetware. DNA, the immune system, and the evolved neural architecture of the brain are further examples of wetware in this sense. Rucker describes his conception in a 1992 compendium The Mondo 2000 User's Guide to the New Edge, which he quotes in a 2007 blog entry. Early cyber-guru Arthur Kroker used the term in his blog. With the term getting traction in trendsetting publications, it became a buzzword in the early 1990s. In 1991, Dutch media theorist Geert Lovink organized the Wetware Convention in Amsterdam, which was supposed to be an antidote to the "out-of-body" experiments conducted in high-tech laboratories, such as experiments in virtual reality. Timothy Leary, in an appendix to Info-Psychology originally written in 1975–76 and published in 1989, used the term wetware, writing that "psychedelic neuro-transmitters were the hot new technology for booting-up the 'wetware' of the brain". Another common reference is: "Wetware has 7 plus or minus 2 temporary registers." The numerical allusion is to a classic 1957 article by George A. Miller, The magical number 7 plus or minus two: some limits in our capacity for processing information, which later gave way to Miller's law.
Read more →
Higuchi dimension

In fractal geometry, the Higuchi dimension (or Higuchi fractal dimension (HFD)) is an approximate value for the box-counting dimension of the graph of a real-valued function or time series. This value is obtained via an algorithmic approximation so one also talks about the Higuchi method. It has many applications in science and engineering and has been applied to subjects like characterizing primary waves in seismograms, clinical neurophysiology and analyzing changes in the electroencephalogram in Alzheimer's disease. == Formulation of the method == The original formulation of the method is due to T. Higuchi. Given a time series X : { 1 , … , N } → R {\displaystyle X:\{1,\dots ,N\}\to \mathbb {R} } consisting of N {\displaystyle N} data points and a parameter k m a x ≥ 2 {\displaystyle k_{\mathrm {max} }\geq 2} the Higuchi Fractal dimension (HFD) of X {\displaystyle X} is calculated in the following way: For each k ∈ { 1 , … , k m a x } {\displaystyle k\in \{1,\dots ,k_{\mathrm {max} }}\} and m ∈ { 1 , … , k } {\displaystyle m\in \{1,\dots ,k}\} define the length L m ( k ) {\displaystyle L_{m}(k)} by L m ( k ) = N − 1 ⌊ N − m k ⌋ k 2 ∑ i = 1 ⌊ N − m k ⌋ | X N ( m + i k ) − X N ( m + ( i − 1 ) k ) | . {\displaystyle L_{m}(k)={\frac {N-1}{\lfloor {\frac {N-m}{k}}\rfloor k^{2}}}\sum _{i=1}^{\lfloor {\frac {N-m}{k}}\rfloor }|X_{N}(m+ik)-X_{N}(m+(i-1)k)|.} The length L ( k ) {\displaystyle L(k)} is defined by the average value of the k {\displaystyle k} lengths L 1 ( k ) , … , L k ( k ) {\displaystyle L_{1}(k),\dots ,L_{k}(k)} , L ( k ) = 1 k ∑ m = 1 k L m ( k ) . {\displaystyle L(k)={\frac {1}{k}}\sum _{m=1}^{k}L_{m}(k).} The slope of the best-fitting linear function through the data points { ( log ⁡ 1 k , log ⁡ L ( k ) ) } {\displaystyle \left\{\left(\log {\frac {1}{k}},\log L(k)\right)\right\}} is defined to be the Higuchi fractal dimension of the time-series X {\displaystyle X} . == Application to functions == For a real-valued function f : [ 0 , 1 ] → R {\displaystyle f:[0,1]\to \mathbb {R} } one can partition the unit interval [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} into N {\displaystyle N} equidistantly intervals [ t j , t j + 1 ) {\displaystyle [t_{j},t_{j+1})} and apply the Higuchi algorithm to the times series X ( j ) = f ( t j ) {\displaystyle X(j)=f(t_{j})} . This results into the Higuchi fractal dimension of the function f {\displaystyle f} . It was shown that in this case the Higuchi method yields an approximation for the box-counting dimension of the graph of f {\displaystyle f} as it follows a geometrical approach (see Liehr & Massopust 2020). == Robustness and stability == Applications to fractional Brownian functions and the Weierstrass function reveal that the Higuchi fractal dimension can be close to the box-dimension. On the other hand, the method can be unstable in the case where the data X ( 1 ) , … , X ( N ) {\displaystyle X(1),\dots ,X(N)} are periodic or if subsets of it lie on a horizontal line (see Liehr & Massopust 2020).
Read more →
Semantic integration

Semantic integration is the process of interrelating information from diverse sources, for example calendars and to do lists, email archives, presence information (physical, psychological, and social), documents of all sorts, contacts (including social graphs), search results, and advertising and marketing relevance derived from them. In this regard, semantics focuses on the organization of and action upon information by acting as an intermediary between heterogeneous data sources, which may conflict not only by structure but also context or value. == Applications and methods == In enterprise application integration (EAI), semantic integration can facilitate or even automate the communication between computer systems using metadata publishing. Metadata publishing potentially offers the ability to automatically link ontologies. One approach to (semi-)automated ontology mapping requires the definition of a semantic distance or its inverse, semantic similarity and appropriate rules. Other approaches include so-called lexical methods, as well as methodologies that rely on exploiting the structures of the ontologies. For explicitly stating similarity/equality, there exist special properties or relationships in most ontology languages. OWL, for example has "owl:equivalentClass", "owl:equivalentProperty" and "owl:sameAs". Eventually system designs may see the advent of composable architectures where published semantic-based interfaces are joined together to enable new and meaningful capabilities. These could predominately be described by means of design-time declarative specifications, that could ultimately be rendered and executed at run-time. Semantic integration can also be used to facilitate design-time activities of interface design and mapping. In this model, semantics are only explicitly applied to design and the run-time systems work at the syntax level. This "early semantic binding" approach can improve overall system performance while retaining the benefits of semantic driven design. == Semantic integration situations == From the industry use case, it has been observed that the semantic mappings were performed only within the scope of the ontology class or the datatype property. These identified semantic integrations are (1) integration of ontology class instances into another ontology class without any constraint, (2) integration of selected instances in one ontology class into another ontology class by the range constraint of the property value and (3) integration of ontology class instances into another ontology class with the value transformation of the instance property. Each of them requires a particular mapping relationship, which is respectively: (1) equivalent or subsumption mapping relationship, (2) conditional mapping relationship that constraints the value of property (data range) and (3) transformation mapping relationship that transforms the value of property (unit transformation). Each identified mapping relationship can be defined as either (1) direct mapping type, (2) data range mapping type or (3) unit transformation mapping type. == KG vs. RDB approaches == In the case of integrating supplemental data source, KG(Knowledge graph) formally represents the meaning involved in information by describing concepts, relationships between things, and categories of things. These embedded semantics with the data offer significant advantages such as reasoning over data and dealing with heterogeneous data sources. The rules can be applied on KG more efficiently using graph query. For example, the graph query does the data inference through the connected relations, instead of repeated full search of the tables in relational database. KG facilitates the integration of new heterogeneous data by just adding new relationships between existing information and new entities. This facilitation is emphasized for the integration with existing popular linked open data source such as Wikidata.org. SQL query is tightly coupled and rigidly constrained by datatype within the specific database and can join tables and extract data from tables, and the result is generally a table, and a query can join tables by any columns which match by datatype. SPARQL query is the standard query language and protocol for Linked Open Data on the web and loosely coupled with the database so that it facilitates the reusability and can extract data through the relations free from the datatype, and not only extract but also generate additional knowledge graph with more sophisticated operations(logic: transitive/symmetric/inverseOf/functional). The inference based query (query on the existing asserted facts without the generation of new facts by logic) can be fast comparing to the reasoning based query (query on the existing plus the generated/discovered facts based on logic). The information integration of heterogeneous data sources in traditional database is intricate, which requires the redesign of the database table such as changing the structure and/or addition of new data. In the case of semantic query, SPARQL query reflects the relationships between entities in a way that aligned with human's understanding of the domain, so the semantic intention of the query can be seen on the query itself. Unlike SPARQL, SQL query, which reflects the specific structure of the database and derived from matching the relevant primary and foreign keys of tables, loses the semantics of the query by missing the relationships between entities. Below is the example that compares SPARQL and SQL queries for medications that treats "TB of vertebra". SELECT ?medication WHERE { ?diagnosis a example:Diagnosis . ?diagnosis example:name “TB of vertebra” . ?medication example:canTreat ?diagnosis . } SELECT DRUG.medID FROM DIAGNOSIS, DRUG, DRUG_DIAGNOSIS WHERE DIAGNOSIS.diagnosisID=DRUG_DIAGNOSIS.diagnosisID AND DRUG.medID=DRUG_DIAGNOSIS.medID AND DIAGNOSIS.name=”TB of vertebra” == Examples == The Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing has been a venue for the popularization of the ontology mapping task in the biomedical domain, and a number of papers on the subject can be found in its proceedings.
Read more →
Ecoinformatics

Ecoinformatics, or ecological informatics, is the science of information in ecology and environmental science. It integrates environmental and information sciences to define entities and natural processes with language common to both humans and computers. However, this is a rapidly developing area in ecology and there are alternative perspectives on what constitutes ecoinformatics. A few definitions have been circulating, mostly centered on the creation of tools to access and analyze natural system data. However, the scope and aims of ecoinformatics are certainly broader than the development of metadata standards to be used in documenting datasets. Ecoinformatics aims to facilitate environmental research and management by developing ways to access, integrate databases of environmental information, and develop new algorithms enabling different environmental datasets to be combined to test ecological hypotheses. Ecoinformatics is related to the concept of ecosystem services. Ecoinformatics characterize the semantics of natural system knowledge. For this reason, much of today's ecoinformatics research relates to the branch of computer science known as knowledge representation, and active ecoinformatics projects are developing links to activities such as the Semantic Web. Current initiatives to effectively manage, share, and reuse ecological data are indicative of the increasing importance of fields like ecoinformatics to develop the foundations for effectively managing ecological information. Examples of these initiatives are National Science Foundation Datanet projects, DataONE, Data Conservancy, and Artificial Intelligence for Environment & Sustainability. == Software Development Lifecycle == Central to the concept of ecoinformatics is the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC), a systematic framework for writing, implementing, and maintaining software products. Typically in Ecoinformatics projects, the development pipeline includes data collection, usually from several different environmental data sources, then integrating these data sources together, and then analyzing the data. Here, each step of the SDLC is described in the context of ecoinformatics, per Michener et al. It is important to note that the plan, collect, assure, describes and preserve steps refer to the data collection entity, which can be individual researchers or large data-collection networks, while the discover, integrate, and analyze steps typically refer to the individual researcher. Plan: Ecoinformatics projects require data from several databases. Each database holds different data, and therefore researchers should identify what types of environmental or ecological data they will need to answer their research question. Collect: Data is collected in several different ways. In ecoinformatics, this is usually restricted to manually entering data into a spreadsheet, and parsing data from an existing database. The growth of relational databases has made it easier for ecologists to download relevant data and integrate datasets together Assure: Data entries should be checked thoroughly to validate their accuracy and usability, such as to check for outliers and erroneous points. The same principle applies to data downloaded from datasets. This responsibility falls on both the ecologist downloading the data, and the entity that sets up the data collection system. Describe: An accurate description of the metadata of a dataset that is used in a study should include enough information to deduce the data collection and processing methodology, when the data were collected, why the data were collected, and how the data were stored. This is important for reproducibility, especially for projects that build on each other and may recycle data Preserve: After data is collected by an institutional entity, it should be archived such that it is easily accessible. Ideally, this is in databases that are maintained and not at risk of deprecation Discover: While there are good practices for discovering data to start a research project, this process is often marred by a lack of usable, published data, as researchers may collect data specific to their study, but may not publish this data for wider use. On the data collection end, this can be addressed by better data-sharing practices, such as by linking datasets when publishing papers or studies. On the data procurement end, this can be addressed by more precise data searching, such as using key words to find relevant datasets. Integrate: Synthesizing datasets together can be difficult and labor-intensive, largely due to the methodological differences in data collection. There are several approaches to this, but the best practices typically involve computational approaches, namely using R or Python, to automate the processes and prevent errors Analyze: Data analysis can take several forms, and should be tailored to the specific ecological project. However, all data analysis methods should be well-documented, including the procedure for analysis, justification for analysis methods, and any shortcomings in a specific approach. == Applications of Ecoinformatics Across Ecology == === Ecosystem Ecology === Source: Ecosystem studies, by definition, encompass interactions across the entire life sciences spectrum, from microscopic biochemical reactions to large-scale geological phenomena. As a result, big databases may not be designed specifically for any particular research question, but should be inclusive enough to support most studies. Since ecosystem-level questions require a broad perspective, data-related ecosystem projects would likely incorporate data from several databases. A common framework for incorporating data into ecosystem-level studies is the network science model, in which data collection mechanisms and resources are treated like a large, interconnected network instead of individual entities. The network may include several data collection stations within one databases, or may span across multiple databases. Currently there are several large-scale networks, but they do not generate data on the scale to consider ecology as a big data science. A current challenge for ecoinformatics in ecosystem ecology is that most funding is prioritized for generating new data rather than maintaining existing data infrastructures. Integrating data across the different spatial scales can also be difficult, since each dataset may hold different types of data. === Urban Ecology === Source: The current push for smart cities, and sensor network integration into infrastructure, has positioned as a major source of data for ecological studies. Typical urban ecology questions address the effects of urbanization on the local ecosystem, and how to drive future development to promote urban biodiversity. While sensor networks in cities typically collect environmental data to optimize city processes, they may also be used for ecological initiatives, especially with respect to understanding the complex, multi-layered relationship between cities and their local ecosystem. It can also be used to better understand the current landscape of cities, and identify avenues for rewinding of cities. For example, analyzing mobility patterns can identify areas that may lend themselves well to building parks and green spaces. Bird watching data can also be used to identify the types of bird species in a local area. === Infectious Disease === Source: Like other disciplines of ecology, emerging infectious disease and epidemiology span multiple scales, from understanding the genetics that drive disease trends to large-scale spatiotemporal analyses. As a result, infectious disease studies can incorporate everything from bioinformatics, genetic sequences, amino acid sequences, and environmental observation data. On the micro-scale, these data can then be used to predict infectivity/transmissibility, drug resistance, drug candidates, and mutation sites. On the macro-scale, it can be used to identify societal trends or environmental factors that lend themselves to spillover, locations of infection, and practices that cause disease transmission. == Databases == Source: USGS National Streamflow sensor network GBIF Neotoma Paleobiology database European Vegetation Archive USDA Forest Inventory Analysis TRY BIEN AmeriFlux TEAM iNaturalist NEON GLEON LTER CZO TERN SAEON
Read more →
Unspent transaction output

In cryptocurrencies, an unspent transaction output (UTXO, often capitalized as UTxO) is a distinctive element in a subset of digital currency models. A UTXO represents a certain amount of cryptocurrency that has been authorized by a sender and is available to be spent by a recipient. The utilization of UTXOs in transaction processes is a key feature of many cryptocurrencies, but it primarily characterizes those implementing the UTXO model. UTXOs employ public key cryptography to ascertain and transfer ownership. More specifically, the recipient's public key is formatted into the UTXO, thereby limiting the capability to spend the UTXO to the account that can demonstrate ownership of the corresponding private key. A valid digital signature associated with the public key must be included for the UTXO to be spent. In the UTXO model, each unit of currency is treated as a discrete object. The history of a UTXO is documented only within the blocks where it is transferred. To ascertain the total balance of an account, one must scan each block to find the latest UTXOs linked to that account. While all nodes within a blockchain network must consent to the block history, the blocks relevant to an account's balance are unique to that account. UTXOs constitute a chain of ownership depicted as a series of digital signatures dating back to the coin's inception, regardless of whether the coin was minted via mining, staking, or another procedure determined by the cryptocurrency protocol. The UTXO model was invented for Bitcoin. Cardano uses an extended version of the UTXO model known as EUTXO. == Origins == The conceptual framework of the UTXO model can be traced back to Hal Finney's Reusable Proofs of Work proposal, which itself was based on Adam Back's 1997 Hashcash proposal. Bitcoin, released in 2009, was the first widespread implementation of the UTXO model in practice. == UTXO model vs. account Model == Cryptocurrencies that utilize the UTXO model function differently compared to those using the account model. In the UTXO model, individual units of cryptocurrency, termed as unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs), are transferred between users, analogous to the exchange of physical cash. This model impacts how transactions and ownership are recorded and verified within the blockchain network. The account model preserves a record of each account and its corresponding balance for every block added to the network. This setup enables quicker balance verification without the need to scan historical blocks, but it increases the raw size of each block (though data compression techniques can be utilized to alleviate this). However, both models necessitate the inspection of past blocks to fully authenticate the origin of coins. In the UTXO model, each object is immutable - units of coins cannot be 'edited' in the same way an account balance is modified when a transaction occurs. Rather, the balance is computed from the transaction history dating back to when the coins were first minted. This simplicity enhances security, as a UTXO either exists in its anticipated form or it does not. In contrast, the account model requires meticulous verification of the account's status during transactions, which can lead to oversights if not conducted correctly. In valid blockchain transactions, only unspent outputs (UTXOs) are permissible for funding subsequent transactions. This requirement is critical to prevent double-spending and fraud. Accordingly, inputs in a transaction are removed from the UTXO set, while outputs create new UTXOs that are added to the set. The holders of private keys, such as those with cryptocurrency wallets, can utilize these UTXOs for future transactions.
Read more →
Broadcast (parallel pattern)

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

The r-to-1 collision problem is an important theoretical problem in complexity theory, quantum computing, and computational mathematics. The collision problem most often refers to the 2-to-1 version: given n {\displaystyle n} even and a function f : { 1 , … , n } → { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle f:\,\{1,\ldots ,n\}\rightarrow \{1,\ldots ,n\}} , we are promised that f is either 1-to-1 or 2-to-1. We are only allowed to make queries about the value of f ( i ) {\displaystyle f(i)} for any i ∈ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle i\in \{1,\ldots ,n\}} . The problem then asks how many such queries we need to make to determine with certainty whether f is 1-to-1 or 2-to-1. == Classical solutions == === Deterministic === Solving the 2-to-1 version deterministically requires n 2 + 1 {\textstyle {\frac {n}{2}}+1} queries, and in general distinguishing r-to-1 functions from 1-to-1 functions requires n r + 1 {\textstyle {\frac {n}{r}}+1} queries. This is a straightforward application of the pigeonhole principle: if a function is r-to-1, then after n r + 1 {\textstyle {\frac {n}{r}}+1} queries we are guaranteed to have found a collision. If a function is 1-to-1, then no collision exists. Thus, n r + 1 {\textstyle {\frac {n}{r}}+1} queries suffice. If we are unlucky, then the first n / r {\displaystyle n/r} queries could return distinct answers, so n r + 1 {\textstyle {\frac {n}{r}}+1} queries is also necessary. === Randomized === If we allow randomness, the problem is easier. By the birthday paradox, if we choose (distinct) queries at random, then with high probability we find a collision in any fixed 2-to-1 function after Θ ( n ) {\displaystyle \Theta ({\sqrt {n}})} queries. == Quantum solution == The BHT algorithm, which uses Grover's algorithm, solves this problem optimally by only making O ( n 1 / 3 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{1/3})} queries to f. The matching lower bound of Ω ( n 1 / 3 ) {\displaystyle \Omega (n^{1/3})} was proved by Aaronson and Shi using the polynomial method.
Read more →
Enterprise information integration

Enterprise information integration (EII) is the ability to support a unified view of data and information for an entire organization. The goal of EII is to get a large set of heterogeneous data sources to appear to a user or system as a single, homogeneous data source. In a data virtualization application of EII, there is a process of information integration, using data abstraction to provide a unified interface (known as uniform data access) for viewing all the data within an organization, and a single set of structures and naming conventions (known as uniform information representation) to represent this data. == Overview == Data within an enterprise can be stored in heterogeneous formats, including relational databases (which themselves come in a large number of varieties), text files, XML files, spreadsheets and a variety of proprietary storage methods, each with their own indexing and data access methods. Standardized data access APIs have emerged that offer a specific set of commands to retrieve and modify data from a generic data source. Many applications exist that implement these APIs' commands across various data sources, most notably relational databases. Such APIs include ODBC, JDBC, XQJ, OLE DB, and more recently ADO.NET. There are also standard formats for representing data within a file that are very important to information integration. The best-known of these is XML, which has emerged as a standard universal representation format. There are also more specific XML "grammars" defined for specific types of data such as Geography Markup Language for expressing geographical features and Directory Service Markup Language for holding directory-style information. In addition, non-XML standard formats exist such as iCalendar for representing calendar information and vCard for business card information. Enterprise Information Integration (EII) applies data integration commercially. Despite the theoretical problems described above, the private sector shows more concern with the problems of data integration as a viable product. EII emphasizes neither correctness nor tractability, but speed and simplicity. === Uniform data access === Uniform data access means connectivity and controllability across numerous target data sources. Necessary to fields such as EII and Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), it is most often used regarding analysis of disparate data types and data sources, which must be rendered into a uniform information representation, and generally must appear homogenous to the analysis tools—when the data being analyzed is typically heterogeneous and widely varying in size, type, and original representation. === Uniform information representation === Uniform information representation allows information from several realms or disciplines to be displayed and worked with as if it came from the same realm or discipline. It takes information from a number of sources, which may have used different methodologies and metrics in their data collection, and builds a single large collection of information, where some records may be more complete than others across all fields of data Uniform information representation is particularly important in EII and Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), where different departments of a large organization may have collected information for different purposes, with different labels and units, until one department realized that data already collected by those other departments could be re-purposed for their own needs—saving the enterprise the effort and cost of re-collecting the same information. === Combining disparate data sets === Each data source is disparate and as such is not designed to support EII. Therefore, data virtualization as well as data federation depends upon accidental data commonality to support combining data and information from disparate data sets. Because of this lack of data value commonality across data sources, the return set may be inaccurate, incomplete, and impossible to validate. One solution is to recast disparate databases to integrate these databases without the need for ETL. The recast databases support commonality constraints where referential integrity may be enforced between databases. The recast databases provide designed data access paths with data value commonality across databases. === Simplicity of deployment === Even if recognized as a solution to a problem, EII as of 2009 currently takes time to apply and offers complexities in deployment. Proposed schema-less solutions include "Lean Middleware". === Handling higher-order information === Analysts experience difficulty—even with a functioning information integration system—in determining whether the sources in the database will satisfy a given application. Answering these kinds of questions about a set of repositories requires semantic information like metadata and/or ontologies. == Applications == EII products enable loose coupling between homogeneous-data consuming client applications and services and heterogeneous-data stores. Such client applications and services include Desktop Productivity Tools (spreadsheets, word processors, presentation software, etc.), development environments and frameworks (Java EE, .NET, Mono, SOAP or RESTful Web services, etc.), business intelligence (BI), business activity monitoring (BAM) software, enterprise resource planning (ERP), Customer relationship management (CRM), business process management (BPM and/or BPEL) Software, and web content management (CMS). == Data access technologies == Service Data Objects (SDO) for Java, C++ and .Net clients and any type of data source XQuery and XQuery API for Java
Read more →
Quantification (machine learning)

In machine learning, quantification (variously called learning to quantify, or supervised prevalence estimation, or class prior estimation) is the task of using supervised learning in order to train models (quantifiers) that estimate the relative frequencies (also known as prevalence values) of the classes of interest in a sample of unlabelled data items. For instance, in a sample of 100,000 unlabelled tweets known to express opinions about a certain political candidate, a quantifier may be used to estimate the percentage of these tweets which belong to class `Positive' (i.e., which manifest a positive stance towards this candidate), and to do the same for classes `Neutral' and `Negative'. Quantification may also be viewed as the task of training predictors that estimate a (discrete) probability distribution, i.e., that generate a predicted distribution that approximates the unknown true distribution of the items across the classes of interest. Quantification is different from classification, since the goal of classification is to predict the class labels of individual data items, while the goal of quantification it to predict the class prevalence values of sets of data items. Quantification is also different from regression, since in regression the training data items have real-valued labels, while in quantification the training data items have class labels. It has been shown in multiple research works that performing quantification by classifying all unlabelled instances and then counting the instances that have been attributed to each class (the 'classify and count' method) usually leads to suboptimal quantification accuracy. This suboptimality may be seen as a direct consequence of 'Vapnik's principle', which states: If you possess a restricted amount of information for solving some problem, try to solve the problem directly and never solve a more general problem as an intermediate step. It is possible that the available information is sufficient for a direct solution but is insufficient for solving a more general intermediate problem. In our case, the problem to be solved directly is quantification, while the more general intermediate problem is classification. As a result of the suboptimality of the 'classify and count' method, quantification has evolved as a task in its own right, different (in goals, methods, techniques, and evaluation measures) from classification. == Quantification tasks == === Quantification tasks according to the set of classes === The main variants of quantification, according to the characteristics of the set of classes used, are: Binary quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are only n = 2 {\displaystyle n=2} classes and each data item belongs to exactly one of them; Single-label multiclass quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are n > 2 {\displaystyle n>2} classes and each data item belongs to exactly one of them; Multi-label multiclass quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are n ≥ 2 {\displaystyle n\geq 2} classes and each data item can belong to zero, one, or several classes at the same time; Ordinal quantification, corresponding to the single-label multiclass case in which a total order is defined on the set of classes. Regression quantification, a task which stands to 'standard' quantification as regression stands to classification. Strictly speaking, this task is not a quantification task as defined above (since the individual items do not have class labels but are labelled by real values), but has enough commonalities with other quantification tasks to be considered one of them. Most known quantification methods address the binary case or the single-label multiclass case, and only few of them address the multi-label, ordinal, and regression cases. Binary-only methods include the Mixture Model (MM) method, the HDy method, SVM(KLD), and SVM(Q). Methods that can deal with both the binary case and the single-label multiclass case include probabilistic classify and count (PCC), adjusted classify and count (ACC), probabilistic adjusted classify and count (PACC), the Saerens-Latinne-Decaestecker EM-based method (SLD), and KDEy. Methods for multi-label quantification include regression-based quantification (RQ) and label powerset-based quantification (LPQ). Methods for the ordinal case include ordinal versions of the above-mentioned ACC, PACC, and SLD methods, and ordinal versions of the above-mentioned HDy method. Methods for the regression case include Regress and splice and Adjusted regress and sum. === Quantification tasks according to the type of data === Several subtasks of quantification may be identified according to the type of data involved. Example such tasks are: Quantification of networked data. This task consists of performing quantification when the datapoints are members of a relation, i.e., are interlinked. As such, this task is a strict relative of collective classification. Quantification over time. This task consists of performing quantification on sets that become available in a temporal sequence, i.e., as a data stream, and finds application in contexts in which class prevalence values must be monitored over time. == Evaluation measures for quantification == Several evaluation measures can be used for evaluating the error of a quantification method. Since quantification consists of generating a predicted probability distribution that estimates a true probability distribution, these evaluation measures are ones that compare two probability distributions. Most evaluation measures for quantification belong to the class of divergences. Evaluation measures for binary quantification, single-label multiclass quantification, and multi-label quantification, are Absolute Error Squared Error Relative Absolute Error Kullback–Leibler divergence Pearson Divergence Evaluation measures for ordinal quantification are Normalized Match Distance (a particular case of the Earth Mover's Distance) Root Normalized Order-Aware Distance == Applications == Quantification is of special interest in fields such as the social sciences, epidemiology, market research, allocating resources, and ecological modelling, since these fields are inherently concerned with aggregate data. However, quantification is also useful as a building block for solving other downstream tasks, such as improving the accuracy of classifiers on out-of-distribution data, measuring classifier bias and ranker bias, and estimating the accuracy of classifiers on out-of-distribution data. == Resources == LQ 2021: the 1st International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2022: the 2nd International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2023: the 3rd International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2024: the 4th International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2025: the 5th International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LeQua 2022: the 1st Data Challenge on Learning to Quantify LeQua 2024: the 2nd Data Challenge on Learning to Quantify QuaPy: An open-source Python-based software library for quantification QuantificationLib: A Python library for quantification and prevalence estimation
Read more →
Taxonomic database

A taxonomic database is a database created to hold information on biological taxa – for example groups of organisms organized by species name or other taxonomic identifier – for efficient data management and information retrieval. Taxonomic databases are routinely used for the automated construction of biological checklists such as floras and faunas, both for print publication and online; to underpin the operation of web-based species information systems; as a part of biological collection management (for example in museums and herbaria); as well as providing, in some cases, the taxon management component of broader science or biology information systems. They are also a fundamental contribution to the discipline of biodiversity informatics. == Goals == Taxonomic databases digitize scientific biodiversity data and provide access to taxonomic data for research. Taxonomic databases vary in breadth of the groups of taxa and geographical space they seek to include, for example: beetles in a defined region, mammals globally, or all described taxa in the tree of life. A taxonomic database may incorporate organism identifiers (scientific name, author, and – for zoological taxa – year of original publication), synonyms, taxonomic opinions, literature sources or citations, illustrations or photographs, and biological attributes for each taxon (such as geographic distribution, ecology, descriptive information, threatened or vulnerable status, etc.). Some databases, such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility(GBIF) database and the Barcode of Life Data System, store the DNA barcode of a taxon if one exists (also called the Barcode Index Number (BIN) which may be assigned, for example, by the International Barcode of Life project (iBOL) or UNITE, a database for fungal DNA barcoding). A taxonomic database aims to accurately model the characteristics of interest that are relevant to the organisms which are in scope for the intended coverage and usage of the system. For example, databases of fungi, algae, bryophytes and vascular plants ("higher plants") encode conventions from the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature while their counterparts for animals and most protists encode equivalent rules from the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Modelling the relevant taxonomic hierarchy for any taxon is a natural fit with the relational model employed in almost all database systems. Scientific consensus is not reached for all taxon groups, and new species continue to be described; therefore, another goal of taxonomic databases is to aid in resolving conflicts of scientific opinion and unify taxonomy. == History == Possibly the earliest documented management of taxonomic information in computerised form comprised the taxonomic coding system developed by Richard Swartz et al. at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science for the Biota of Chesapeake Bay and described in a published report in 1972. This work led directly or indirectly to other projects with greater profile including the NODC Taxonomic Code system which went through 8 versions before being discontinued in 1996, to be subsumed and transformed into the still current Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). A number of other taxonomic databases specializing in particular groups of organisms that appeared in the 1970s through to the present jointly contribute to the Species 2000 project, which since 2001 has been partnering with ITIS to produce a combined product, the Catalogue of Life. While the Catalogue of Life currently concentrates on assembling basic name information as a global species checklist, numerous other taxonomic database projects such as Fauna Europaea, the Australian Faunal Directory, and more supply rich ancillary information including descriptions, illustrations, maps, and more. Many taxonomic database projects are currently listed at the TDWG "Biodiversity Information Projects of the World" site. == Issues == The representation of taxonomic information in machine-encodable form raises a number of issues not encountered in other domains, such as variant ways to cite the same species or other taxon name, the same name used for multiple taxa (homonyms), multiple non-current names for the same taxon (synonyms), changes in name and taxon concept definition through time, and more. Non-standardized categories and metadata in taxonomic databases hampers the ability for researchers to analyze the data. One forum that has promoted discussion and possible solutions to these and related problems since 1985 is the Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG), originally called the Taxonomic Database Working Group. While online databases have great benefits (for example, increased access to taxonomic information), they also have issues such as data integrity risks due to on- and off-line versions and continuous updates, technical access issues due to server or internet outage, and differing capacities for complex queries to extract taxonomic data into lists. As the quantity of information in online taxonomic databases rapidly expands, data aggregation, and the integration and alignment of non-standardized data across databases, is a big challenge in taxonomy and biodiversity informatics.
Read more →
Algorithmic logic

Algorithmic logic is a calculus of programs that allows the expression of semantic properties of programs by appropriate logical formulas. It provides a framework that enables proving the formulas from the axioms of program constructs such as assignment, iteration and composition instructions and from the axioms of the data structures in question see Mirkowska & Salwicki (1987), Banachowski et al. (1977). The following diagram helps to locate algorithmic logic among other logics. [ P r o p o s i t i o n a l l o g i c o r S e n t e n t i a l c a l c u l u s ] ⊂ [ P r e d i c a t e c a l c u l u s o r F i r s t o r d e r l o g i c ] ⊂ [ C a l c u l u s o f p r o g r a m s o r Algorithmic logic ] {\displaystyle \qquad \left[{\begin{array}{l}\mathrm {Propositional\ logic} \\or\\\mathrm {Sentential\ calculus} \end{array}}\right]\subset \left[{\begin{array}{l}\mathrm {Predicate\ calculus} \\or\\\mathrm {First\ order\ logic} \end{array}}\right]\subset \left[{\begin{array}{l}\mathrm {Calculus\ of\ programs} \\or\\{\mbox{Algorithmic logic}}\end{array}}\right]} The formalized language of algorithmic logic (and of algorithmic theories of various data structures) contains three types of well formed expressions: Terms - i.e. expressions denoting operations on elements of data structures, formulas - i.e. expressions denoting the relations among elements of data structures, programs - i.e. algorithms - these expressions describe the computations. For semantics of terms and formulas consult pages on first-order logic and Tarski's semantics. The meaning of a program K {\displaystyle K} is the set of possible computations of the program. Algorithmic logic is one of many logics of programs. Another logic of programs is dynamic logic, see dynamic logic, Harel, Kozen & Tiuryn (2000).
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 →
Windows Live OneCare Safety Scanner

Windows Live OneCare Safety Scanner (formerly Windows Live Safety Center and codenamed Vegas) was an online scanning, PC cleanup, and diagnosis service to help remove of viruses, spyware/adware, and other malware. It was a free web service that was part of Windows Live. On November 18, 2008, Microsoft announced the discontinuation of Windows Live OneCare, offering users a new free anti-malware suite Microsoft Security Essentials, which had been available since the second half of 2009. However, Windows Live OneCare Safety Scanner, under the same branding as Windows Live OneCare, was not discontinued during that time. The service was officially discontinued on April 15, 2011 and replaced with Microsoft Safety Scanner. == Overview == Windows Live OneCare Safety Scanner offered a free online scanning and protection from threats. The Windows Live OneCare Safety Scanner must be downloaded and installed to your computer to scan your computer. The "Full Service Scan" looks for common PC health issues such as viruses, temporary files, and open network ports. It searches and removes viruses, improves a computer's performance, and removes unnecessary clutter on the PC's hard disk. The user can choose between a "Full Scan" (which can be customized) or a "Quick Scan". The "Full Scan" scans for viruses (comprehensive scan or quick scan), hard disk performance (Disk fragmentation scan and/or Desk cleanup scan) and network safety (open port scan). The "Quick Scan" only scans for viruses, only on specific areas on the computer. The quick scan is faster than the full scan, hence that appellation. The service also provides a virus database, information about online threats, and general computer security documentation and tools. == Limits == The virus scanner on the Windows Live OneCare Safety Scanner site runs a scan of the user's computer only when the site is visited. It does not run periodic scans of the system, and does not provide features to prevent viruses from infecting the computer at the time, or thereafter. It simply resolves detected infections. Many users who have posted on the Product Feedback forum report script errors relating to Internet Explorer 7 (besides IE being the only browser supported by this service). The OneCare safety scanner team have been actively solving these problems, many of them registry-related.
Read more →
Affectiva

Affectiva is an artificial intelligence software development company. In 2021, the company was acquired by SmartEye. The company claimed its AI understood human emotions, cognitive states, activities and the objects people use, by analyzing facial and vocal expressions. The offshoot of MIT Media Lab, Affectiva created a new technological category of artificial emotional intelligence, namely, Emotion AI. == History == Affectiva was co-founded by Rana el Kaliouby, who became chief executive officer as of May 25, 2016, and Rosalind W. Picard, who worked as chairman and Chief Scientist until 2013. Both of Affectiva's early products grew out of collaborative research at the MIT's Media Lab to help people on the autism spectrum. Affectiva was acquired for a mostly-stock deal of $73.5m by Swedish SmartEye, a former competitor. == Technology == The company has expanded its Emotion AI technology to detect more than facial expressions, reactions and emotions. Affectiva's software detects complex and nuanced emotions, cognitive states, such as drowsiness and distraction, certain activities and the objects people use. It does that by analyzing the human face, vocal intonations and body posture. Affectiva's AI is built with deep learning, computer vision, and large amounts of data that has been collected in real-world scenarios. The AI uses an optical sensor like a webcam or smartphone camera to identify a human face in real-time. Then, computer vision algorithms identify key features on the face, which are analyzed by deep learning algorithms to classify facial expressions. These facial expressions are then mapped back to emotions. One journal paper found the Affectiva iMotions Facial Expression Analysis Software results are comparable to results using facial Electromyography. Affectiva also uses computer vision to detect objects like a cellphone and car seat, as well as body key points, which track body joints to determine movement and location. Affectiva has collected massive amounts of data that are used to train and test the company's deep learning algorithms, and provide insight into human emotional reactions and engagement. The company has analyzed more than 10 million face videos from 90 countries, making it one of the largest data repositories of its kind. Affectiva has also collected more than 19,000 hours of automotive in-cabin data from 4,000 unique individuals. This automotive data is used to adapt its algorithms to varying camera angles, lighting and other environmental conditions in a vehicle. === Applications === Affectiva's AI had many applications, but the company's primary focus is on Media Analytics. Other uses of Affectiva's AI includes applications in automotive, healthcare and mental health, robotics, conversational interfaces, education, gaming, and more. ==== Media analytics ==== Affectiva's technology was first deployed in media analytics, for market research purposes. The company had since then tested more than 53,000 ads in 90 countries. Brands, advertising agencies and insights firms used the company's Emotion AI to measure the unfiltered and unbiased emotional responses consumers have when viewing video ads and movie trailers. These insights helped improve brand and media content, and predict key metrics in advertising such as sales lift, purchase intent and virality. Affectiva's technology was also used in qualitative research. Affectiva had partnered with leading insights firms such as Kantar, LRW, Added Value and Unruly. Through these collaborations, 28 percent of the Fortune Global 500 companies, and 70 percent of the world's largest advertisers, used Affectiva's Emotion AI. On September 5, 2019, Affectiva announced the appointment of Graham Page, a seasoned Kantar executive, as Global Managing Director of Media Analytics to expand on the company's existing footprint in the media analytics space. ==== Automotive ==== On March 21, 2018, Affectiva launched Affectiva Automotive AI, the first multi-modal in-cabin sensing solution to understand what is happening with people in a vehicle. It used cameras in the car to measure in real time, the state of the driver, the state of the occupants and the state of the vehicle interior (i.e. cabin). This insight helped car manufacturers, fleet management companies and rideshare providers improve road safety and build better driver monitoring systems, by understanding dangerous driver behavior such as drowsiness, distraction and anger. It was also used to create more comfortable and enjoyable transportation experiences, by understanding how passengers react to the environment, such as content they can consume in the back of the car. In addition to understanding driver and occupant emotional and cognitive states, Affectiva Automotive AI could also detect contextual cabin information such as the number of passengers, where they are sitting and if an object is present. Affectiva worked with a number of leading car manufacturers and transportation technology companies, including Aptiv, Cerence, Hyundai Kia, Faurecia, Porsche, BMW, GreenRoad Technologies, and Veoneer. == Acquisition == In June 2021 Smart Eye acquired Affectiva.
Read more →
Affectiva

Affectiva is an artificial intelligence software development company. In 2021, the company was acquired by SmartEye. The company claimed its AI understood human emotions, cognitive states, activities and the objects people use, by analyzing facial and vocal expressions. The offshoot of MIT Media Lab, Affectiva created a new technological category of artificial emotional intelligence, namely, Emotion AI. == History == Affectiva was co-founded by Rana el Kaliouby, who became chief executive officer as of May 25, 2016, and Rosalind W. Picard, who worked as chairman and Chief Scientist until 2013. Both of Affectiva's early products grew out of collaborative research at the MIT's Media Lab to help people on the autism spectrum. Affectiva was acquired for a mostly-stock deal of $73.5m by Swedish SmartEye, a former competitor. == Technology == The company has expanded its Emotion AI technology to detect more than facial expressions, reactions and emotions. Affectiva's software detects complex and nuanced emotions, cognitive states, such as drowsiness and distraction, certain activities and the objects people use. It does that by analyzing the human face, vocal intonations and body posture. Affectiva's AI is built with deep learning, computer vision, and large amounts of data that has been collected in real-world scenarios. The AI uses an optical sensor like a webcam or smartphone camera to identify a human face in real-time. Then, computer vision algorithms identify key features on the face, which are analyzed by deep learning algorithms to classify facial expressions. These facial expressions are then mapped back to emotions. One journal paper found the Affectiva iMotions Facial Expression Analysis Software results are comparable to results using facial Electromyography. Affectiva also uses computer vision to detect objects like a cellphone and car seat, as well as body key points, which track body joints to determine movement and location. Affectiva has collected massive amounts of data that are used to train and test the company's deep learning algorithms, and provide insight into human emotional reactions and engagement. The company has analyzed more than 10 million face videos from 90 countries, making it one of the largest data repositories of its kind. Affectiva has also collected more than 19,000 hours of automotive in-cabin data from 4,000 unique individuals. This automotive data is used to adapt its algorithms to varying camera angles, lighting and other environmental conditions in a vehicle. === Applications === Affectiva's AI had many applications, but the company's primary focus is on Media Analytics. Other uses of Affectiva's AI includes applications in automotive, healthcare and mental health, robotics, conversational interfaces, education, gaming, and more. ==== Media analytics ==== Affectiva's technology was first deployed in media analytics, for market research purposes. The company had since then tested more than 53,000 ads in 90 countries. Brands, advertising agencies and insights firms used the company's Emotion AI to measure the unfiltered and unbiased emotional responses consumers have when viewing video ads and movie trailers. These insights helped improve brand and media content, and predict key metrics in advertising such as sales lift, purchase intent and virality. Affectiva's technology was also used in qualitative research. Affectiva had partnered with leading insights firms such as Kantar, LRW, Added Value and Unruly. Through these collaborations, 28 percent of the Fortune Global 500 companies, and 70 percent of the world's largest advertisers, used Affectiva's Emotion AI. On September 5, 2019, Affectiva announced the appointment of Graham Page, a seasoned Kantar executive, as Global Managing Director of Media Analytics to expand on the company's existing footprint in the media analytics space. ==== Automotive ==== On March 21, 2018, Affectiva launched Affectiva Automotive AI, the first multi-modal in-cabin sensing solution to understand what is happening with people in a vehicle. It used cameras in the car to measure in real time, the state of the driver, the state of the occupants and the state of the vehicle interior (i.e. cabin). This insight helped car manufacturers, fleet management companies and rideshare providers improve road safety and build better driver monitoring systems, by understanding dangerous driver behavior such as drowsiness, distraction and anger. It was also used to create more comfortable and enjoyable transportation experiences, by understanding how passengers react to the environment, such as content they can consume in the back of the car. In addition to understanding driver and occupant emotional and cognitive states, Affectiva Automotive AI could also detect contextual cabin information such as the number of passengers, where they are sitting and if an object is present. Affectiva worked with a number of leading car manufacturers and transportation technology companies, including Aptiv, Cerence, Hyundai Kia, Faurecia, Porsche, BMW, GreenRoad Technologies, and Veoneer. == Acquisition == In June 2021 Smart Eye acquired Affectiva.
Read more →