AI Headshot Create

AI Headshot Create — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Hierarchical navigable small world

  Hierarchical navigable small world (HNSW) is an algorithm for approximate nearest neighbor search. It is used to find items that are similar to a query item in a large collection, without comparing the query with every item one by one. The algorithm is commonly used for searching vector data. In these systems, an item such as a document, image, song, or user profile is represented by a list of numbers called a vector. Items with similar vectors are treated as similar according to the model that produced the vectors. HNSW provides a way to search these vectors quickly, especially in large datasets. HNSW stores vectors in a graph. Each vector is a node, and links connect it to some nearby vectors. The graph has several layers: upper layers contain fewer nodes and act like a rough map, while the bottom layer contains all nodes and gives a more detailed view. A search starts in an upper layer, follows links toward nodes that are closer to the query, and then repeats the process in lower layers until it finds a set of likely nearest neighbors. == Background == The nearest neighbor search problem asks which items in a dataset are closest to a query item. A direct search can compare the query with every item in the dataset, but this becomes slow when the dataset is large. Exact search methods based on spatial trees, such as the k-d tree and R-tree, can also become less effective for high-dimensional data, a problem often associated with the curse of dimensionality. Approximate nearest neighbor methods trade some exactness for speed or lower resource use. Instead of always guaranteeing the exact closest item, they try to return close items quickly. Other approximate methods include locality-sensitive hashing and product quantization. HNSW builds on research into small-world networks and navigable graphs. In a small-world graph, most nodes can be reached from other nodes through a short chain of links. In a navigable graph, a search procedure can use local information to move toward a target. Jon Kleinberg's work on navigation in small-world networks is an important example of this research area. Later work studied ways to add links that make graphs easier to navigate greedily. The HNSW algorithm extends earlier navigable small world methods for similarity search by adding a hierarchy of graph layers. This hierarchy helps the algorithm find a good region of the graph before doing a more detailed search in the bottom layer. == Algorithm == HNSW is based on a proximity graph. In this graph, nearby vectors are connected by edges. The algorithm uses these edges to move through the dataset, rather than scanning every vector. The graph is hierarchical. Every vector appears in the bottom layer. Some vectors are also placed in higher layers, with fewer vectors appearing as the layers go upward. The upper layers allow long-range movement across the dataset, while the lower layers allow a more detailed search near promising candidates. A typical search proceeds as follows: The search begins from an entry point in the highest layer. At each step, the algorithm looks at neighboring nodes and moves to a neighbor that is closer to the query. When it cannot find a closer neighbor in that layer, it moves down to the next layer. In the bottom layer, it explores a wider set of candidate nodes and returns the nearest candidates found. This search strategy is often described as greedy navigation. The algorithm repeatedly chooses locally better nodes, using the graph structure to approach the query point. == Construction and parameters == The HNSW graph is built incrementally. When a new vector is inserted, the algorithm assigns it a maximum layer, searches for nearby existing nodes, and connects the new node to selected neighbors in each layer where it appears. Implementations usually expose parameters that control the trade-off between speed, accuracy, memory use, and construction time. A higher number of graph connections can improve recall but requires more memory. A larger search candidate list can improve accuracy but makes queries slower. A larger construction candidate list can improve the quality of the graph but makes index building slower. Because HNSW is approximate, its results are not always identical to a full exact search. Its practical performance depends on the dataset, distance measure, implementation, and parameter settings. Benchmarking studies have found HNSW-based libraries to be strong performers among approximate nearest neighbor methods, although worst-case performance can differ from performance on common benchmark datasets. == Use in vector search systems == HNSW is used as an index in systems that store and search high-dimensional vectors. These systems include vector databases, search engines, and database extensions. Typical uses include semantic search, recommender systems, image similarity search, and retrieval-augmented generation. Several software projects implement or support HNSW. Libraries include hnswlib, which is associated with the original HNSW authors, and FAISS. Database and search systems that document HNSW support include Apache Lucene, Chroma, ClickHouse, DuckDB, MariaDB, Milvus, pgvector, Qdrant, and Redis.

  Read more →
• 

  Knuth–Eve algorithm

  In computer science, the Knuth–Eve algorithm is an algorithm for polynomial evaluation. It preprocesses the coefficients of the polynomial to reduce the number of multiplications required at runtime. Ideas used in the algorithm were originally proposed by Donald Knuth in 1962. His procedure opportunistically exploits structure in the polynomial being evaluated. In 1964, James Eve determined for which polynomials this structure exists, and gave a simple method of "preconditioning" polynomials (explained below) to endow them with that structure. == Algorithm == === Preliminaries === Consider an arbitrary polynomial p ∈ R [ x ] {\displaystyle p\in \mathbb {R} [x]} of degree n {\displaystyle n} . Assume that n ≥ 3 {\displaystyle n\geq 3} . Define m {\displaystyle m} such that: if n {\displaystyle n} is odd then n = 2 m + 1 {\displaystyle n=2m+1} , and if n {\displaystyle n} is even then n = 2 m + 2 {\displaystyle n=2m+2} . Unless otherwise stated, all variables in this article represent either real numbers or univariate polynomials with real coefficients. All operations in this article are done over R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } . Again, the goal is to create an algorithm that returns p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} given any x {\displaystyle x} . The algorithm is allowed to depend on the polynomial p {\displaystyle p} itself, since its coefficients are known in advance. === Overview === ==== Key idea ==== Using polynomial long division, we can write p ( x ) = q ( x ) ⋅ ( x 2 − α ) + ( β x + γ ) , {\displaystyle p(x)=q(x)\cdot (x^{2}-\alpha )+(\beta x+\gamma ),} where x 2 − α {\displaystyle x^{2}-\alpha } is the divisor. Picking a value for α {\displaystyle \alpha } fixes both the quotient q {\displaystyle q} and the coefficients in the remainder β {\displaystyle \beta } and γ {\displaystyle \gamma } . The key idea is to cleverly choose α {\displaystyle \alpha } such that β = 0 {\displaystyle \beta =0} , so that p ( x ) = q ( x ) ⋅ ( x 2 − α ) + γ . {\displaystyle p(x)=q(x)\cdot (x^{2}-\alpha )+\gamma .} This way, no operations are needed to compute the remainder polynomial, since it's just a constant. We apply this procedure recursively to q {\displaystyle q} , expressing p ( x ) = ( ( q ( x ) ⋅ ( x 2 − α m ) + γ m ) ⋯ ) ⋅ ( x 2 − α 1 ) + γ 1 . {\displaystyle p(x)=\left(\left(q(x)\cdot (x^{2}-\alpha _{m})+\gamma _{m}\right)\cdots \right)\cdot (x^{2}-\alpha _{1})+\gamma _{1}.} After m {\displaystyle m} recursive calls, the quotient q {\displaystyle q} is either a linear or a quadratic polynomial. In this base case, the polynomial can be evaluated with (say) Horner's method. ==== "Preconditioning" ==== For arbitrary p {\displaystyle p} , it may not be possible to force β = 0 {\displaystyle \beta =0} at every step of the recursion. Consider the polynomials p e {\displaystyle p^{e}} and p o {\displaystyle p^{o}} with coefficients taken from the even and odd terms of p {\displaystyle p} respectively, so that p ( x ) = p e ( x 2 ) + x ⋅ p o ( x 2 ) . {\displaystyle p(x)=p^{e}(x^{2})+x\cdot p^{o}(x^{2}).} If every root of p o {\displaystyle p^{o}} is real, then it is possible to write p {\displaystyle p} in the form given above. Each α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} is a different root of p o {\displaystyle p^{o}} , counting multiple roots as distinct. Furthermore, if at least n − 1 {\displaystyle n-1} roots of p {\displaystyle p} lie in one half of the complex plane, then every root of p o {\displaystyle p^{o}} is real. Ultimately, it may be necessary to "precondition" p {\displaystyle p} by shifting it — by setting p ( x ) ← p ( x + t ) {\displaystyle p(x)\gets p(x+t)} for some t {\displaystyle t} — to endow it with the structure that most of its roots lie in one half of the complex plane. At runtime, this shift has to be "undone" by first setting x ← x − t {\displaystyle x\gets x-t} . === Preprocessing step === The following algorithm is run once for a given polynomial p {\displaystyle p} . At this point, the values of x {\displaystyle x} that p {\displaystyle p} will be evaluated on are not known. ==== Better choice of t ==== While any t ≥ Re ( r 2 ) {\displaystyle t\geq {\text{Re}}(r_{2})} can work, it is possible to remove one addition during evaluation if t {\displaystyle t} is also chosen such that two roots of p ( x + t ) {\displaystyle p(x+t)} are symmetric about the origin. In that case, α 1 {\displaystyle \alpha _{1}} can be chosen such that the shifted polynomial has a factor of x 2 − α 1 {\displaystyle x^{2}-\alpha _{1}} , so γ 1 = 0 {\displaystyle \gamma _{1}=0} . It is always possible to find such a t {\displaystyle t} . One possible algorithm for choosing t {\displaystyle t} is: === Evaluation step === The following algorithm evaluates p {\displaystyle p} at some, now known, point x {\displaystyle x} . Assuming t {\displaystyle t} is chosen optimally, γ 1 = 0 {\displaystyle \gamma _{1}=0} . So, the final iteration of the loop can instead run y ← y ⋅ ( s − α i ) , {\displaystyle y\gets y\cdot (s-\alpha _{i}),} saving an addition. == Analysis == In total, evaluation using the Knuth–Eve algorithm for a polynomial of degree n {\displaystyle n} requires n {\displaystyle n} additions and ⌊ n / 2 ⌋ + 2 {\displaystyle \lfloor n/2\rfloor +2} multiplications, assuming t {\displaystyle t} is chosen optimally. No algorithm to evaluate a given polynomial of degree n {\displaystyle n} can use fewer than n {\displaystyle n} additions or fewer than ⌈ n / 2 ⌉ {\displaystyle \lceil n/2\rceil } multiplications during evaluation. This result assumes only addition and multiplication are allowed during both preprocessing and evaluation. The Knuth–Eve algorithm is not well-conditioned.

  Read more →
• 

  Navigational database

  A navigational database is a type of database in which records or objects are found primarily by following references from other objects. The term was popularized by the title of Charles Bachman's 1973 Turing Award paper, The Programmer as Navigator. This paper emphasized the fact that the new disk-based database systems allowed the programmer to choose arbitrary navigational routes following relationships from record to record, contrasting this with the constraints of earlier magnetic-tape and punched card systems where data access was strictly sequential. One of the earliest navigational databases was Integrated Data Store (IDS), which was developed by Bachman for General Electric in the 1960s. IDS became the basis for the CODASYL database model in 1969. Although Bachman described the concept of navigation in abstract terms, the idea of navigational access came to be associated strongly with the procedural design of the CODASYL Data Manipulation Language. Writing in 1982, for example, Tsichritzis and Lochovsky state that "The notion of currency is central to the concept of navigation." By the notion of currency, they refer to the idea that a program maintains (explicitly or implicitly) a current position in any sequence of records that it is processing, and that operations such as GET NEXT and GET PRIOR retrieve records relative to this current position, while also changing the current position to the record that is retrieved. Navigational database programming thus came to be seen as intrinsically procedural; and moreover to depend on the maintenance of an implicit set of global variables (currency indicators) holding the current state. As such, the approach was seen as diametrically opposed to the declarative programming style used by the relational model. The declarative nature of relational languages such as SQL offered better programmer productivity and a higher level of data independence (that is, the ability of programs to continue working as the database structure evolves.) Navigational interfaces, as a result, were gradually eclipsed during the 1980s by declarative query languages. During the 1990s it started becoming clear that for certain applications handling complex data (for example, spatial databases and engineering databases), the relational calculus had limitations. At that time, a reappraisal of the entire database market began, with several companies describing the new systems using the marketing term NoSQL. Many of these systems introduced data manipulation languages which, while far removed from the CODASYL DML with its currency indicators, could be understood as implementing Bachman's "navigational" vision. Some of these languages are procedural; others (such as XPath) are entirely declarative. Offshoots of the navigational concept, such as the graph database, found new uses in modern transaction processing workloads. == Description == Navigational access is traditionally associated with the network model and hierarchical model of database, and conventionally describes data manipulation APIs in which records (or objects) are processed one at a time, iteratively. The essential characteristic as described by Bachman, however, is finding records by virtue of their relationship to other records: so an interface can still be navigational if it has set-oriented features. From this viewpoint, the key difference between navigational data manipulation languages and relational languages is the use of explicit named relationships rather than value-based joins: for department with name="Sales", find all employees in set department-employees versus find employees, departments where employee.department-code = department.code and department.name="Sales". In practice, however, most navigational APIs have been procedural: the above query would be executed using procedural logic along the lines of the following pseudo-code: On this viewpoint, the key difference between navigational APIs and the relational model (implemented in relational databases) is that relational APIs use "declarative" or logic programming techniques that ask the system what to fetch, while navigational APIs instruct the system in a sequence of steps how to reach the required records. Most criticisms of navigational APIs fall into one of two categories: Usability: application code quickly becomes unreadable and difficult to debug Data independence: application code needs to change whenever the data structure changes For many years the primary defence of navigational APIs was performance. Database systems that support navigational APIs often use internal storage structures that contain physical links or pointers from one record to another. While such structures may allow very efficient navigation, they have disadvantages because it becomes difficult to reorganize the physical placement of data. It is quite possible to implement navigational APIs without low-level pointer chasing (Bachman's paper envisaged logical relationships being implemented just as in relational systems, using primary keys and foreign keys), so the two ideas should not be conflated. But without the performance benefits of low-level pointers, navigational APIs become harder to justify. Hierarchical models often construct primary keys for records by concatenating the keys that appear at each level in the hierarchy. Such composite identifiers are found in computer file names (/usr/david/docs/index.txt), in URIs, in the Dewey decimal system, and for that matter in postal addresses. Such a composite key can be considered as representing a navigational path to a record; but equally, it can be considered as a simple primary key allowing associative access. As relational systems came to prominence in the 1980s, navigational APIs (and in particular, procedural APIs) were criticized and fell out of favour. The 1990s, however, brought a new wave of object-oriented databases that often provided both declarative and procedural interfaces. One explanation for this is that they were often used to represent graph-structured information (for example spatial data and engineering data) where access is inherently recursive: the mathematics originally underpinning SQL (specifically, first-order predicate calculus) does not have sufficient power to support recursive queries, even those as simple as a transitive closure. More recent SQL implementations do support hierarchical and recursive queries. A current example of a popular navigational API can be found in the Document Object Model (DOM) often used in web browsers and closely associated with JavaScript. The DOM is essentially an in-memory hierarchical database with an API that is both procedural and navigational. By contrast, the same data (XML or HTML) can be accessed using XPath, which can be categorized as declarative and navigational: data is accessed by following relationships, but the calling program does not issue a sequence of instructions to be followed in order. Languages such as SPARQL used to retrieve Linked Data from the Semantic Web are also simultaneously declarative and navigational. == Examples == IBM Information Management System IDMS

  Read more →
• 

  Novell File Reporter

  Novell File Reporter (NFR) is software that allows network administrators to identify files stored on the network and generates reports regarding the size of individual files, file type, when files were last accessed, and where duplicates exist. Additionally, the File Reporter tracks storage volume capacity and usage. It is a component of the Novell File Management Suite. == How it works == Novell File Reporter examines and reports on terabytes of data via a central reporting engine (NFR Engine) and distributed agents (NFR Agents). The NFR Engine schedules the scans of file instances conducted by NFR Agents, processes and compiles the scans for reporting purposes, and provides report information to the user interface. In addition to the standard reports it can generate, the NFR Engine can also produce "trigger reports" in response to specific events (a server volume crossing a capacity threshold, for example). Accordingly, the NFR Engine monitors the data gathered by the NFR Agents in order to identify these "triggers." The NFR Engine when working in either eDirectory or Active Directory connects to the directory via a Directory Services Interface (DSI) and thus can monitor and check file permissions.

  Read more →
• 

  LemonStand

  LemonStand was a Canadian e-commerce company headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, that developed cloud-based computer software for online retailers. LemonStand was shut down on June 5, 2019. == History == LemonStand Version 1 was launched on July 28, 2001. It is written in the PHP programming language. Version 1 was released as an on-premises proprietary licensed software, and the commercial license was not free. However, there was a free trial license available. June 2012, LemonStand raised seed funding from the BDC Venture Capital, and a group of angel investors. December 20, 2013, a cloud-based SaaS version of the LemonStand eCommerce platform was released publicly. May 9, 2014, LemonStand and Payfirma, a payments processing company, partnered to provide integrated services for online retailers. May 3, 2016, LemonStand raised funding from BDC Venture Capital and Silicon Valley–based angel investors. March 5, 2019, LemonStand announced their intention to shut down on June 5, 2019. LemonStand was quietly acquired by Mailchimp at the end of February. == Pricing == LemonStand offered three levels of service plans. LemonStand did not charge any transaction fees.

  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 →
• 

  Manhattan address algorithm

  The Manhattan address algorithm is a series of formulas used to estimate the closest east–west cross street for building numbers on north–south avenues in the New York City borough of Manhattan. == Algorithm == To find the approximate number of the closest cross street, divide the building number by a divisor (generally 20) and add (or subtract) the "tricky number" from the table below: For the north–south avenues, there are typically 20 address numbers between consecutive east–west streets (10 on either side of the avenue). A standard land lot on each avenue was originally 20 feet (6.1 m) wide, and there is about 200 feet (61 m) between each pair of east–west streets, for ten land lots between each pair of streets. The exceptions are Riverside Drive, as well as Fifth Avenue and Central Park West between 59th and 110th streets, which use a divisor of 10. These avenues all have buildings only on one side of the street, with a park on the other side. The "tricky number" often corresponds to a street near the southern end of the avenue. There are some notable exceptions: York Avenue address numbers are continuations of Avenue A address numbers, since the avenue was originally called Avenue A. East End Avenue address numbers are continuations of Avenue B address numbers, since the avenue was originally called Avenue B. Sixth Avenue and Broadway start south of Houston Street, the southern boundary of the Manhattan street numbering system. Although Park Avenue's southern terminus is at 32nd Street, a homeowner at 34th Street wanted the address "1 Park Avenue" (this was later changed). === Examples === For example, if you are at 62 Avenue B, 62 ÷ 20 ≈ 3 {\displaystyle 62\div 20\approx 3} , then add the "tricky number" 3 {\displaystyle 3} to give 6 {\displaystyle 6} . The nearest cross street to 62 Avenue B is East 6th Street. If you are at 78 Riverside Drive, 78 ÷ 10 ≈ 8 {\displaystyle 78\div 10\approx 8} , then add the "tricky number" 72 {\displaystyle 72} to give 80 {\displaystyle 80} . The nearest cross street to 78 Riverside Drive is West 80th Street. If you are at 501 5th Avenue, 501 ÷ 20 ≈ 25 {\displaystyle 501\div 20\approx 25} , then add the "tricky number" 18 {\displaystyle 18} to give 43 {\displaystyle 43} . The nearest cross street to 501 5th Avenue is actually 42nd Street, not 43rd Street, as the Manhattan address algorithm only gives approximate answers.

  Read more →
• 

  Agentic commerce

  Agentic commerce (also referred to as agent-based commerce) describes an emerging form of e-commerce in which autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) agents independently execute purchasing and payment processes on behalf of users or organizations. Unlike conventional digital commerce systems, which require direct human interaction at key decision points, agentic commerce systems are designed to search for products or services, evaluate options, make purchasing decisions, and complete payments without real-time human involvement. An emerging development within the broader fields of e-commerce, fintech, and artificial intelligence; agentic commerce combines advances in generative AI, autonomous agents, application programming interfaces (APIs), and digital payment infrastructures to direct transactions with no direct human interaction. == Characteristics == A defining feature of agentic commerce is the delegation of end-to-end commercial activities to software agents. These agents typically operate according to predefined user preferences, rules, or constraints, such as price limits, quality criteria, delivery times, or preferred payment methods. Based on these parameters, an agent can autonomously perform tasks including product discovery, price comparison, contract selection, order placement, and payment execution. In contrast to decision-support systems, which provide recommendations to human users, agentic commerce systems are designed to act independently. Human involvement may be limited to initial configuration, periodic supervision, or exception handling. == Comparison with traditional and AI-assisted commerce == Traditional e-commerce requires users to manually browse products, select offers, and authorize payments. Generative AI systems used in commerce commonly assist users by answering questions or suggesting options, and do not complete transactions autonomously. Agentic commerce differs in that decision-making authority is partially or fully transferred to AI agents. As a result, the conventional customer journey, characterized by conscious decision points, may be replaced by continuous, automated micro-decisions performed by software. == Applications and business use cases == Potential applications of agentic commerce include recurring purchases, subscription management, business-to-business procurement, inventory replenishment, and price monitoring. In such contexts, transactions are often predictable and standardized, making them suitable for automation. From a business perspective, agentic commerce systems may be used to optimize supply chains, manage inventory levels, negotiate prices algorithmically, or execute transactions across multiple platforms. Enterprises adopting the new technology include retailers Walmart, Home Depot, Wayfair and Urban Outfitters, and ad tech DSPs, including Google Ads, Amazon, and Yahoo. Chinese tech firms are using apps to provide full-service shopping and payment tools. These includes Alibaba, Tencent, and ByteDance who are currently developing AI powered shopping apps. The Qwen AI chatbot allows users to complete transactions directly within its interface. US firms are still leading in developing AI models but integration is slower due to privacy restrictions. == Payments and technical infrastructure == Agentic commerce relies on digital payment systems capable of supporting automated, machine-initiated transactions, including API-based payment processing, tokenization, real-time authorization, and continuous risk monitoring. Typical user interfaces, such as shopping carts, may be replaced by backend integrations between AI agents, merchants, and payment service providers. For example, Iike 2025, Alibaba launched Alipay AI Pay, which grew and began operating as an application for different retailers. In December 2025, Alipay teamed up with Rokid to enable developers to integrate AI payments into AI agents on Rokid's Lingzhu platform. In January 2025, Alipay unveiled the Agentic Commerce Trust Protocol in partnership with Alibaba's consumer AI applications, such as the Qwen App and Taobao Instant Commerce. Qwen adopted the platform first, connecting it to Taobao Instant Commerce and Alipay AI Pay. Users could use Qwen's agentic feature to place food and drink orders within the application instead of having to click outside to an external browser. For merchants, participation in agentic commerce may require products and services to be presented in structured, machine-readable formats to ensure discoverability and interoperability with autonomous agents. == Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP) == In January 2026, Google announced the Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP), an open-source web standard intended to enable interoperability between AI agents and retail systems across the shopping journey, from discovery and checkout to post-purchase support. UCP makes use of REST, JSON-RPC transports, and support for Agent Payments Protocol (AP2), Agent2Agent (A2A), and Model Context Protocol (MCP). == Legal, regulatory, and security considerations == The use of autonomous agents in commerce raises legal and regulatory questions, particularly regarding authorization, liability, consumer protection, and fraud prevention. Existing payment and contract frameworks are generally based on human decision-makers, and their applicability to autonomous agents remains an area of active discussion. Open issues include responsibility for unauthorized or erroneous transactions, mechanisms for dispute resolution, standards for agent authentication, and compliance with data protection and financial regulations. Continuous, automated transaction patterns may also require new approaches to security and risk assessment. Traditional fraud models centered on identity verification may be insufficient for agentic commerce, and that merchants may need intent-based detection methods using machine learning and behavioral analysis to distinguish legitimate AI agents from malicious automation. === Governance frameworks === The deployment of autonomous AI agents in commercial environments has prompted the development of dedicated governance frameworks. These aim to define operational boundaries, decision authority, oversight mechanisms, and accountability structures for agentic systems. The Agentic Commerce Framework (ACF), created in 2025 by Vincent Dorange, is a governance standard that structures the deployment of autonomous AI agents around four founding principles (Decision Sovereignty, Governance by Design, Ultimate Human Control, Traceable Accountability), four operational layers, and 18 governance KPIs. In January 2026, Singapore's Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) published the Model AI Governance Framework for Agentic AI, extending its existing AI governance guidelines to address agent-specific risks including delegation chains and multi-agent coordination. The Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) has also proposed an Agentic Trust Framework applying zero-trust principles to AI agent governance. == Ecosystem and implementation == The adoption of agentic commerce typically requires changes in commerce architecture, data modeling, identity and permissions, and API-based orchestration of checkout and post-purchase workflows. Management consultancies have identified agentic commerce as a structural evolution of digital commerce, emphasizing the role of AI-driven agents in automating discovery, decision-making, and transaction processes across commerce systems. McKinsey & Company has described agentic commerce as a significant shift in how consumers interact with brands and how enterprises design their commerce operating models. In Europe, this ecosystem also includes digital commerce consultancies specializing in the adoption of agentic commerce. Consulting firms such as Horrea support brands in understanding and implementing the technological and organizational shifts associated with agentic commerce. == Market development and outlook == Agentic commerce is generally regarded as an early-stage development. Industry analysts have projected that AI-driven agents could account for a small but growing share of digital payment transactions within the coming years. Due to the scale of global digital commerce, even limited adoption could represent substantial transaction volumes. Analysts expect that by 2029, AI agents could handle between 1% and 4% of all digital payment transactions. With a projected total transaction volume of over $36 trillion a year, even a small share translates into a market worth up to $1.47 trillion. According to a McKinsey study from October 2025, agentic commerce projects that by 2030, the U.S. business-to-consumer retail market alone could see up to $1 trillion in revenue orchestrated through agentic commerce. On a global scale, the opportunity could range from $3 trillion to $5 trillion. Early experiments and pilot projects have demonstrated both the potential and current limitations of the

  Read more →
• 

  Spotify Kids

  Spotify Kids is a Swedish kid-friendly Music streaming service developed by Spotify. It offers curated content for children, including music, audiobooks, lullabies, and bedtime stories, while providing their parents with parental controls. The service is only available to subscribers to Spotify's Premium Family subscription plan. == Function == Spotify Kids is a Swedish Kid-friendly Music Streaming Service that allows children to browse Spotify with parental controls. Using the app, parents can view their children's listening history, block specific songs, and share playlists with their children. The app also includes sing-along songs, playlists designed for young children, and curated audiobooks, lullabies, and bedtime stories. Access is included in Spotify's Premium Family subscription plan, and is exclusive to subscribers to the plan. Users can configure the app for a specific age group upon first launch. The playlists on Spotify Kids are curated by groups including Discovery Kids, Nickelodeon, Universal Pictures, and The Walt Disney Company. All content on the Spotify Kids app is curated by editors. As of March 2021, there were roughly 8,000 songs available on the platform. The design of the Spotify Kids app is colorful, and user interface varies depending on the age group for which the app is configured. Spotify Kids is designed to comply with consent and data collection regulations for apps used by children. TechCrunch explains that it is "designed on a grand scale to drive subscriptions to Spotify's top-tier $14.99-per-month Premium Family Plan." == Release == After being beta tested in Ireland in October 2019, it was released as a beta across the United Kingdom on February 11, 2020. It was later released in Sweden, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil. On March 31, 2021, it was made available in France, Canada, and the United States.

  Read more →
• 

  Generalized distributive law

  The generalized distributive law (GDL) is a generalization of the distributive property which gives rise to a general message passing algorithm. It is a synthesis of the work of many authors in the information theory, digital communications, signal processing, statistics, and artificial intelligence communities. The law and algorithm were introduced in a semi-tutorial by Srinivas M. Aji and Robert J. McEliece with the same title. == Introduction == "The distributive law in mathematics is the law relating the operations of multiplication and addition, stated symbolically, a ∗ ( b + c ) = a ∗ b + a ∗ c {\displaystyle a(b+c)=ab+ac} ; that is, the monomial factor a {\displaystyle a} is distributed, or separately applied, to each term of the binomial factor b + c {\displaystyle b+c} , resulting in the product a ∗ b + a ∗ c {\displaystyle ab+ac} " – Britannica. As it can be observed from the definition, application of distributive law to an arithmetic expression reduces the number of operations in it. In the previous example the total number of operations reduced from three (two multiplications and an addition in a ∗ b + a ∗ c {\displaystyle ab+ac} ) to two (one multiplication and one addition in a ∗ ( b + c ) {\displaystyle a(b+c)} ). Generalization of distributive law leads to a large family of fast algorithms. This includes the FFT and Viterbi algorithm. This is explained in a more formal way in the example below: α ( a , b ) = d e f ∑ c , d , e ∈ A f ( a , c , b ) g ( a , d , e ) {\displaystyle \alpha (a,\,b){\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\displaystyle \sum \limits _{c,d,e\in A}f(a,\,c,\,b)\,g(a,\,d,\,e)} where f ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle f(\cdot )} and g ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle g(\cdot )} are real-valued functions, a , b , c , d , e ∈ A {\displaystyle a,b,c,d,e\in A} and | A | = q {\displaystyle |A|=q} (say) Here we are "marginalizing out" the independent variables ( c {\displaystyle c} , d {\displaystyle d} , and e {\displaystyle e} ) to obtain the result. When we are calculating the computational complexity, we can see that for each q 2 {\displaystyle q^{2}} pairs of ( a , b ) {\displaystyle (a,b)} , there are q 3 {\displaystyle q^{3}} terms due to the triplet ( c , d , e ) {\displaystyle (c,d,e)} which needs to take part in the evaluation of α ( a , b ) {\displaystyle \alpha (a,\,b)} with each step having one addition and one multiplication. Therefore, the total number of computations needed is 2 ⋅ q 2 ⋅ q 3 = 2 q 5 {\displaystyle 2\cdot q^{2}\cdot q^{3}=2q^{5}} . Hence the asymptotic complexity of the above function is O ( n 5 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{5})} . If we apply the distributive law to the RHS of the equation, we get the following: α ( a , b ) = d e f ∑ c ∈ A f ( a , c , b ) ⋅ ∑ d , e ∈ A g ( a , d , e ) {\displaystyle \alpha (a,\,b){\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\displaystyle \sum \limits _{c\in A}f(a,\,c,\,b)\cdot \sum _{d,\,e\in A}g(a,\,d,\,e)} This implies that α ( a , b ) {\displaystyle \alpha (a,\,b)} can be described as a product α 1 ( a , b ) ⋅ α 2 ( a ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{1}(a,\,b)\cdot \alpha _{2}(a)} where α 1 ( a , b ) = d e f ∑ c ∈ A f ( a , c , b ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{1}(a,b){\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\displaystyle \sum \limits _{c\in A}f(a,\,c,\,b)} and α 2 ( a ) = d e f ∑ d , e ∈ A g ( a , d , e ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{2}(a){\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\displaystyle \sum \limits _{d,\,e\in A}g(a,\,d,\,e)} Now, when we are calculating the computational complexity, we can see that there are q 3 {\displaystyle q^{3}} additions in α 1 ( a , b ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{1}(a,\,b)} and α 2 ( a ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{2}(a)} each and there are q 2 {\displaystyle q^{2}} multiplications when we are using the product α 1 ( a , b ) ⋅ α 2 ( a ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{1}(a,\,b)\cdot \alpha _{2}(a)} to evaluate α ( a , b ) {\displaystyle \alpha (a,\,b)} . Therefore, the total number of computations needed is q 3 + q 3 + q 2 = 2 q 3 + q 2 {\displaystyle q^{3}+q^{3}+q^{2}=2q^{3}+q^{2}} . Hence the asymptotic complexity of calculating α ( a , b ) {\displaystyle \alpha (a,b)} reduces to O ( n 3 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{3})} from O ( n 5 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{5})} . This shows by an example that applying distributive law reduces the computational complexity which is one of the good features of a "fast algorithm". == History == Some of the problems that used distributive law to solve can be grouped as follows: Decoding algorithms: A GDL like algorithm was used by Gallager's for decoding low density parity-check codes. Based on Gallager's work Tanner introduced the Tanner graph and expressed Gallagers work in message passing form. The tanners graph also helped explain the Viterbi algorithm. It is observed by Forney that Viterbi's maximum likelihood decoding of convolutional codes also used algorithms of GDL-like generality. Forward–backward algorithm: The forward backward algorithm helped as an algorithm for tracking the states in the Markov chain. And this also was used the algorithm of GDL like generality Artificial intelligence: The notion of junction trees has been used to solve many problems in AI. Also the concept of bucket elimination used many of the concepts. == The MPF problem == MPF or marginalize a product function is a general computational problem which as special case includes many classical problems such as computation of discrete Hadamard transform, maximum likelihood decoding of a linear code over a memory-less channel, and matrix chain multiplication. The power of the GDL lies in the fact that it applies to situations in which additions and multiplications are generalized. A commutative semiring is a good framework for explaining this behavior. It is defined over a set K {\displaystyle K} with operators " + {\displaystyle +} " and " . {\displaystyle .} " where ( K , + ) {\displaystyle (K,\,+)} and ( K , . ) {\displaystyle (K,\,.)} are a commutative monoids and the distributive law holds. Let p 1 , … , p n {\displaystyle p_{1},\ldots ,p_{n}} be variables such that p 1 ∈ A 1 , … , p n ∈ A n {\displaystyle p_{1}\in A_{1},\ldots ,p_{n}\in A_{n}} where A {\displaystyle A} is a finite set and | A i | = q i {\displaystyle |A_{i}|=q_{i}} . Here i = 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=1,\ldots ,n} . If S = { i 1 , … , i r } {\displaystyle S=\{i_{1},\ldots ,i_{r}\}} and S ⊂ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle S\,\subset \{1,\ldots ,n\}} , let A S = A i 1 × ⋯ × A i r {\displaystyle A_{S}=A_{i_{1}}\times \cdots \times A_{i_{r}}} , p S = ( p i 1 , … , p i r ) {\displaystyle p_{S}=(p_{i_{1}},\ldots ,p_{i_{r}})} , q S = | A S | {\displaystyle q_{S}=|A_{S}|} , A = A 1 × ⋯ × A n {\displaystyle \mathbf {A} =A_{1}\times \cdots \times A_{n}} , and p = { p 1 , … , p n } {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} =\{p_{1},\ldots ,p_{n}\}} Let S = { S j } j = 1 M {\displaystyle S=\{S_{j}\}_{j=1}^{M}} where S j ⊂ { 1 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle S_{j}\subset \{1,...\,,n\}} . Suppose a function is defined as α i : A S i → R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}:A_{S_{i}}\rightarrow R} , where R {\displaystyle R} is a commutative semiring. Also, p S i {\displaystyle p_{S_{i}}} are named the local domains and α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} as the local kernels. Now the global kernel β : A → R {\displaystyle \beta :\mathbf {A} \rightarrow R} is defined as: β ( p 1 , . . . , p n ) = ∏ i = 1 M α ( p S i ) {\displaystyle \beta (p_{1},...\,,p_{n})=\prod _{i=1}^{M}\alpha (p_{S_{i}})} Definition of MPF problem: For one or more indices i = 1 , . . . , M {\displaystyle i=1,...\,,M} , compute a table of the values of S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} -marginalization of the global kernel β {\displaystyle \beta } , which is the function β i : A S i → R {\displaystyle \beta _{i}:A_{S_{i}}\rightarrow R} defined as β i ( p S i ) = ∑ p S i c ∈ A S i c β ( p ) {\displaystyle \beta _{i}(p_{S_{i}})\,=\displaystyle \sum \limits _{p_{S_{i}^{c}}\in A_{S_{i}^{c}}}\beta (p)} Here S i c {\displaystyle S_{i}^{c}} is the complement of S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} with respect to { 1 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle \mathbf {\{} 1,...\,,n\}} and the β i ( p S i ) {\displaystyle \beta _{i}(p_{S_{i}})} is called the i t h {\displaystyle i^{th}} objective function, or the objective function at S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} . It can observed that the computation of the i t h {\displaystyle i^{th}} objective function in the obvious way needs M q 1 q 2 q 3 ⋯ q n {\displaystyle Mq_{1}q_{2}q_{3}\cdots q_{n}} operations. This is because there are q 1 q 2 ⋯ q n {\displaystyle q_{1}q_{2}\cdots q_{n}} additions and ( M − 1 ) q 1 q 2 . . . q n {\displaystyle (M-1)q_{1}q_{2}...q_{n}} multiplications needed in the computation of the i th {\displaystyle i^{\text{th}}} objective function. The GDL algorithm which is explained in the next section can reduce this computational complexity. The following is an example of the MPF problem. Let p 1 , p 2 , p 3 , p 4 , {\displaystyle p_{1},\,p_{2},\,p_{3},\,p_{4},} and p 5 {\displaystyle p_{5}} be variables such that p 1 ∈ A 1 , p 2 ∈ A 2 , p 3 ∈ A 3 , p 4 ∈ A 4 , {\displaystyle p_{1}\in

  Read more →
• 

  Principles for a Data Economy

  The Principles for a Data Economy – Data Rights and Transactions is a transatlantic legal project carried out jointly by the American Law Institute (ALI) and the European Law Institute (ELI). The Principles for a Data Economy deals with a range of different legal questions that arise in the data economy. Since data is different from other tradeable items, the Principles draw up legal rules for data transactions and data rights that take into account the interests of different stakeholders involved in the data economy. The Principles are designed to facilitate contractual relations as well as the drafting of model agreements and can guide courts and legislators worldwide. The project proposes a set of principles that can be implemented in any legal system and is designed to work in conjunction with any kind of data privacy/data protection law, intellectual property law or trade secret law. The Principles do not address or seek to change any of the substantive rules of these bodies of law. The Project Team consists of Neil B Cohen and Christiane Wendehorst (as Project Reporters) and Lord John Thomas as well as Steven O. Weise (as Project Chairs). == Characteristics of data == The law governing trades in commerce has historically focused on trade in items that are tangible like goods or on intangible assets, such as shares or licenses. However, data does not fit into any of these traditional categories, nor does it qualify as a service. It is often unclear how traditional legal rules and doctrines can apply to data, as data is different from other assets in many ways. For example, data can be multiplied at basically no cost and can be used in parallel for a variety of different purposes by many different people at the same time (data is a “non-rivalrous” resource). Uncertainty regarding the applicable rules to govern the data economy may inhibit innovation and growth and trouble stakeholders like data-driven industries, start-ups, and consumers. == Stakeholders in the data economy == The Principles have taken the basic types of players and relations which can be found in data ecosystems as a starting point to provide guidance in different situations. The central actors in the data economy are data controllers (also called “data holders”). They are in a position to access the data and decide for which purposes and means this data should be processed. A controller may exercise control all by itself or share it with co-controllers, such as under a data pooling arrangement. Data processors provide the processing of data on a controller’s behalf as a service. Another important group of stakeholders includes those that contribute to the generation of data (e.g. data subjects). Other players in the data economy include data assemblers or data intermediaries (e.g. data trusts). == History of the project and timeline == Before the official adoption of the project by ALI and ELI bodies in 2018, the project team carried out a Feasibility Study from October 2016 to February 2018. In the following years, the project team produced a number of drafts (e.g. “Preliminary Drafts” No. 1 to 4, “Tentative Draft No. 1”) and project progress were regularly discussed with advisory bodies and members of both the ALI and the ELI. The project reporters also included feedback and insights from industry stakeholders and experts that was gained after several meetings and workshops, hosted, inter alia by UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT and several national governmental institutions. Tentative Draft No. 2 was presented at the ALI Annual Meeting in May 2021 and approved by ALI membership. The latest draft ("Final Council Draft") was also approved by the ELI Council and ELI Membership. The Principles for a Data Economy were presented at an international conference with representatives from institutions such as the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), the European Commission, UNIDROIT, the OECD, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the World Economic Forum (WEF) in October 2021. == Project structure == The current draft (“Tentative Draft No. 2”) of the Principles consists of five Parts that each governs different aspects of the data economy: General Provisions, Data Contracts, Data Rights, Third Party Aspects of Data Activities, and Multi-State Issues. === General Provisions === Part I includes general provisions that apply to all other Parts of the Principles for a Data Economy. This Part sets out the purpose of the Principles: they aim to make existing law in the field of the data economy more coherent and support the development of the law in this field by courts and legislators worldwide. It is also clarified that the Principles have a wide scope of application and can be used in a variety of ways by stakeholders in the data economy. The Principles may, for example, serve private parties as a basis for contract formation, guide the deliberations of arbitral tribunals or inspire national legislation. Part I then defines several key terms, such as ‘digital data’ and ‘data right’. The scope of the Principles is limited to matters where information is recorded as an asset, resource or tradeable commodity and where large amounts of data, rather than single pieces of information, are concerned. This Part also clarifies that remedies with respect to data contracts and data rights are left to the applicable national law. === Data Contracts === Part II lists different types of contracts that often occur in the data economy and establishes two broad categories, namely contracts for the supply and sharing of data and contracts for services with regard to data. Contracts for the supply and sharing of data include, e.g. data transfer contracts or data pooling arrangements, while contracts for services with regard to data cover contracts for the processing of data or data intermediary contracts. The Principles provide default terms for each contract type, on issues such as the manner in which data should supply or which characteristics the data supplied should meet. These default terms 'automatically' become part of the contract unless the parties agree otherwise. === Data Rights === Part III governs legally protected interests of players in the data economy that stem from the characteristics of data as a resource (e.g. its non-rivalrous nature) or from public interest considerations. Such data rights may include the right to data access, the right to require the controller to desist from data activities or to correct incorrect/incomplete data, or even to receive an economic share in profits derived from the use of data. For example, the Principles deal with data rights of stakeholders that had a share in the co-generation of data and identify different factors to be considered in determining whether to afford a party a data right. The underlying idea that parties who have contributed to the generation of data should have some rights in the utilization of the data is also recognized by governmental institutions, such as by the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), and the term co-generated data, which was coined by the Principles for a Data Economy, has been adopted, inter alia by the European Commission, the German Data Ethics Commission and the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI). This Part also deals with data rights for the public interest, such as data sharing rights in the field of innovation. === Third Party Aspects === Part IV governs different situations in which data transactions interfere with the rights of third parties. Such rights include intellectual property rights or rights derived from data privacy or data protection law. This Part sets out under which circumstances data activities should be considered wrongful vis à vis another party. For example, a data activity (like data processing or the onward supply of data) could be considered wrongful, if a controller interferes with the rights of data subjects that are protected by data-protection law. A data activity could also be wrongful if the controller is non-compliant with contractual limitations on data activities, enforceable by the protected party (e.g. a controller may only process data for a certain purpose). If someone obtained access to data by unauthorized means (i.e. data “theft”) this could also be considered wrongful. The Part on Third-Party Aspects also takes a detailed look at the effects of the onward supply of data can have on third parties, while balancing the protection of third parties on the one hand, with the interests of data recipients and the desire to encourage data sharing on the other. === Multi-State Issues === As transactions in the data economy are international by nature and hardly occur within one legal system alone, the Part V of the Principles also briefly touches upon the applicability of the rules and doctrines of private international law to such transactions. == Links == Website of the “Principles for a Data Economy – Data Rights and Transaction

  Read more →
• 

  Data quality

  Data quality refers to the state of qualitative or quantitative pieces of information. There are many definitions of data quality, but data is generally considered high quality if it is "fit for [its] intended uses in operations, decision making and planning". Data is deemed of high quality if it correctly represents the real-world construct to which it refers. Apart from these definitions, as the number of data sources increases, the question of internal data consistency becomes significant, regardless of fitness for use for any particular external purpose. People's views on data quality can often be in disagreement, even when discussing the same set of data used for the same purpose. When this is the case, businesses may adopt recognised international standards for data quality (See #International Standards for Data Quality below). Data governance can also be used to form agreed upon definitions and standards, including international standards, for data quality. In such cases, data cleansing, including standardization, may be required in order to ensure data quality. == Definitions == Defining data quality is difficult due to the many contexts data are used in, as well as the varying perspectives among end users, producers, and custodians of data. From a consumer perspective, data quality is: "data that are fit for use by data consumers" data "meeting or exceeding consumer expectations" data that "satisfies the requirements of its intended use" From a business perspective, data quality is: data that are "'fit for use' in their intended operational, decision-making and other roles" or that exhibits "'conformance to standards' that have been set, so that fitness for use is achieved" data that "are fit for their intended uses in operations, decision making and planning" "the capability of data to satisfy the stated business, system, and technical requirements of an enterprise" From a standards-based perspective, data quality is: the "degree to which a set of inherent characteristics (quality dimensions) of an object (data) fulfills requirements" "the usefulness, accuracy, and correctness of data for its application" Arguably, in all these cases, "data quality" is a comparison of the actual state of a particular set of data to a desired state, with the desired state being typically referred to as "fit for use," "to specification," "meeting consumer expectations," "free of defect," or "meeting requirements." These expectations, specifications, and requirements are usually defined by one or more individuals or groups, standards organizations, laws and regulations, business policies, or software development policies. == Dimensions of data quality == Drilling down further, those expectations, specifications, and requirements are stated in terms of characteristics or dimensions of the data, such as: accessibility or availability accuracy or correctness comparability completeness or comprehensiveness consistency, coherence, or clarity credibility, reliability, or reputation flexibility plausibility relevance, pertinence, or usefulness timeliness or latency uniqueness validity or reasonableness A systematic scoping review of the literature suggests that data quality dimensions and methods with real world data are not consistent in the literature, and as a result quality assessments are challenging due to the complex and heterogeneous nature of these data. == International standards for data quality == ISO 8000 is an international standard for data quality. Managed by the International Organization for Standardization, the ISO 8000 standards address and describe general aspects of data quality including principles, vocabulary and measurement data governance data quality management data quality assessment quality of master data, including exchange of characteristic data and identifiers quality of industrial data == History == Before the rise of the inexpensive computer data storage, massive mainframe computers were used to maintain name and address data for delivery services. This was so that mail could be properly routed to its destination. The mainframes used business rules to correct common misspellings and typographical errors in name and address data, as well as to track customers who had moved, died, gone to prison, married, divorced, or experienced other life-changing events. Government agencies began to make postal data available to a few service companies to cross-reference customer data with the National Change of Address registry (NCOA). This technology saved large companies millions of dollars in comparison to manual correction of customer data. Large companies saved on postage, as bills and direct marketing materials made their way to the intended customer more accurately. Initially sold as a service, data quality moved inside the walls of corporations, as low-cost and powerful server technology became available. Companies with an emphasis on marketing often focused their quality efforts on name and address information, but data quality is recognized as an important property of all types of data. Principles of data quality can be applied to supply chain data, transactional data, and nearly every other category of data found. For example, making supply chain data conform to a certain standard has value to an organization by: 1) avoiding overstocking of similar but slightly different stock; 2) avoiding false stock-out; 3) improving the understanding of vendor purchases to negotiate volume discounts; and 4) avoiding logistics costs in stocking and shipping parts across a large organization. For companies with significant research efforts, data quality can include developing protocols for research methods, reducing measurement error, bounds checking of data, cross tabulation, modeling and outlier detection, verifying data integrity, etc. == Overview == There are a number of theoretical frameworks for understanding data quality. A systems-theoretical approach influenced by American pragmatism expands the definition of data quality to include information quality, and emphasizes the inclusiveness of the fundamental dimensions of accuracy and precision on the basis of the theory of science (Ivanov, 1972). One framework, dubbed "Zero Defect Data" (Hansen, 1991) adapts the principles of statistical process control to data quality. Another framework seeks to integrate the product perspective (conformance to specifications) and the service perspective (meeting consumers' expectations) (Kahn et al. 2002). Another framework is based in semiotics to evaluate the quality of the form, meaning and use of the data (Price and Shanks, 2004). One highly theoretical approach analyzes the ontological nature of information systems to define data quality rigorously (Wand and Wang, 1996). A considerable amount of data quality research involves investigating and describing various categories of desirable attributes (or dimensions) of data. Nearly 200 such terms have been identified and there is little agreement in their nature (are these concepts, goals or criteria?), their definitions or measures (Wang et al., 1993). Software engineers may recognize this as a similar problem to "ilities". MIT has an Information Quality (MITIQ) Program, led by Professor Richard Wang, which produces a large number of publications and hosts a significant international conference in this field (International Conference on Information Quality, ICIQ). This program grew out of the work done by Hansen on the "Zero Defect Data" framework (Hansen, 1991). In practice, data quality is a concern for professionals involved with a wide range of information systems, ranging from data warehousing and business intelligence to customer relationship management and supply chain management. One industry study estimated the total cost to the U.S. economy of data quality problems at over U.S. $600 billion per annum (Eckerson, 2002). Incorrect data – which includes invalid and outdated information – can originate from different data sources – through data entry, or data migration and conversion projects. In 2002, the USPS and PricewaterhouseCoopers released a report stating that 23.6 percent of all U.S. mail sent is incorrectly addressed. One reason contact data becomes stale very quickly in the average database – more than 45 million Americans change their address every year. In fact, the problem is such a concern that companies are beginning to set up a data governance team whose sole role in the corporation is to be responsible for data quality. In some organizations, this data governance function has been established as part of a larger Regulatory Compliance function - a recognition of the importance of Data/Information Quality to organizations. Problems with data quality don't only arise from incorrect data; inconsistent data is a problem as well. Eliminating data shadow systems and centralizing data in a warehouse is one of the initiatives a company can take to ensure data consistency. En

  Read more →
• 

  Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice

  Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice is a textbook written by James D. Foley, Andries van Dam, Steven K. Feiner, John Hughes, Morgan McGuire, David F. Sklar, and Kurt Akeley and published by Addison–Wesley. First published in 1982 as Fundamentals of Interactive Computer Graphics, it is widely considered a classic standard reference book on the topic of computer graphics. It is sometimes known as the bible of computer graphics (due to its size). == Editions == === First Edition === The first edition, published in 1982 and titled Fundamentals of Interactive Computer Graphics, discussed the SGP library, which was based on ACM's SIGGRAPH CORE 1979 graphics standard, and focused on 2D vector graphics. === Second Edition === The second edition, published 1990, was completely rewritten and covered 2D and 3D raster and vector graphics, user interfaces, geometric modeling, anti-aliasing, advanced rendering algorithms and an introduction to animation. The SGP library was replaced by SRGP (Simple Raster Graphics Package), a library for 2D raster primitives and interaction handling, and SPHIGS (Simple PHIGS), a library for 3D primitives, which were specifically written for the book. === Second Edition in C === In the second edition in C, published in 1995, all examples were converted from Pascal to C. New implementations for the SRGP and SPHIGS graphics packages in C were also provided. === Third Edition === A third edition covering modern GPU architecture was released in July 2013. Examples in the third edition are written in C++, C#, WPF, GLSL, OpenGL, G3D, or pseudocode. == Awards == The book has won a Front Line Award (Hall of Fame) in 1998.

  Read more →
• 

  Organizational information theory

  Organizational Information Theory (OIT) is a communication theory, developed by Karl Weick, offering systemic insight into the processing and exchange of information within organizations and among its members. Unlike the past structure-centered theory, OIT focuses on the process of organizing in dynamic, information-rich environments. Given that, it contends that the main activity of organizations is the process of making sense of equivocal information. Organizational members are instrumental to reduce equivocality and achieve sensemaking through some strategies — enactment, selection, and retention of information. With a framework that is interdisciplinary in nature, organizational information theory's desire to eliminate both ambiguity and complexity from workplace messaging builds upon earlier findings from general systems theory and phenomenology. == Inspiration and influence of pre-existing theories == 1. General Systems Theory The General Systems Theory, on its most basic premise, describes the phenomenon of a cohesive group of interrelated parts. When one part of the system is changed or affected, it will affect the system as a whole. Weick uses this theoretical framework from 1950 to influence his organizational information theory. Likewise, organizations can be viewed as a system of related parts that work together towards a common goal or vision. Applying this to Weick's organizational information theory, organizations must work to reduce ambiguity and complexity in the workplace to maximize cohesiveness and efficiency. Weick uses the term, coupling, to describe how organizations, like a system, can be composed of interrelated and dependent parts. Coupling looks at the relationship between people and work. There are two types of coupling: 1. Loose coupling Loose coupling describes that while people within the organization or system are connected and often work together, they do not depend on one another to continue or fully complete individual work. The dependencies are weak and workflow is flexible. For example, "if the whole Science department completely shuts down because all of teachers are sick or for whatsoever reason, the school can still continue to operate because other departments are still present." 2. Tight coupling Tight coupling describes when connections within an organization are strong and dependent. If one part of the organization is not operating correctly, the organization as a whole cannot continue to their fullest potential. " For instance, the format and ink section completely shuts down hence the succeeding steps cannot be continued, so the whole process of the organization will be dropped. Thus, components of a system are directly dependent on one another." 2. Theory of evolution The theory of evolution, by Charles Darwin, is a framework for survival of the fittest. According to Darwin, organisms attempt to adapt and live in an unforgiving environment. Those that are unsuccessful in adaptation do not survive, while the strong organisms continue to thrive and reproduce. Weick invokes inspiration from Darwin, to incorporate a biological perspective to his theory. It is natural for organizations to have to adapt to incoming information that often interfere with the preexisting environment. Organizations that are able to plan and alter strategies in accordance with their constant need of organizing and sense making, will survive and be the most successful. However, there is a notable difference between animal evolution and survival of the fittest in organizations, "A given animal is what it is; variation comes through mutation. But the nature of an organization can change when its members alter their behavior." == Assumptions == 1. Human organizations exist in an information environment Unlike senders and receivers models, OIT stands on the situational perspective. Karl Weick views a human organization as an open social system. People in that system develop a mechanism to establish goals, obtain and process information, or perceive the environment. In this process, people and the environment come to conclusions on "what's going on here?". Colville believes that this attributional process is retrospective. Take an education institution as an example. A university can obtain information regarding students' needs in numerous ways. It might create feedback section in its website. It could organize alumni panels or academic affairs to attract prospective students and collect concrete questions they are interested in. It may also conduct the survey or host focus group to get the information. After that, the staff of the university have to decide how to deal with these information, based on which, it has to set and accomplish its goals for current and prospective students. 2. The information an organization receives differs in terms of equivocality Weick posits that numerous feasible interpretations of reality exist when organizations process information. Their varying levels of understandability lead to different outcomes of information inputs. In other academic works, scholars tend to say that messages are uncertain or ambiguous. While according to OIT, messages are described to be equivocal. believes that people proactively exclude a number of possibilities to perceive what is going on in the environment. Due to OIT's situational perspective, the meanings of messages consist of the messages, the interpretations of receivers, and the interactional context. However, ambiguity and uncertainty can mean that a standard answer - the only one true objective interpretation - exists. Also, Weick emphasizes that "the equivocality is the engine that motivates people to organize". Maitlis and Christianson states that the equivocality trigger sensemaking for three reasons: environment jolts and organizational crises, threats to identity, and planned change interventions. 3. Human organizations engage in information processing to reduce equivocality of information Based upon the first two assumption, OIT proposes that information processing within organizations is a social activity. Sharing is the key feature of organizational information processing. In that particular context, members jointly make sense the reality by reducing equivocality. It other words, the sensemaking is a joint responsibility which includes numerous interdependent people to accomplish. In this process, organizations and its members combine actions and attributions together in order to find the balance between the complexity of thoughts and the simplicity of actions. Weick also proposes that people create their own environment though enactment, which is the action of making sense. This is because people have different perceptual schemas and selective perception, so people create different information environments. In creating different information environments, people can arrive at the same or close to the same understanding or solution through different thought processes and overall understanding. == Key concepts == === The organization === In order to place Weick's vision regarding Organizational Information Theory into proper working context, exploring his view regarding what constitutes the organization and how its individuals embody that construct might yield significant insights. From a fundamental standpoint, he shared a belief that organizational validation is derived---not through bricks and mortar, or locale—but from a series of events which enable entities to "collect, manage and use the information they receive." In elaborating further on what constitutes an organization during early writings outlining OIT, Weick said, "The word organization is a noun and it is also a myth. if one looks for an organization, one will not find it. What will be found is that there are events linked together, that transpire within concrete walls and these sequences, their pathways, their timing, are the forms we erroneously make into substances when we talk about an organization". When viewed in this modular fashion, the organization meets Weick's theoretical vision by encompassing parameters that are less bound by concrete, wood, and structural restraints and more by an ability to serve as a repository where information can be consistently and effectively channeled. Taking these defining characteristics into account, proper channel execution relies on maximization of messaging clarity, context, delivery and evolution through any system. One example as to how these interactions might unfold on a more granular level within these confines can be gleaned through Weick's double interact loop, which he considers the "building blocks of every organization". Simply put, double interacts describe interpersonal exchanges that, inherently, occur across the organizational chain of command and in life, itself. Thus: "An act occurs when you say something (Can I have a Popsicle?). An interact occurs when you say something and I respond ("No, it will spoil your dinner

  Read more →
• 

  The Algorithm Auction

  The Algorithm Auction is the world's first auction of computer algorithms. Created by Ruse Laboratories, the initial auction featured seven lots and was held at the Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum on March 27, 2015. Five lots were physical representations of famous code or algorithms, including a signed, handwritten copy of the original Hello, World! C program by its creator Brian Kernighan on dot-matrix printer paper, a printed copy of 5,000 lines of Assembly code comprising the earliest known version of Turtle Graphics, signed by its creator Hal Abelson, a necktie containing the six-line qrpff algorithm capable of decrypting content on a commercially produced DVD video disc, and a pair of drawings representing OkCupid's original Compatibility Calculation algorithm, signed by the company founders. The qrpff lot sold for $2,500. Two other lots were “living algorithms,” including a set of JavaScript tools for building applications that are accessible to the visually impaired and the other is for a program that converts lines of software code into music. Winning bidders received, along with artifacts related to the algorithms, a full intellectual property license to use, modify, or open-source the code. All lots were sold, with Hello World receiving the most bids. Exhibited alongside the auction lots were a facsimile of the Plimpton 322 tablet on loan from Columbia University, and Nigella, an art-world facing computer virus named after Nigella Lawson and created by cypherpunk and hacktivist Richard Jones. Sebastian Chan, Director of Digital & Emerging Media at the Cooper–Hewitt, attended the event remotely from Milan, Italy via a Beam Pro telepresence robot. == Effects == Following the auction, the Museum of Modern Art held a salon titled The Way of the Algorithm highlighting algorithms as "a ubiquitous and indispensable component of our lives."

  Read more →