AI Humanizer

AI Humanizer — hands-on reviews, top picks, pricing, pros and cons and a practical how-to guide on Aizhi.

• 

  Software construction

  Software construction is the process of creating working software via coding and integration. The process includes unit and integration testing although does not include higher level testing such as system testing. Construction is an aspect of the software development lifecycle and is integrated in the various software development process models with varying focus on construction as an activity separate from other activities. In the waterfall model, a software development effort consists of sequential phases including requirements analysis, design, and planning which are prerequisites for starting construction. In an iterative model such as scrum, evolutionary prototyping, or extreme programming, construction as an activity that occurs concurrently or overlapping other activities. Construction planning may include defining the order in which components are created and integrated, the software quality management processes, and the allocation of tasks to teams and developers. To facilitate project management, numerous construction aspects can be measured; these include the amount of code developed, modified, reused, and destroyed, code complexity, code inspection statistics, faults-fixed and faults-found rates, and effort expended. These measurements can be useful for aspects such as ensuring quality and improving the process. == Activities == Construction includes many activities. === Coding === The following are a few of the key aspects of the coding activity: Naming Choice of name for each identifier. One study showed that the effort required to debug a program is minimized when variable names are between 10 and 16 characters. Logic Organization into statements and routines Highly cohesive routines proved to be less error prone than routines with lower cohesion. A study of 450 routines found that 50 percent of the highly cohesive routines were fault free compared to only 18 percent of routines with low cohesion. Another study of a different 450 routines found that routines with the highest coupling-to-cohesion ratios had 7 times as many errors as those with the lowest coupling-to-cohesion ratios and were 20 times as costly to fix. Although studies showed inconclusive results regarding the correlation between routine sizes and the rate of errors in them, but one study found that routines with fewer than 143 lines of code were 2.4 times less expensive to fix than larger routines. Another study showed that the code needed to be changed least when routines averaged 100 to 150 lines of code. Another study found that structural complexity and amount of data in a routine were correlated with errors regardless of its size. Interfaces between routines are some of the most error-prone areas of a program. One study showed that 39 percent of all errors were errors in communication between routines. Unused parameters are correlated with an increased error rate. In one study, only 17 to 29 percent of routines with more than one unreferenced variable had no errors, compared to 46 percent in routines with no unused variables. The number of parameters of a routine should be 7 at maximum as research has found that people generally cannot keep track of more than about seven chunks of information at once. One experiment showed that designs which access arrays sequentially, rather than randomly, result in fewer variables and fewer variable references. One experiment found that loops-with-exit are more comprehensible than other kinds of loops. Regarding the level of nesting in loops and conditionals, studies have shown that programmers have difficulty comprehending more than three levels of nesting. Control flow complexity has been shown to correlate with low reliability and frequent errors. Modularity Structuring and refactoring the code into classes, packages and other structures. When considering containment, the maximum number of data members in a class shouldn't exceed 7±2. Research has shown that this number is the number of discrete items a person can remember while performing other tasks. When considering inheritance, the number of levels in the inheritance tree should be limited. Deep inheritance trees have been found to be significantly associated with increased fault rates. When considering the number of routines in a class, it should be kept as small as possible. A study on C++ programs has found an association between the number of routines and the number of faults. A study by NASA showed that the putting the code into well-factored classes can double the code reusability compared to the code developed using functional design. Error handling Encoding logic to handle both planned and unplanned errors and exceptions. Resource management Managing computational resource use via exclusion mechanisms and discipline in accessing serially reusable resources, including threads or database locks. Security Prevention of code-level security breaches such as buffer overrun and array index overflow. Optimization Optimization while avoiding premature optimization. Documentation Both embedded in the code as comments and as external documents. === Integration === Integration is about combining separately constructed parts. Concerns include planning the sequence in which components will be integrated, creating scaffolding to support interim versions of the software, determining the degree of testing and quality work performed on components before they are integrated, and determining points in the project at which interim versions are tested. === Testing === Testing can reduce the time between when faulty logic is inserted in the code and when it is detected. In some cases, testing is performed after code has been written, but in test-first programming, test cases are created before code is written. Construction includes at least two forms of testing, often performed by the developer who wrote the code: unit testing and integration testing. === Reuse === Software reuse entails more than creating and using libraries. It requires formalizing the practice of reuse by integrating reuse processes and activities into the software life cycle. The tasks related to reuse in software construction during coding and testing may include: selection of the reusable code, evaluation of code or test re-usability, reporting reuse metrics. === Quality assurance === Techniques for ensuring quality as software is constructed include: Testing One study found that the average defect detection rates of Unit testing and integration testing are 30% and 35% respectively. Software inspection With respect to software inspection, one study found that the average defect detection rate of formal code inspections is 60%. Regarding the cost of finding defects, a study found that code reading detected 80% more faults per hour than testing. Another study shown that it costs six times more to detect design defects by using testing than by using inspections. A study by IBM showed that only 3.5 hours were needed to find a defect through code inspections versus 15–25 hours through testing. Microsoft has found that it takes 3 hours to find and fix a defect by using code inspections and 12 hours to find and fix a defect by using testing. In a 700 thousand lines program, it was reported that code reviews were several times as cost-effective as testing. Studies found that inspections result in 20% - 30% fewer defects per 1000 lines of code than less formal review practices and that they increase productivity by about 20%. Formal inspections will usually take 10% - 15% of the project budget and will reduce overall project cost. Researchers found that having more than 2 - 3 reviewers on a formal inspection doesn't increase the number of defects found, although the results seem to vary depending on the kind of material being inspected. Technical review With respect to technical review, one study found that the average defect detection rates of informal code reviews and desk checking are 25% and 40% respectively. Walkthroughs were found to have a defect detection rate of 20% - 40%, but were found also to be expensive especially when project pressures increase. Code reading was found by NASA to detect 3.3 defects per hour of effort versus 1.8 defects per hour for testing. It also finds 20% - 60% more errors over the life of the project than different kinds of testing. A study of 13 reviews about review meetings, found that 90% of the defects were found in preparation for the review meeting while only around 10% were found during the meeting. Static analysis With respect to Static analysis (IEEE1028), studies have shown that a combination of these techniques needs to be used to achieve a high defect detection rate. Other studies showed that different people tend to find different defects. One study found that the extreme programming practices of pair programming, desk checking, unit testing, integration testing, and regression testing can achieve a 90% defect detection rate. An experiment involving exper

  Read more →
• 

  EdgeRank

  EdgeRank is the name commonly given to the algorithm that Facebook uses to determine what articles should be displayed in a user's News Feed. As of 2011, Facebook has stopped using the EdgeRank system and uses a machine learning algorithm that, as of 2013, takes more than 100,000 factors into account. EdgeRank was developed and implemented by Serkan Piantino. == Formula and factors == In 2010, a simplified version of the EdgeRank algorithm was presented as: ∑ e d g e s e u e w e d e {\displaystyle \sum _{\mathrm {edges\,} e}u_{e}w_{e}d_{e}} where: u e {\displaystyle u_{e}} is user affinity. w e {\displaystyle w_{e}} is how the content is weighted. d e {\displaystyle d_{e}} is a time-based decay parameter. User Affinity: The User Affinity part of the algorithm in Facebook's EdgeRank looks at the relationship and proximity of the user and the content (post/status update). Content Weight: What action was taken by the user on the content. Time-Based Decay Parameter: New or old. Newer posts tend to hold a higher place than older posts. Some of the methods that Facebook uses to adjust the parameters are proprietary and not available to the public. A study has shown that it is possible to hypothesize a disadvantage of the "like" reaction and advantages of other interactions (e.g., the "haha" reaction or "comments") in content algorithmic ranking on Facebook. The "like" button can decrease the organic reach as a "brake effect of viral reach". The "haha" reaction, "comments" and the "love" reaction could achieve the highest increase in total organic reach. == Impact == EdgeRank and its successors have a broad impact on what users actually see out of what they ostensibly follow: for instance, the selection can produce a filter bubble (if users are exposed to updates which confirm their opinions etc.) or alter people's mood (if users are shown a disproportionate amount of positive or negative updates). As a result, for Facebook pages, the typical engagement rate is less than 1% (or less than 0.1% for the bigger ones), and organic reach 10% or less for most non-profits. As a consequence, for pages, it may be nearly impossible to reach any significant audience without paying to promote their content.

  Read more →
• 

  Reservoir sampling

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

• 

  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 →
• 

  Underwater computer vision

  Underwater computer vision is a subfield of computer vision. In recent years, with the development of underwater vehicles ( ROV, AUV, gliders), the need to be able to record and process huge amounts of information has become increasingly important. Applications range from inspection of underwater structures for the offshore industry to the identification and counting of fishes for biological research. However, no matter how big the impact of this technology can be to industry and research, it still is in a very early stage of development compared to traditional computer vision. One reason for this is that, the moment the camera goes into the water, a whole new set of challenges appear. On one hand, cameras have to be made waterproof, marine corrosion deteriorates materials quickly and access and modifications to experimental setups are costly, both in time and resources. On the other hand, the physical properties of the water make light behave differently, changing the appearance of a same object with variations of depth, organic material, currents, temperature etc. == Applications == Seafloor survey Vehicle navigation and positioning Biological monitoring {possibly aquatic biomonitoring) Video mosaics as visual navigation maps Submarine pipeline inspection Wreckage visualization Maintenance of underwater structures Drowning detection systems == Medium differences == === Illumination === In air, light comes from the whole hemisphere on cloudy days, and is dominated by the sun. In water direct lighting comes from a cone about 96° wide above the scene. This phenomenon is called Snell's window. Artificial lighting can be used where natural light levels are insufficient and where the light path is too long to produce acceptable colour, as the loss of colour is a function of the total distance through water from the source to the camera lens port. === Light attenuation === Unlike air, water attenuates light exponentially. This results in hazy images with very low contrast. The main reasons for light attenuation are light absorption (where energy is removed from the light) and light scattering, by which the direction of light is changed. Light scattering can further be divided into forward scattering, which results in an increased blurriness and backward scattering that limits the contrast and is responsible for the characteristic veil of underwater images. Both scattering and attenuation are heavily influenced by the amount of organic matter dissolved or suspended in the water. Light attenuation in water is also a function of the wavelength. This means that different colours are attenuated at different rates, leading to colour degradation.with depth and distance. Red and orange light are attenuated faster, followed by yellows and greens. Blue is the least attenuated visible wavelength. === Artificial lighting === == Challenges == In high level computer vision, human structures are frequently used as image features for image matching in different applications. However, the sea bottom lacks such features, making it hard to find correspondences in two images. In order to be able to use a camera in the water, a watertight housing is required. However, refraction will happen at the water-glass and glass-air interface due to differences in density of the materials. This has the effect of introducing a non-linear image deformation. The motion of the vehicle presents another special challenge. Underwater vehicles are constantly moving due to currents and other phenomena. This introduces another uncertainty to algorithms, where small motions may appear in all directions. This can be specially important for video tracking. In order to reduce this problem image stabilization algorithms may be applied. == Relevant technology == === Image restoration === Image restoration< techniques are intended to model the degradation process and then invert it, obtaining the new image after solving. It is generally a complex approach that requires plenty of parameters that vary a lot between different water conditions. === Image enhancement === Image enhancement only tries to provide a visually more appealing image without taking the physical image formation process into account. These methods are usually simpler and less computational intensive. === Color correction === Various algorithms exist that perform automatic color correction. The UCM (Unsupervised Color Correction Method), for example, does this in the following steps: It firstly reduces the color cast by equalizing the color values. Then it enhances contrast by stretching the red histogram towards the maximum and finally saturation and intensity components are optimized. == Underwater stereo vision == It is usually assumed that stereo cameras have been calibrated previously, geometrically and radiometrically. This leads to the assumption that corresponding pixels should have the same color. However this can not be guaranteed in an underwater scene, because of dispersion and backscatter. However, it is possible to digitally model this phenomenon and create a virtual image with those effects removed == Other application fields == Imaging sonars have become more and more accessible and gained resolution, delivering better images. Sidescan sonars are used to produce complete maps of regions of the sea floor stitching together sequences of sonar images. However, sonar images often lack proper contrast and are degraded by artefacts and distortions due to noise, attitude changes of the AUV/ROV carrying the sonar or non uniform beam patterns. Another common problem with sonar computer vision is the comparatively low frame rate of sonar images.

  Read more →
• 

  Kullback–Leibler Upper Confidence Bound

  In multi-armed bandit problems, KL-UCB (for Kullback–Leibler Upper Confidence Bound) is a UCB-type algorithm that is asymptotically optimal, in the sense that its regret matches the problem-dependent Lai-Robbins lower bound. == Multi-armed bandit problem == The Multi-armed bandit problem is a sequential game where one player has to choose at each turn between K {\displaystyle K} actions (arms). Behind every arm a {\displaystyle a} there is an unknown distribution ν a {\displaystyle \nu _{a}} that lies in a set D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} known by the player (for example, D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} can be the set of Gaussian distributions or Bernoulli distributions). At each turn t {\displaystyle t} the player chooses (pulls) an arm a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} , he then gets an observation X t {\displaystyle X_{t}} of the distribution ν a t {\displaystyle \nu _{a_{t}}} . === Regret minimization === The goal is to minimize the regret at time T {\displaystyle T} that is defined as R T := ∑ a = 1 K Δ a E [ N a ( T ) ] {\displaystyle R_{T}:=\sum _{a=1}^{K}\Delta _{a}\mathbb {E} [N_{a}(T)]} where μ a := E [ ν a ] {\displaystyle \mu _{a}:=\mathbb {E} [\nu _{a}]} is the mean of arm a {\displaystyle a} μ ∗ := max a μ a {\displaystyle \mu ^{}:=\max _{a}\mu _{a}} is the highest mean Δ a := μ ∗ − μ a {\displaystyle \Delta _{a}:=\mu ^{}-\mu _{a}} N a ( t ) {\displaystyle N_{a}(t)} is the number of pulls of arm a {\displaystyle a} up to turn t {\displaystyle t} The player has to find an algorithm that chooses at each turn t {\displaystyle t} which arm to pull based on the previous actions and observations ( a s , X s ) s < t {\displaystyle (a_{s},X_{s})_{s μ } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{inf}(\nu ,\mu ,{\mathcal {D}}):=\inf \left\{\mathrm {KL} (\nu ,{\tilde {\nu }})\ |\ {\tilde {\nu }}\in {\mathcal {D}},\ \mathbb {E} [{\tilde {\nu }}]>\mu \right\}} K L {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} } is the Kullback–Leibler divergence ν ^ a ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t)} is the empirical distribution of arm a {\displaystyle a} at turn t {\displaystyle t} δ t {\displaystyle \delta _{t}} is a well-chosen sequence of positive numbers, often equal to ln ⁡ t + c ln ⁡ ln ⁡ t {\displaystyle \ln t+c\ln \ln t} with c > 0 {\displaystyle c>0} . Then we choose the arm a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} with the highest index: a t := arg ⁡ max a U a ( t ) {\displaystyle a_{t}:=\arg \max _{a}U_{a}(t)} We note that the algorithm does not require knowledge of T {\displaystyle T} . === Example === In the special case of Gaussian distribution with fixed variance σ 2 {\displaystyle \sigma ^{2}} , we have: U a ( t ) = μ ^ a ( t ) + 2 σ 2 δ t N a ( t ) {\displaystyle U_{a}(t)={\hat {\mu }}_{a}(t)+{\sqrt {\frac {2\sigma ^{2}\delta _{t}}{N_{a}(t)}}}} with μ ^ a ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\mu }}_{a}(t)} being the empirical mean of arm a {\displaystyle a} at turn t {\displaystyle t} . === Pseudocode === The player gets the set D for each arm i do: n[i] ← 1; nu[i] ← None; d ← ln(K) for t from 1 to K do: select arm t observe reward r n[t] ← n[t] + 1 nu[t] ← update empirical distribution for t from K+1 to T do: for each arm i do: index[i] ← compute_index(n[i], nu[i], D, d) select arm a with highest index[a] observe reward r n[a] ← n[a] + 1 nu[a] ← update empirical distribution d ← ln(t+1) == Theoretical results == In the multi-armed bandit problem we have the Lai–Robbins asymptotic lower bound on regret. The algorithm KL-UCB matches this lower bound for one-dimensional exponential families with δ t := ln ⁡ t + 3 ln ⁡ ln ⁡ t {\displaystyle \delta _{t}:=\ln t+3\ln \ln t} and for distributions bounded in [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} with δ t := ln ⁡ t + ln ⁡ ln ⁡ t {\displaystyle \delta _{t}:=\ln t+\ln \ln t} . === Lai–Robbins lower bound === In 1985 Lai and Robbins proved an asymptotic, problem-dependent lower bound on regret. It states that for every consistent algorithm on the set D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} — that is, an algorithm for which, for every ( ν 1 , … , ν K ) ∈ D K {\displaystyle (\nu _{1},\dots ,\nu _{K})\in {\mathcal {D}}^{K}} , the regret R T {\displaystyle R_{T}} is subpolynomial (i.e. R T = o T → + ∞ ( T α ) {\displaystyle R_{T}=o_{T\to +\infty }(T^{\alpha })} for all α > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha >0} ) — we have: R T ≥ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ , D ) ) ln ⁡ T + o T → + ∞ ( ln ⁡ T ) . {\displaystyle R_{T}\geq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{},{\mathcal {D}})}}\right)\ln T+o_{T\to +\infty }(\ln T).} This bound is asymptotic (as T → + ∞ {\displaystyle T\to +\infty } ) and gives a first-order lower bound of order ln ⁡ T {\displaystyle \ln T} with the optimal constant in front of it. === Regret bound for KL-UCB === The algorithm matches the Lai–Robbins lower bound for one-dimensional exponential-family distributions and for distributions bounded in [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} . ==== One-dimensional exponential family ==== For D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} being the set of one-dimensional exponential families, with δ t := ln ⁡ t + 3 ln ⁡ ln ⁡ t {\displaystyle \delta _{t}:=\ln t+3\ln \ln t} we have the following upper bound on the regret of KL-UCB: R T ≤ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ , D ) ) ln ⁡ T + O T ( ln ⁡ T ) . {\displaystyle R_{T}\leq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{},{\mathcal {D}})}}\right)\ln T+O_{T}({\sqrt {\ln T}}).} ==== Bounded distributions in [0,1] ==== For D = P ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}={\mathcal {P}}([0,1])} (the set of distributions supported on [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} ), and for δ t := ln ⁡ t + ln ⁡ ln ⁡ t {\displaystyle \delta _{t}:=\ln t+\ln \ln t} , we have the following upper bound on the regret of KL-UCB: R T ≤ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ , D ) ) ln ⁡ T + O T ( ( ln ⁡ T ) 4 / 5 ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T ) . {\displaystyle R_{T}\leq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{},{\mathcal {D}})}}\right)\ln T+O_{T}{\big (}(\ln T)^{4/5}\ln \ln T{\big )}.} === Runtime === For D = P ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}={\mathcal {P}}([0,1])} , the runtime needed per step and for an arm k {\displaystyle k} with n {\displaystyle n} observations is O ( n ( ln ⁡ n ) 2 ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}{\big (}n(\ln n)^{2}{\big )}} . This is higher than that of other optimal algorithms, such as NPTS with O ( n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n)} . MED with O ( n ln ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n\ln n)} . and IMED with O ( n ln ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n\ln n)} . The high runtime of KL-UCB is due to a two-level optimisation: for each arm and candidate mean μ {\displaystyle \mu } , the algorithm evaluates K inf ( ν ^ a ( t ) , μ , D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }({\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t),\mu ,{\mathcal {D}})} and then maximises μ {\displaystyle \mu } subject to N a ( t ) K inf ( ν ^ a ( t ) , μ , D ) ≤ δ t {\displaystyle N_{a}(t)\,{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }({\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t),\mu ,{\mathcal {D}})\leq \delta _{t}} . For distributions bounded in [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} the inner problem has no closed form and must be solved numerically, which increases the per-step cost.

  Read more →
• 

  Leiden algorithm

  The Leiden algorithm is a community detection algorithm developed by Traag et al at Leiden University. It was developed as a modification of the Louvain method. Like the Louvain method, the Leiden algorithm attempts to optimize modularity in extracting communities from networks; however, it addresses key issues present in the Louvain method, namely poorly connected communities and the resolution limit of modularity. == Improvement over Louvain method == Broadly, the Leiden algorithm uses the same two primary phases as the Louvain algorithm: a local node moving step (though, the method by which nodes are considered in Leiden is more efficient) and a graph aggregation step. However, to address the issues with poorly-connected communities and the merging of smaller communities into larger communities (the resolution limit of modularity), the Leiden algorithm employs an intermediate refinement phase in which communities may be split to guarantee that all communities are well-connected. Consider, for example, the following graph: Three communities are present in this graph (each color represents a community). Additionally, the center "bridge" node (represented with an extra circle) is a member of the community represented by blue nodes. Now consider the result of a node-moving step which merges the communities denoted by red and green nodes into a single community (as the two communities are highly connected): Notably, the center "bridge" node is now a member of the larger red community after node moving occurs (due to the greedy nature of the local node moving algorithm). In the Louvain method, such a merging would be followed immediately by the graph aggregation phase. However, this causes a disconnection between two different sections of the community represented by blue nodes. In the Leiden algorithm, the graph is instead refined: The Leiden algorithm's refinement step ensures that the center "bridge" node is kept in the blue community to ensure that it remains intact and connected, despite the potential improvement in modularity from adding the center "bridge" node to the red community. == Graph components == Before defining the Leiden algorithm, it will be helpful to define some of the components of a graph. === Vertices and edges === A graph is composed of vertices (nodes) and edges. Each edge is connected to two vertices, and each vertex may be connected to zero or more edges. Edges are typically represented by straight lines, while nodes are represented by circles or points. In set notation, let V {\displaystyle V} be the set of vertices, and E {\displaystyle E} be the set of edges: V := { v 1 , v 2 , … , v n } E := { e i j , e i k , … , e k l } {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}V&:=\{v_{1},v_{2},\dots ,v_{n}\}\\E&:=\{e_{ij},e_{ik},\dots ,e_{kl}\}\end{aligned}}} where e i j {\displaystyle e_{ij}} is the directed edge from vertex v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} to vertex v j {\displaystyle v_{j}} . We can also write this as an ordered pair: e i j := ( v i , v j ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}e_{ij}&:=(v_{i},v_{j})\end{aligned}}} === Community === A community is a unique set of nodes: C i ⊆ V C i ⋂ C j = ∅ ∀ i ≠ j {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}C_{i}&\subseteq V\\C_{i}&\bigcap C_{j}=\emptyset ~\forall ~i\neq j\end{aligned}}} and the union of all communities must be the total set of vertices: V = ⋃ i = 1 C i {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}V&=\bigcup _{i=1}C_{i}\end{aligned}}} === Partition === A partition is the set of all communities: P = { C 1 , C 2 , … , C n } {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\mathcal {P}}&=\{C_{1},C_{2},\dots ,C_{n}\}\end{aligned}}} == Partition quality == How communities are partitioned is an integral part on the Leiden algorithm. How partitions are decided can depend on how their quality is measured. Additionally, many of these metrics contain parameters of their own that can change the outcome of their communities. === Modularity === Modularity is a highly used quality metric for assessing how well a set of communities partition a graph. The equation for this metric is defined for an adjacency matrix, A, as: Q = 1 2 m ∑ i j ( A i j − k i k j 2 m ) δ ( c i , c j ) {\displaystyle Q={\frac {1}{2m}}\sum _{ij}(A_{ij}-{\frac {k_{i}k_{j}}{2m}})\delta (c_{i},c_{j})} where: A i j {\displaystyle A_{ij}} represents the edge weight between nodes i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} ; see Adjacency matrix; k i {\displaystyle k_{i}} and k j {\displaystyle k_{j}} are the sum of the weights of the edges attached to nodes i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} , respectively; m {\displaystyle m} is the sum of all of the edge weights in the graph; c i {\displaystyle c_{i}} and c j {\displaystyle c_{j}} are the communities to which the nodes i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} belong; and δ {\displaystyle \delta } is Kronecker delta function: δ ( c i , c j ) = { 1 if c i and c j are the same community 0 otherwise {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\delta (c_{i},c_{j})&={\begin{cases}1&{\text{if }}c_{i}{\text{ and }}c_{j}{\text{ are the same community}}\\0&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}\end{aligned}}} === Reichardt Bornholdt Potts Model (RB) === One of the most well used metrics for the Leiden algorithm is the Reichardt Bornholdt Potts Model (RB). This model is used by default in most mainstream Leiden algorithm libraries under the name RBConfigurationVertexPartition. This model introduces a resolution parameter γ {\displaystyle \gamma } and is highly similar to the equation for modularity. This model is defined by the following quality function for an adjacency matrix, A, as: Q = ∑ i j ( A i j − γ k i k j 2 m ) δ ( c i , c j ) {\displaystyle Q=\sum _{ij}(A_{ij}-\gamma {\frac {k_{i}k_{j}}{2m}})\delta (c_{i},c_{j})} where: γ {\displaystyle \gamma } represents a linear resolution parameter === Constant Potts Model (CPM) === Another metric similar to RB is the Constant Potts Model (CPM). This metric also relies on a resolution parameter γ {\displaystyle \gamma } The quality function is defined as: H = − ∑ i j ( A i j w i j − γ ) δ ( c i , c j ) {\displaystyle H=-\sum _{ij}(A_{ij}w_{ij}-\gamma )\delta (c_{i},c_{j})} === Understanding Potts Model resolution parameters/Resolution limit === Typically Potts models such as RB or CPM include a resolution parameter in their calculation. Potts models are introduced as a response to the resolution limit problem that is present in modularity maximization based community detection. The resolution limit problem is that, for some graphs, maximizing modularity may cause substructures of a graph to merge and become a single community and thus smaller structures are lost. These resolution parameters allow modularity adjacent methods to be modified to suit the requirements of the user applying the Leiden algorithm to account for small substructures at a certain granularity. The figure on the right illustrates why resolution can be a helpful parameter when using modularity based quality metrics. In the first graph, modularity only captures the large scale structures of the graph; however, in the second example, a more granular quality metric could potentially detect all substructures in a graph. == Algorithm == The Leiden algorithm starts with a graph of disorganized nodes (a) and sorts it by partitioning them to maximize modularity (the difference in quality between the generated partition and a hypothetical randomized partition of communities). The method it uses is similar to the Louvain algorithm, except that after moving each node it also considers that node's neighbors that are not already in the community it was placed in. This process results in our first partition (b), also referred to as P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} . Then the algorithm refines this partition by first placing each node into its own individual community and then moving them from one community to another to maximize modularity. It does this iteratively until each node has been visited and moved, and each community has been refined - this creates partition (c), which is the initial partition of P refined {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{\text{refined}}} . Then an aggregate network (d) is created by turning each community into a node. P refined {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{\text{refined}}} is used as the basis for the aggregate network while P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} is used to create its initial partition. Because we use the original partition P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} in this step, we must retain it so that it can be used in future iterations. These steps together form the first iteration of the algorithm. In subsequent iterations, the nodes of the aggregate network (which each represent a community) are once again placed into their own individual communities and then sorted according to modularity to form a new P refined {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{\text{refined}}} , forming (e) in the above graphic. In the case depicted by the graph, the nodes were already sorted optimally, so no change too

  Read more →
• 

  CENDI

  CENDI (Commerce, Energy, NASA, Defense Information Managers Group) is an interagency group of senior Scientific and Technical Information (STI) managers from 14 United States federal agencies. CENDI managers cooperate by exchanging information and ideas, collaborating to address common issues, and undertaking joint initiatives. CENDI's accomplishments range from impacting federal information policy to educating a broad spectrum of stakeholders on all aspects of federal STI systems, including its value to research and the taxpayer, and to operational improvements in agency and interagency STI operations. == History == CENDI traces its roots to the Committee on Scientific and Technical Information (COSATI) of the Federal Council on Science and Technology. COSATI was established in the early 1960s to coordinate the management of the results from the U.S. government's increasing commitment to scientific research and technology development. The scientific and technical information (STI) managers of the government's major research and development (R&D) agencies worked within COSATI to standardize guidelines for cataloging and indexing technical reports. COSATI ceased formal operations in the early 1970s. To continue the cooperation begun under COSATI, managers of agency STI programs from Commerce (National Technical Information Service), Energy (Office of Scientific and Technical Information), NASA (HQ/STI Division), and Defense (Defense Technical Information Center) began meeting periodically to discuss common topics and stimulate more effective cooperation. In 1985, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the four charter agencies and CENDI was established. From this small core of STI managers, CENDI has grown to its current membership, which represents the major science agencies, the national libraries, and agencies involved in the dissemination and long-term management of scientific and technical information. The vision of CENDI is to facilitate cooperative enterprise where capabilities are shared and challenges are faced together so that the sum of the accomplishments is greater than each individual agency can achieve on its own amongst federal STI agencies. The abbreviation CENDI refers to the "Commerce, Energy, NASA, Defense Information Managers Group". == Membership == New members from other federal R&D information organizations may be admitted by unanimous agreement of the members. However, it is the intent of the group that membership in CENDI should remain small and focus on organizations with STI or supporting responsibilities. Each agency provides funding to CENDI. == Members == The members of CENDI are: Defense Technical Information Center (United States Department of Defense) Office of Research and Development and Office of Environmental Information (United States Environmental Protection Agency) Government Printing Office Library of Congress NASA Scientific and Technical Information Program National Agricultural Library (United States Department of Agriculture) National Archives and Records Administration National Library of Education (United States Department of Education) National Library of Medicine (United States Department of Health and Human Services) National Science Foundation National Technical Information Service (United States Department of Commerce) National Transportation Library (United States Department of Transportation) Office of Scientific and Technical Information (United States Department of Energy) USGS/Biological Resources Discipline (United States Department of the Interior) == Mission and operation == CENDI's mission is to help improve the productivity of federal science- and technology-based programs through effective scientific, technical, and related information support systems. In fulfilling its mission, CENDI agencies play an important role in addressing science- and technology-based national priorities and strengthening U.S. competitiveness. === Goals === STI Coordination and Leadership: Provide coordination and leadership for information exchange on important STI policy issues. Improvement of STI Systems: Promote the development of improved STI systems through the productive interrelationship of content and technology. STI Understanding: Promote better understanding of STI and STI management. === Principals and Alternates === CENDI is made up of senior federal STI managers and each organization appoints a Principal representative. This person is the point of contact for that organization within CENDI. Each Principal has an Alternate. The Principals and Alternates comprise the main group that meets on a regular basis, usually every other month. === Secretariat === A Tennessee-based information management company, -- Information International Associates, Inc., currently serves as the CENDI Secretariat. The Secretariat provides day-to-day operations to CENDI. The Secretariat prepares the necessary materials for the Principals' meetings, provides support for the working group and task group meetings, assists in developing papers, and maintains the CENDI files and outreach tools. === Task Groups and Working Groups === The chair(s) of a working group is appointed by the Principals and has the overall responsibility for the group's activities. The Secretariat provides support at the request of the Working Group chair(s). The Working Groups and Task Groups that are currently operating are: Copyright and Intellectual Property Working Group Distribution Markings Task Group Digital Preservation Task Group Digitization Specifications Task Group Image Metadata Task Group Science.gov (see below) STI Policy Working Group Terminology Resources Task Group === Science.gov and Worldwidescience.org === In 2001, in response to the April 2001 workshop on "Strengthening the Public Information Infrastructure for Science", and taking into consideration a request from Firstgov (now USA.gov) to develop specialized topical portals, CENDI formed an alliance to develop an interagency website for access to STI. This website, called Science.gov, is a one-stop source of STI, including both selected, authoritative government websites and deep Web databases of technical reports, journal articles, conference proceedings, and other published materials. Through the volunteer efforts of members and involving over 100 staff, content and architecture is developed for the site. The Science.gov website is hosted by the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). The site was formally launched in December 2002. As a result of the success of Science.gov, under DOE leadership and in cooperation with the International Council of Scientific and Technical Information, a worldwide coordination across national portals called WorldWideScience was launched in 2008. === Work with non-member organizations === CENDI works with several cooperating non-member organizations on a regular basis. These agencies are in academia, federal government, legal and policy analysis, international, non-governmental, and private organizations.

  Read more →
• 

  Information extraction

  Information extraction (IE) is the task of automatically extracting structured information from unstructured and/or semi-structured machine-readable documents and other electronically represented sources. Typically, this involves processing human language texts by means of natural language processing (NLP). Recent activities in multimedia document processing like automatic annotation and content extraction out of images/audio/video/documents could be seen as information extraction. Recent advances in NLP techniques have allowed for significantly improved performance compared to previous years. An example is the extraction from newswire reports of corporate mergers, such as denoted by the formal relation: MergerBetween ⁡ ( c o m p a n y 1 , c o m p a n y 2 , d a t e ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {MergerBetween} (\mathrm {company} _{1},\mathrm {company} _{2},\mathrm {date} )} , from an online news sentence such as: "Yesterday, New York based Foo Inc. announced their acquisition of Bar Corp." A broad goal of IE is to allow computation to be done on the previously unstructured data. A more specific goal is to allow automated reasoning about the logical form of the input data. Structured data is semantically well-defined data from a chosen target domain, interpreted with respect to category and context. Information extraction is the part of a greater puzzle which deals with the problem of devising automatic methods for text management, beyond its transmission, storage and display. The discipline of information retrieval (IR) has developed automatic methods, typically of a statistical flavor, for indexing large document collections and classifying documents. Another complementary approach is that of natural language processing (NLP) which has solved the problem of modelling human language processing with considerable success when taking into account the magnitude of the task. In terms of both difficulty and emphasis, IE deals with tasks in between both IR and NLP. In terms of input, IE assumes the existence of a set of documents in which each document follows a template, i.e. describes one or more entities or events in a manner that is similar to those in other documents but differing in the details. An example, consider a group of newswire articles on Latin American terrorism with each article presumed to be based upon one or more terroristic acts. We also define for any given IE task a template, which is a(or a set of) case frame(s) to hold the information contained in a single document. For the terrorism example, a template would have slots corresponding to the perpetrator, victim, and weapon of the terroristic act, and the date on which the event happened. An IE system for this problem is required to "understand" an attack article only enough to find data corresponding to the slots in this template. == History == Information extraction dates back to the late 1970s in the early days of NLP. An early commercial system from the mid-1980s was JASPER built for Reuters by the Carnegie Group Inc with the aim of providing real-time financial news to financial traders. Beginning in 1987, IE was spurred by a series of Message Understanding Conferences. MUC is a competition-based conference that focused on the following domains: MUC-1 (1987), MUC-3 (1989): Naval operations messages. MUC-3 (1991), MUC-4 (1992): Terrorism in Latin American countries. MUC-5 (1993): Joint ventures and microelectronics domain. MUC-6 (1995): News articles on management changes. MUC-7 (1998): Satellite launch reports. Considerable support came from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), who wished to automate mundane tasks performed by government analysts, such as scanning newspapers for possible links to terrorism. == Present significance == The present significance of IE pertains to the growing amount of information available in unstructured form. Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, refers to the existing Internet as the web of documents and advocates that more of the content be made available as a web of data. Until this transpires, the web largely consists of unstructured documents lacking semantic metadata. Knowledge contained within these documents can be made more accessible for machine processing by means of transformation into relational form, or by marking-up with XML tags. An intelligent agent monitoring a news data feed requires IE to transform unstructured data into something that can be reasoned with. A typical application of IE is to scan a set of documents written in a natural language and populate a database with the information extracted. == Tasks and subtasks == Applying information extraction to text is linked to the problem of text simplification in order to create a structured view of the information present in free text. The overall goal being to create a more easily machine-readable text to process the sentences. Typical IE tasks and subtasks include: Template filling: Extracting a fixed set of fields from a document, e.g. extract perpetrators, victims, time, etc. from a newspaper article about a terrorist attack. Event extraction: Given an input document, output zero or more event templates. For instance, a newspaper article might describe multiple terrorist attacks. Knowledge Base Population: Fill a database of facts given a set of documents. Typically the database is in the form of triplets, (entity 1, relation, entity 2), e.g. (Barack Obama, Spouse, Michelle Obama) Named entity recognition: recognition of known entity names (for people and organizations), place names, temporal expressions, and certain types of numerical expressions, by employing existing knowledge of the domain or information extracted from other sentences. Typically the recognition task involves assigning a unique identifier to the extracted entity. A simpler task is named entity detection, which aims at detecting entities without having any existing knowledge about the entity instances. For example, in processing the sentence "M. Smith likes fishing", named entity detection would denote detecting that the phrase "M. Smith" does refer to a person, but without necessarily having (or using) any knowledge about a certain M. Smith who is (or, "might be") the specific person whom that sentence is talking about. Coreference resolution: detection of coreference and anaphoric links between text entities. In IE tasks, this is typically restricted to finding links between previously extracted named entities. For example, "International Business Machines" and "IBM" refer to the same real-world entity. If we take the two sentences "M. Smith likes fishing. But he doesn't like biking", it would be beneficial to detect that "he" is referring to the previously detected person "M. Smith". Relationship extraction: identification of relations between entities, such as: PERSON works for ORGANIZATION (extracted from the sentence "Bill works for IBM.") PERSON located in LOCATION (extracted from the sentence "Bill is in France.") Semi-structured information extraction which may refer to any IE that tries to restore some kind of information structure that has been lost through publication, such as: Table extraction: finding and extracting tables from documents. Table information extraction : extracting information in structured manner from the tables. This task is more complex than table extraction, as table extraction is only the first step, while understanding the roles of the cells, rows, columns, linking the information inside the table and understanding the information presented in the table are additional tasks necessary for table information extraction. Comments extraction : extracting comments from the actual content of articles in order to restore the link between authors of each of the sentences Language and vocabulary analysis Terminology extraction: finding the relevant terms for a given corpus Audio extraction Template-based music extraction: finding relevant characteristic in an audio signal taken from a given repertoire; for instance time indexes of occurrences of percussive sounds can be extracted in order to represent the essential rhythmic component of a music piece. Note that this list is not exhaustive and that the exact meaning of IE activities is not commonly accepted and that many approaches combine multiple sub-tasks of IE in order to achieve a wider goal. Machine learning, statistical analysis and/or natural language processing are often used in IE. IE on non-text documents is becoming an increasingly interesting topic in research, and information extracted from multimedia documents can now be expressed in a high level structure as it is done on text. This naturally leads to the fusion of extracted information from multiple kinds of documents and sources. == World Wide Web applications == IE has been the focus of the MUC conferences. The proliferation of the Web, however, intensified the need for developing IE systems that help people

  Read more →
• 

  Cancer Likelihood in Plasma

  Cancer Likelihood in Plasma (CLiP) refers to a set of ensemble learning methods for integrating various genomic features useful for the noninvasive detection of early cancers from blood plasma. An application of this technique for early detection of lung cancer (Lung-CLiP) was originally described by Chabon et al. (2020) from the labs of Ash Alizadeh and Max Diehn at Stanford. This method relies on several improvements to cancer personalized profiling by deep sequencing (CAPP-Seq) for analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). The CLiP technique integrates multiple distinctive genomic features of a cancer of interest findings within a machine-learning framework for cancer detection. For example, studies have shown that the majority of somatic mutations found in cell-free DNA (cfDNA) are not tumor derived, but instead reflect clonal hematopoeisis (also known as CHIP). Even though CHIP tends to target specific genes, it also involves many generally non-recurrent mutations that can be shed from leukocytes and detected in cfDNA, regardless of whether profiling patients with cancer and healthy adults. However, genuine tumor derived ctDNA mutations can be distinguished from CHIP-derived mutations. This is because unlike tumor-derived mutations, CHIP-derived mutations that are shed from leukocytes into plasma tend to occur on longer cfDNA fragments, and to lack specific mutational signatures such as those associated with tobacco smoking in lung cancer that are also found in tumor derived ctDNA molecules. CLiP integrates these features within hierarchical ensemble machine learning models that consider somatic mutations and copy number alternations, among other features. While the CLiP method is unique in relying exclusively on mutations and copy number alterations, it is related to a variety of other liquid biopsy methods being commercially developed for early cancer detection using ctDNA and proteins (e.g., CancerSEEK / DETECT-A ), cfDNA fragmentation patterns (e.g., DELFI), and DNA methylation (e.g., cfMeDIP-Seq, Grail). While the CLiP method has not yet been broadly applied for population-based cancer screening, it has been shown to distinguish discriminate early-stage lung cancers from risk-matched controls across multiple cohorts of patients enrolled across the US.

  Read more →
• 

  Data management plan

  A data management plan or DMP is a formal document that outlines how data are to be handled both during a research project, and after the project is completed. The goal of a data management plan is to consider the many aspects of data management, metadata generation, data preservation, and analysis before the project begins; this may lead to data being well-managed in the present, and prepared for preservation in the future. DMPs were originally used in 1966 to manage aeronautical and engineering projects' data collection and analysis, and expanded across engineering and scientific disciplines in the 1970s and 1980s. Up until the early 2000s, DMPs were used "for projects of great technical complexity, and for limited mid-study data collection and processing purposes". In the 2000s and later, E-research and economic policies drove the development and uptake of DMPs. == Importance == Preparing a data management plan before data are collected is claimed to ensure that data are in the correct format, organized well, and better annotated. This could arguably save time in the long term because there is no need to re-organize, re-format, or try to remember details about data. It is also claimed to increase research efficiency since both the data collector and other researchers might be able to understand and use well-annotated data in the future. One component of a data management plan is data archiving and preservation. By deciding on an archive ahead of time, the data collector can format data during collection to make its future submission to a database easier. If data are preserved, they are more relevant since they can be re-used by other researchers. It also allows the data collector to direct requests for data to the database, rather than address requests individually. A frequent argument in favor of preservation is that data that are preserved have the potential to lead to new, unanticipated discoveries, and they prevent duplication of scientific studies that have already been conducted. Data archiving also provides insurance against loss by the data collector. In the 2010s, funding agencies increasingly required data management plans as part of the proposal and evaluation process, despite little or no evidence of their efficacy. == Major components == "There is no general and definitive list of topics that should be covered in a DMP for a research project", and researchers are often left to their own devices as to how to fill out a DMP. === Information about data and data format === A description of data to be produced by the project. This might include (but is not limited to) data that are: Experimental Observational Raw or derived Physical collections Models Simulations Curriculum materials Software Images How will the data be acquired? When and where will they be acquired? After collection, how will the data be processed? Include information about Software used Algorithms Scientific workflows File formats that will be used, justify those formats, and describe the naming conventions used. Quality assurance & quality control measures that will be taken during sample collection, analysis, and processing. If existing data are used, what are their origins? How will the data collected be combined with existing data? What is the relationship between the data collected and existing data? How will the data be managed in the short-term? Consider the following: Version control for files Backing up data and data products Security & protection of data and data products Who will be responsible for management === Metadata content and format === Metadata are the contextual details, including any information important for using data. This may include descriptions of temporal and spatial details, instruments, parameters, units, files, etc. Metadata is commonly referred to as "data about data". Issues to be considered include: How detailed has the metadata to be in order to make the data meaningful? How will the metadata be created and/or captured? Examples include lab notebooks, GPS hand-held units, Auto-saved files on instruments, etc. What format will be used for the metadata? What are the metadata standards commonly used in the respective scientific discipline? There should be justification for the format chosen. === Policies for access, sharing, and re-use === Describe any obligations that exist for sharing data collected. These may include obligations from funding agencies, institutions, other professional organizations, and legal requirements. Include information about how data will be shared, including when the data will be accessible, how long the data will be available, how access can be gained, and any rights that the data collector reserves for using data. Address any ethical or privacy issues with data sharing Address intellectual property & copyright issues. Who owns the copyright? What are the institutional, publisher, and/or funding agency policies associated with intellectual property? Are there embargoes for political, commercial, or patent reasons? Describe the intended future uses/users for the data Indicate how the data should be cited by others. How will the issue of persistent citation be addressed? For example, if the data will be deposited in a public archive, will the dataset have a persistent identifier (e.g., ARK, DOI, Handle, PURL, URN) assigned to it? === Long-term storage and data management === Researchers should identify an appropriate archive for the long-term preservation of their data. By identifying the archive early in the project, the data can be formatted, transformed, and documented appropriately to meet the requirements of the archive. Researchers should consult colleagues and professional societies in their discipline to determine the most appropriate database, and include a backup archive in their data management plan in case their first choice goes out of existence. Early in the project, the primary researcher should identify what data will be preserved in an archive. Usually, preserving the data in its most raw form is desirable, although data derivatives and products can also be preserved. An individual should be identified as the primary contact person for archived data, and ensure contact information is always kept up-to-date in case there are requests for data or information about data. === Budget === Data management and preservation costs may be considerable, depending on the nature of the project. By anticipating costs ahead of time, researchers ensure that the data will be properly managed and archived. Potential expenses that should be considered are Human resources and staff as they handle data preparation, management, documentation, and preservation Hardware and/or software needed for data management, backing up, security, documentation, and preservation Costs associated with submitting the data to an archive The data management plan should include how these costs will be paid. == NSF Data Management Plan == All grant proposals submitted to National Science Foundation (NSF) must include a Data Management Plan that is no more than two pages. This is a supplement (not part of the 15-page proposal) and should describe how the proposal will conform to the Award and Administration Guide policy (see below). It may include the following: The types of data The standards to be used for data and metadata format and content Policies for access and sharing Policies and provisions for re-use Plans for archiving data Policy summarized from the NSF Award and Administration Guide, Section 4 (Dissemination and Sharing of Research Results): Promptly publish with appropriate authorship Share data, samples, physical collections, and supporting materials with others, within a reasonable time frame Share software and inventions Investigators can keep their legal rights over their intellectual property, but they still have to make their results, data, and collections available to others Policies will be implemented via Proposal review Award negotiations and conditions Support/incentives == ESRC Data Management Plan == Since 1995, the UK's Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) have had a research data policy in place. The current ESRC Research Data Policy states that research data created as a result of ESRC-funded research should be openly available to the scientific community to the maximum extent possible, through long-term preservation and high-quality data management. ESRC requires a data management plan for all research award applications where new data are being created. Such plans are designed to promote a structured approach to data management throughout the data lifecycle, resulting in better quality data that is ready to archive for sharing and re-use. The UK Data Service, the ESRC's flagship data service, provides practical guidance on research data management planning suitable for social science researchers in the UK and around the world. ESRC has a longstanding arrangement with the UK Data A

  Read more →
• 

  Subject (documents)

  In library and information science documents (such as books, articles and pictures) are classified and searched by subject – as well as by other attributes such as author, genre and document type. This makes "subject" a fundamental term in this field. Library and information specialists assign subject labels to documents to make them findable. There are many ways to do this and in general there is not always consensus about which subject should be assigned to a given document. To optimize subject indexing and searching, we need to have a deeper understanding of what a subject is. The question: "what is to be understood by the statement 'document A belongs to subject category X'?" has been debated in the field for more than 100 years (see below) == Theoretical view == === Charles Ammi Cutter (1837–1903) === For Cutter the stability of subjects depends on a social process in which their meaning is stabilized in a name or a designation. A subject "referred [...] to those intellections [...] that had received a name that itself represented a distinct consensus in usage" (Miksa, 1983a, p. 60) and: the "systematic structure of established subjects" is "resident in the public realm" (Miksa, 1983a, p. 69); "[s]ubjects are by their very nature locations in a classificatory structure of publicly accumulated knowledge (Miksa, 1983a, p. 61). Bernd Frohmann adds: "The stability of the public realm in turn relies upon natural and objective mental structures which, with proper education, govern a natural progression from particular to general concepts. Since for Cutter, mind, society, and SKO [Systems of Knowledge Organization] stand one behind the other, each supporting each, all manifesting the same structure, his discursive construction of subjects invites connections with discourses of mind, education, and society. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), by contrast, severs those connections. Melvil Dewey emphasized more than once that his system maps no structure beyond its own; there is neither a "transcendental deduction" of its categories nor any reference to Cutter's objective structure of social consensus. It is content-free: Dewey disdained any philosophical excogitation of the meaning of his class symbols, leaving the job of finding verbal equivalents to others. His innovation and the essence of the system lay in the notation. The DDC is a poorly semiotic system of expanding nests of ten digits, lacking any referent beyond itself. In it, a subject is wholly constituted in terms of its position in the system. The essential characteristic of a subject is a class symbol which refers only to other symbols. Its verbal equivalent is accidental, a merely pragmatic characteristic... .... The conflict of interpretations over "subjects" became explicit in the battles between "bibliography" (an approach to subjects having much in common with Cutter's) and Dewey's "close classification". William Fletcher spoke for the scholarly bibliographer.... Fletcher's "subjects", like Cutter's, referred to the categories of a fantasized, stable social order, whereas Dewey's subjects were elements of a semiological system of standardized, techno-bureaucratic administrative software for the library in its corporate, rather than high culture, incarnation". (Frohmann, 1994, 112–113). Cutter's early view on what a subject is, is probably wiser than most understandings that dominated the 20th century – and also the understanding reflected in the ISO-standard quoted below. The early statements quoted by Frohmann indicate that subjects are somehow shaped in social processes. When that is said, it should be added that they are not particularly detailed or clear. We only get a vague idea of the social nature of subjects. === S. R. Ranganathan (1892–1972) === A classification system with an explicit theoretical foundation is Ranganathan's Colon Classification. Ranganathan provided an explicit definition of the concept of "subject": Subject – an organized body of ideas, whose extension and intension are likely to fall coherently within the field of interests and comfortably within the intellectual competence and the field of inevitable specialization of a normal person. A related definition is given by one of Ranganathan's students: A subject is an organized and systematized body of ideas. It may consist of one idea or a combination of several... Ranganathan's definition of "subject" is strongly influenced by his Colon Classification system. The colon system is based on the combination of single elements from facets to subject designation. This is the reason why the combined nature of subjects are emphasized so strongly. It leads, however, to absurdities such as the claim that gold cannot be a subject (but is alternatively termed "an isolate"). This aspect of the theory has been criticized by Metcalfe (1973, p. 318). Metcalfe's skepticism regarding Ranganathan's theory is formulated in hard words (op. cit., p. 317): "This pseudo-science imposed itself on British disciples from about 1950 on...". It seems unacceptable that Ranganathan defines the word subject in a way that favors his own system. A scientific concept like "subject" should make it possible to compare different ways of establishing access to information. Whether or not subjects are combined or not should be examined once their definition has been given, it should not determined a priori, in the definition. Besides the emphasis on the combined, organizing and systematizing nature of subjects contains Ranganathan's definition of subject the pragmatic demand, that a subject should be determined in a way that suits a normal person's competency or specialization. Again we see a strange kind of wishful thinking mixing a general understanding of a concept with demands put by his own specific system. One thing is what the word subject means, quite another issue is how to provide subject descriptions that fulfill demands such as the specificity of a given information retrieval language which fulfill demands put on the system, such as precision and recall. If researchers too often define terms in ways that favor specific kinds of systems, that are such definitions not useful to provide more general theories about subjects, subject analysis and IR. Among other things are comparative studies of different kinds of systems made difficult. Based on these arguments, as well as additional arguments which have been used in the literature, we may conclude that Ranganathan's definition of the concept "subject" is not suited for scientific use. Like the definition of "subject" given by the ISO-standard for topic maps, may Ranganathan's definition be useful within his own closed system. The purpose of a scientific and scholarly field is, however, to examine the relative fruitfulness of systems such as topic maps and Colon Classification. For such purpose is another understanding of "subject" necessary. === Patrick Wilson (1927–2003) === In his book Wilson (1968) examined – in particular by thought experiments – the suitability of different methods of examining the subject of a document. The methods were: identifying the author's purpose for writing the document, weighing the relative dominance and subordination of different elements in the picture, which the reading imposes on the reader, grouping or count the document's use of concepts and references, construing a set of rules for selecting elements deemed necessary (as opposed to unnecessary) for the work as a whole. Patrick Wilson shows convincingly that each of these methods are insufficient to determine the subject of a document and is led to conclude ( p. 89): "The notion of the subject of a writing is indeterminate..." or, on p. 92 (about what users may expect to find using a particular position in a library classification system): "For nothing definite can be expected of the things found at any given position". In connection to the last quote has Wilson an interesting footnote in which he writes that authors of documents often use terms in ambiguous ways ("hostility" is used as an example). Even if the librarian could personally develop a very precise understanding of a concept, he would be unable to use it in his classification, because none of the documents use the term in the same precise way. Based on this argumentation is Wilson led to conclude: "If people write on what are for them ill-defined phenomena, a correct description of their subjects must reflect the ill-definedness". Wilson's concept of subject was discussed by Hjørland (1992) who found that it is problematic to give up the precise understanding of such a basic term in LIS. Wilson's arguments led him to an agnostic position which Hjørland found unacceptable and unnecessary. Concerning the authors' use of ambiguous terms, the role of the subject analysis is to determine which documents would be fruitful for users to identify whether or not the documents use one or another term or whether a given term i

  Read more →
• 

  Knowledge graph embedding

  In representation learning, knowledge graph embedding (KGE), also called knowledge representation learning (KRL), or multi-relation learning, is a machine learning task of learning a low-dimensional representation of a knowledge graph's entities and relations while preserving their semantic meaning. Leveraging their embedded representation, knowledge graphs can be used for various applications such as link prediction, triple classification, entity recognition, clustering, and relation extraction. == Definition == A knowledge graph G = { E , R , F } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {G}}=\{E,R,F\}} is a collection of entities E {\displaystyle E} , relations R {\displaystyle R} , and facts F {\displaystyle F} . A fact is a triple ( h , r , t ) ∈ F {\displaystyle (h,r,t)\in F} that denotes a link r ∈ R {\displaystyle r\in R} between the head h ∈ E {\displaystyle h\in E} and the tail t ∈ E {\displaystyle t\in E} of the triple. Another notation that is often used in the literature to represent a triple (or fact) is ⟨ head , relation , tail ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle {\text{head}},{\text{relation}},{\text{tail}}\rangle } . This notation is called the Resource Description Framework (RDF). A knowledge graph represents the knowledge related to a specific domain; leveraging this structured representation, it is possible to infer a piece of new knowledge from it after some refinement steps. However, nowadays, people have to deal with the sparsity of data and the computational inefficiency to use them in a real-world application. The embedding of a knowledge graph is a function that translates each entity and each relation into a vector of a given dimension d {\displaystyle d} , called embedding dimension. It is even possible to embed the entities and relations with different dimensions. The embedding vectors can then be used for other tasks. A knowledge graph embedding is characterized by four aspects: Representation space: The low-dimensional space in which the entities and relations are represented. Scoring function: A measure of the goodness of a triple-embedded representation. Encoding models: The modality in which the embedded representation of the entities and relations interact with each other. Additional information: Any additional information coming from the knowledge graph that can enrich the embedded representation. Usually, an ad hoc scoring function is integrated into the general scoring function for each additional piece of information. == Embedding procedure == All algorithms for creating a knowledge graph embedding follow the same approach. First, the embedding vectors are initialized to random values. Then, they are iteratively optimized using a training set of triples. In each iteration, a batch of size b {\displaystyle b} triples is sampled from the training set, and a triple from it is sampled and corrupted—i.e., a triple that does not represent a true fact in the knowledge graph. The corruption of a triple involves substituting the head or the tail (or both) of the triple with another entity that makes the fact false. The original triple and the corrupted triple are added in the training batch, and then the embeddings are updated, optimizing a scoring function. Iteration stops when a stop condition is reached. Usually, the stop condition depends on the overfitting of the training set. At the end, the learned embeddings should have extracted semantic meaning from the training triples and should correctly predict unseen true facts in the knowledge graph. === Pseudocode === The following is the pseudocode for the general embedding procedure. algorithm Compute entity and relation embeddings input: The training set S = { ( h , r , t ) } {\displaystyle S=\{(h,r,t)\}} , entity set E {\displaystyle E} , relation set R {\displaystyle R} , embedding dimension k {\displaystyle k} output: Entity and relation embeddings initialization: the entities e {\displaystyle e} and relations r {\displaystyle r} embeddings (vectors) are randomly initialized while stop condition do S b a t c h ← s a m p l e ( S , b ) {\displaystyle S_{batch}\leftarrow sample(S,b)} // Sample a batch from the training set for each ( h , r , t ) {\displaystyle (h,r,t)} in S b a t c h {\displaystyle S_{batch}} do ( h ′ , r , t ′ ) ← s a m p l e ( S ′ ) {\displaystyle (h',r,t')\leftarrow sample(S')} // Sample a corrupted fact T b a t c h ← T b a t c h ∪ { ( ( h , r , t ) , ( h ′ , r , t ′ ) ) } {\displaystyle T_{batch}\leftarrow T_{batch}\cup \{((h,r,t),(h',r,t'))\}} end for Update embeddings by minimizing the loss function end while == Performance indicators == These indexes are often used to measure the embedding quality of a model. The simplicity of the indexes makes them very suitable for evaluating the performance of an embedding algorithm even on a large scale. Given Q {\displaystyle {\ce {Q}}} as the set of all ranked predictions of a model, it is possible to define three different performance indexes: Hits@K, MR, and MRR. === Hits@K === Hits@K or in short, H@K, is a performance index that measures the probability to find the correct prediction in the first top K model predictions. Usually, it is used k = 10 {\displaystyle k=10} . Hits@K reflects the accuracy of an embedding model to predict the relation between two given triples correctly. Hits@K = | { q ∈ Q : q < k } | | Q | ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle ={\frac {|\{q\in Q:q Read more →

• 

  Vector-field consistency

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

  Read more →
• 

  Regulation of algorithms

  Regulation of algorithms, or algorithmic regulation, is the creation of laws, rules and public sector policies for promotion and regulation of algorithms, particularly in artificial intelligence and machine learning. For the subset of AI algorithms, the term regulation of artificial intelligence is used. The regulatory and policy landscape for artificial intelligence (AI) is an emerging issue in jurisdictions globally, including in the European Union. Regulation of AI is considered necessary to both encourage AI and manage associated risks, but challenging. Another emerging topic is the regulation of blockchain algorithms (Use of the smart contracts must be regulated) and is mentioned along with regulation of AI algorithms. Many countries have enacted regulations of high frequency trades, which is shifting due to technological progress into the realm of AI algorithms. The motivation for regulation of algorithms is the apprehension of losing control over the algorithms, whose impact on human life increases. Multiple countries have already introduced regulations in case of automated credit score calculation—right to explanation is mandatory for those algorithms. For example, The IEEE has begun developing a new standard to explicitly address ethical issues and the values of potential future users. Bias, transparency, and ethics concerns have emerged with respect to the use of algorithms in diverse domains ranging from criminal justice to healthcare—many fear that artificial intelligence could replicate existing social inequalities along race, class, gender, and sexuality lines. == Regulation of artificial intelligence == === Public discussion === In 2016, Joy Buolamwini founded Algorithmic Justice League after a personal experience with biased facial detection software in order to raise awareness of the social implications of artificial intelligence through art and research. In 2017 Elon Musk advocated regulation of algorithms in the context of the existential risk from artificial general intelligence. According to NPR, the Tesla CEO was "clearly not thrilled" to be advocating for government scrutiny that could impact his own industry, but believed the risks of going completely without oversight are too high: "Normally the way regulations are set up is when a bunch of bad things happen, there's a public outcry, and after many years a regulatory agency is set up to regulate that industry. It takes forever. That, in the past, has been bad but not something which represented a fundamental risk to the existence of civilisation." In response, some politicians expressed skepticism about the wisdom of regulating a technology that is still in development. Responding both to Musk and to February 2017 proposals by European Union lawmakers to regulate AI and robotics, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich has argued that artificial intelligence is in its infancy and that it is too early to regulate the technology. Instead of trying to regulate the technology itself, some scholars suggest to rather develop common norms including requirements for the testing and transparency of algorithms, possibly in combination with some form of warranty. One suggestion has been for the development of a global governance board to regulate AI development. In 2020, the European Union published its draft strategy paper for promoting and regulating AI. Algorithmic tacit collusion is a legally dubious antitrust practise committed by means of algorithms, which the courts are not able to prosecute. This danger concerns scientists and regulators in EU, US and beyond. European Commissioner Margrethe Vestager mentioned an early example of algorithmic tacit collusion in her speech on "Algorithms and Collusion" on March 16, 2017, described as follows: "A few years ago, two companies were selling a textbook called The Making of a Fly. One of those sellers used an algorithm which essentially matched its rival’s price. That rival had an algorithm which always set a price 27% higher than the first. The result was that prices kept spiralling upwards, until finally someone noticed what was going on, and adjusted the price manually. By that time, the book was selling – or rather, not selling – for 23 million dollars a copy." In 2018, the Netherlands employed an algorithmic system SyRI (Systeem Risico Indicatie) to detect citizens perceived being high risk for committing welfare fraud, which quietly flagged thousands of people to investigators. This caused a public protest. The district court of Hague shut down SyRI referencing Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In 2020, algorithms assigning exam grades to students in the UK sparked open protest under the banner "Fuck the algorithm." This protest was successful and the grades were taken back. In 2024, the Munich Convention on AI, Data and Human Rights was introduced as part of growing international efforts to regulate artificial intelligence through a human rights lens. Developed through a collaborative drafting process involving scholars from the Technical University of Munich, Stellenbosch University, Ulster University, and KNUST, the initiative calls for an international conversation on a binding treaty to safeguard human rights and the principles enshrined in the UN Charter in the age of AI. === Implementation === AI law and regulations can be divided into three main topics, namely governance of autonomous intelligence systems, responsibility and accountability for the systems, and privacy and safety issues. The development of public sector strategies for management and regulation of AI has been increasingly deemed necessary at the local, national, and international levels and in fields from public service management to law enforcement, the financial sector, robotics, the military, and international law. There are many concerns that there is not enough visibility and monitoring of AI in these sectors. In the United States financial sector, for example, there have been calls for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to more closely examine source code and algorithms when conducting audits of financial institutions' non-public data. In the United States, on January 7, 2019, following an Executive Order on 'Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence', the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy released a draft Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications, which includes ten principles for United States agencies when deciding whether and how to regulate AI. In response, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has released a position paper, the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence has published an interim report, and the Defense Innovation Board has issued recommendations on the ethical use of AI. In April 2016, for the first time in more than two decades, the European Parliament adopted a set of comprehensive regulations for the collection, storage, and use of personal information, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)1 (European Union, Parliament and Council 2016). The GDPR's policy on the right of citizens to receive an explanation for algorithmic decisions highlights the pressing importance of human interpretability in algorithm design. In 2016, China published a position paper questioning the adequacy of existing international law to address the eventuality of fully autonomous weapons, becoming the first permanent member of the U.N. Security Council to broach the issue, and leading to proposals for global regulation. In the United States, steering on regulating security-related AI is provided by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. In 2017, the U.K. Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill imposes liability on the owner of an uninsured automated vehicle when driving itself and makes provisions for cases where the owner has made "unauthorized alterations" to the vehicle or failed to update its software. Further ethical issues arise when, e.g., a self-driving car swerves to avoid a pedestrian and causes a fatal accident. In 2021, the European Commission proposed the Artificial Intelligence Act. == Algorithm certification == There is a concept of algorithm certification emerging as a method of regulating algorithms. Algorithm certification involves auditing whether the algorithm used during the life cycle 1) conforms to the protocoled requirements (e.g., for correctness, completeness, consistency, and accuracy); 2) satisfies the standards, practices, and conventions; and 3) solves the right problem (e.g., correctly model physical laws), and satisfies the intended use and user needs in the operational environment. == Regulation of blockchain algorithms == Blockchain systems provide transparent and fixed records of transactions and hereby contradict the goal of the European GDPR, which is to give individuals full control of their private data. By implementing the Decree on Development of Digital Economy, Bel

  Read more →