Best Writing AI

Best Writing AI — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Automated restaurant

  An automated restaurant or robotic restaurant is a restaurant that uses robots to do tasks such as delivering food and drink to the tables or cooking the food. Restaurant automation means the use of a restaurant management system to automate some or occasionally all of the major operations of a restaurant establishment. More recently, restaurants are opening that have completely or partially automated their services. These may include: taking orders, preparing food, serving, and billing. A few fully automated restaurants operate without any human intervention whatsoever. Robots are designed to help and sometimes replace human labour (such as waiters and chefs). The automation of restaurants may also allow for the option for greater customization of an order. == History == === Vending machines === In the late 19th and early 20th century a number of restaurants served food solely through vending machines. These restaurants were called automats or, in Japan, shokkenki. Customers ordered their food directly through the machines. === Sushi conveyors === Yoshiaki Shiraishi is a Japanese innovator who is known for the creation of conveyor belt sushi. He had the idea following difficulty staffing his small sushi restaurant and managing the restaurant on his own. He was inspired seeing beer bottles on a conveyor belt in an Asahi brewery. Yoshiaki's restaurants are an early example of restaurant automation; they used a conveyor belt to distribute dishes around the restaurant, eliminating the need for waiters. This example of automation dates back to the Japanese economic miracle; the first of Yoshiaki's conveyor belt sushi restaurants was opened under the name Mawaru Genroku Sushi in 1958, in Osaka. === Partial automation === As of 2011, across Europe, McDonald's had already begun implementing 7,000 touch screen kiosks that could handle cashiering duties. From 2015 to 2020, Zume had an automated pizza parlor. Later companies would try to produce smaller, less ambitious devices, with one robotics company producing a machine that could automate the slowest and most repetitive parts of assembling a pizza, such as spreading pizza sauce or placing slices of pepperoni, while leaving other customizations to employees. In 2020, a restaurant in the Netherlands began trialling the use of a robot to serve guests. In September 2021, Karakuri's 'Semblr' food service robot served personalised lunches for the 4,000 employees of grocery technology solutions provider ocado Group's head offices in Hatfield, UK. 2,700 different combinations of dishes were on offer. Customers could specify in grams what hot and cold items, proteins, sauces and fresh toppings they wanted. In 2021, Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Science engineers developed a method of cooking 3D printed chicken with software-controlled robotic lasers. The “Digital Food” team exposed raw 3D printed chicken structures to both blue and infrared light. They then assessed the cooking depth, colour development, moisture retention and flavour differences of the laser-cooked 3D printed samples in comparison to stove-cooked meat. In June 2022 a California nonprofit chain of residential communities, Front Porch, experimented with robots in dining rooms at two locations to supplement wait staff by carrying plated food and drink to tables, and removing dishes. 65% of residents found the robots helpful, with 51% saying they let the staff spend more quality time with diners. 51% of staff were "excited" and 58% said they enabled more quality time with diners. The chain has 19 senior living communities (and 35 affordable housing communities), so it has potential to expand robots to more dining rooms. It is shifting to memory care, which may affect plans. == Rationales == === Advantages === Efficiency: Automated restaurants can significantly enhance operational efficiency by minimizing human error and reducing service time. With automated ordering, payment, and food preparation systems, customers can enjoy faster service and reduced waiting times. Cost savings: By reducing the need for human staff, automated restaurants can potentially lower labor costs. This can be particularly beneficial in areas with high labor expenses, as it allows for better resource allocation and cost management. Consistency: Automation ensures consistency in food quality and presentation. With precise portion control and standardized cooking methods, customers can expect the same quality and taste in their meals every time they visit. Enhanced customer experience: Self-service kiosks and automated systems provide customers with control and convenience. They can customize their orders, browse through menu options, and pay seamlessly, creating a more interactive and satisfying dining experience. === Disadvantages === Lack of personal touch: Automated restaurants may lack the personal interaction and warmth that traditional restaurants provide. Some customers prefer the human touch, personalized recommendations, and the social aspect of dining out. Technical issues: Reliance on technology means that technical glitches and malfunctions can occur, resulting in service disruptions or delays. Maintenance and technical support become critical in ensuring smooth operations. Limited menu complexity: The automation process may be better suited for standardized menu items rather than complex or customized dishes. The ability to cater to unique dietary preferences or accommodate special requests may be limited. Employment implications: Automated restaurants may result in job losses for traditional restaurant staff, potentially impacting the local workforce. It is important to consider the social and economic implications of adopting such technology. == Locations == Automated restaurants have been opening in many countries. Examples include: Nala Restaurant in Naperville, Illinois Fritz's Railroad Restaurant in Kansas City, Kansas Výtopna, a Railway Restaurant using model trains: franchise of various restaurants and coffeehouses in the Czech Republic Bagger's Restaurant in Nuremberg, Germany FuA-Men Restaurant, a ramen restaurant located in Nagoya, Japan Fōster Nutrition in Buenos Aires, Argentina Dalu Robot Restaurant in Jinan, China Haohai Robot Restaurant in Harbin, China Robot Kitchen Restaurant in Hong Kong Robo-Chef restaurant in Tehran, Iran, started in 2017, is the first robotic and "waiterless" restaurant of the Middle East. MIT graduates opened Spyce Kitchens in downtown Boston, Massachusetts, in 2018 Foodom, under Country Garden Holdings, opened January 12, 2020, in Guangzhou, China Robot Chacha, the first robot restaurant of India, is planning to open in the capital city of New Delhi. Kura Revolving Sushi Bar, with a number of locations in the United States, uses a tablets at tables for ordering, a conveyor belt to deliver food, and robots to deliver drinks and condiments. Chipotle Mexican Grill is beginning to deploy the Hyphen Makeline, which assembles up to 350 bowls and salads automatically per hour, and Chippy, an automatic tortilla chip fryer made by Miso Robotics. Serious Dumplings in Boca Raton, Florida

  Read more →
• 

  Operational historian

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

  Read more →
• 

  Upper ontology

  In information science, an upper ontology (also known as a top-level ontology, upper model, or foundation ontology) is an ontology (in the sense used in information science) that consists of very general terms (such as "object", "property", "relation") that are common across all domains. An important function of an upper ontology is to support broad semantic interoperability among a large number of domain-specific ontologies by providing a common starting point for the formulation of definitions. Terms in the domain ontology are ranked under the terms in the upper ontology, e.g., the upper ontology classes are superclasses or supersets of all the classes in the domain ontologies. A number of upper ontologies have been proposed, each with its own proponents. Library classification systems predate upper ontology systems. Though library classifications organize and categorize knowledge using general concepts that are the same across all knowledge domains, neither system is a replacement for the other. == Development == Any standard foundational ontology is likely to be contested among different groups, each with its own idea of "what exists". One factor exacerbating the failure to arrive at a common approach has been the lack of open-source applications that would permit the testing of different ontologies in the same computational environment. The differences have thus been debated largely on theoretical grounds, or are merely the result of personal preferences. Foundational ontologies can however be compared on the basis of adoption for the purposes of supporting interoperability across domain ontologies. No particular upper ontology has yet gained widespread acceptance as a de facto standard. Different organizations have attempted to define standards for specific domains. The 'Process Specification Language' (PSL) created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is one example. Another important factor leading to the absence of wide adoption of any existing upper ontology is the complexity. Some upper ontologies—Cyc is often cited as an example in this regard—are very large, ranging up to thousands of elements (classes, relations), with complex interactions among them and with a complexity similar to that of a human natural language, and the learning process can be even longer than for a natural language because of the unfamiliar format and logical rules. The motivation to overcome this learning barrier is largely absent because of the paucity of publicly accessible examples of use. As a result, those building domain ontologies for local applications tend to create the simplest possible domain-specific ontology, not related to any upper ontology. Such domain ontologies may function adequately for the local purpose, but they are very time-consuming to relate accurately to other domain ontologies. To solve this problem, some genuinely top level ontologies have been developed, which are deliberately designed to have minimal overlap with any domain ontologies. Examples are Basic Formal Ontology and the DOLCE (see below). === Arguments for the infeasibility of an upper ontology === Historically, many attempts in many societies have been made to impose or define a single set of concepts as more primal, basic, foundational, authoritative, true or rational than all others. A common objection to such attempts points out that humans lack the sort of transcendent perspective — or God's eye view — that would be required to achieve this goal. Humans are bound by language or culture, and so lack the sort of objective perspective from which to observe the whole terrain of concepts and derive any one standard. Thomasson, under the headline "1.5 Skepticism about Category Systems", wrote: "category systems, at least as traditionally presented, seem to presuppose that there is a unique true answer to the question of what categories of entity there are – indeed the discovery of this answer is the goal of most such inquiries into ontological categories. [...] But actual category systems offered vary so much that even a short survey of past category systems like that above can undermine the belief that such a unique, true and complete system of categories may be found. Given such a diversity of answers to the question of what the ontological categories are, by what criteria could we possibly choose among them to determine which is uniquely correct?" Another objection is the problem of formulating definitions. Top level ontologies are designed to maximize support for interoperability across a large number of terms. Such ontologies must therefore consist of terms expressing very general concepts, but such concepts are so basic to our understanding that there is no way in which they can be defined, since the very process of definition implies that a less basic (and less well understood) concept is defined in terms of concepts that are more basic and so (ideally) more well understood. Very general concepts can often only be elucidated, for example by means of examples, or paraphrase. There is no self-evident way of dividing the world up into concepts, and certainly no non-controversial one There is no neutral ground that can serve as a means of translating between specialized (or "lower" or "application-specific") ontologies Human language itself is already an arbitrary approximation of just one among many possible conceptual maps. To draw any necessary correlation between English words and any number of intellectual concepts, that we might like to represent in our ontologies, is just asking for trouble. (WordNet, for instance, is successful and useful, precisely because it does not pretend to be a general-purpose upper ontology; rather, it is a tool for semantic / syntactic / linguistic disambiguation, which is richly embedded in the particulars and peculiarities of the English language.) Any hierarchical or topological representation of concepts must begin from some ontological, epistemological, linguistic, cultural, and ultimately pragmatic perspective. Such pragmatism does not allow for the exclusion of politics between persons or groups, indeed it requires they be considered as perhaps more basic primitives than any that are represented. Those who doubt the feasibility of general purpose ontologies are more inclined to ask "what specific purpose do we have in mind for this conceptual map of entities and what practical difference will this ontology make?" This pragmatic philosophical position surrenders all hope of devising the encoded ontology version of "The world is everything that is the case." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). Finally, there are objections similar to those against artificial intelligence. Technically, the complex concept acquisition and the social / linguistic interactions of human beings suggest any axiomatic foundation of "most basic" concepts must be cognitive biological or otherwise difficult to characterize since we don't have axioms for such systems. Ethically, any general-purpose ontology could quickly become an actual tyranny by recruiting adherents into a political program designed to propagate it and its funding means, and possibly defend it by violence. Historically, inconsistent and irrational belief systems have proven capable of commanding obedience to the detriment or harm of persons both inside and outside a society that accepts them. How much more harmful would a consistent rational one be, were it to contain even one or two basic assumptions incompatible with human life? === Arguments for the feasibility of an upper ontology === Many of those who doubt the possibility of developing wide agreement on a common upper ontology fall into one of two traps: they assert that there is no possibility of universal agreement on any conceptual scheme; but they argue that a practical common ontology does not need to have universal agreement, it only needs a large enough user community (as is the case for human languages) to make it profitable for developers to use it as a means to general interoperability, and for third-party developer to develop utilities to make it easier to use; and they point out that developers of data schemes find different representations congenial for their local purposes; but they do not demonstrate that these different representations are in fact logically inconsistent. In fact, different representations of assertions about the real world (though not philosophical models), if they accurately reflect the world, must be logically consistent, even if they focus on different aspects of the same physical object or phenomenon. If any two assertions about the real world are logically inconsistent, one or both must be wrong, and that is a topic for experimental investigation, not for ontological representation. In practice, representations of the real world are created as and known to be approximations to the basic reality, and their use is circumscribed by the limits of e

  Read more →
• 

  Recommender system

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

  Read more →
• 

  Instance-based learning

  In machine learning, instance-based learning (sometimes called memory-based learning) is a family of learning algorithms that, instead of performing explicit generalization, compare new problem instances with instances seen in training, which have been stored in memory. Because computation is postponed until a new instance is observed, these algorithms are sometimes referred to as "lazy." It is called instance-based because it constructs hypotheses directly from the training instances themselves. This means that the hypothesis complexity can grow with the data: in the worst case, a hypothesis is a list of n training items and the computational complexity of classifying a single new instance is O(n). One advantage that instance-based learning has over other methods of machine learning is its ability to adapt its model to previously unseen data. Instance-based learners may simply store a new instance or throw an old instance away. Examples of instance-based learning algorithms are the k-nearest neighbors algorithm, kernel machines and RBF networks. These store (a subset of) their training set; when predicting a value/class for a new instance, they compute distances or similarities between this instance and the training instances to make a decision. To battle the memory complexity of storing all training instances, as well as the risk of overfitting to noise in the training set, instance reduction algorithms have been proposed.

  Read more →
• 

  Token-based replay

  Token-based replay technique is a conformance checking algorithm that checks how well a process conforms with its model by replaying each trace on the model (in Petri net notation ). Using the four counters produced tokens, consumed tokens, missing tokens, and remaining tokens, it records the situations where a transition is forced to fire and the remaining tokens after the replay ends. Based on the count at each counter, we can compute the fitness value between the trace and the model. == The algorithm == Source: The token-replay technique uses four counters to keep track of a trace during the replaying: p: Produced tokens c: Consumed tokens m: Missing tokens (consumed while not there) r: Remaining tokens (produced but not consumed) Invariants: At any time: p + m ≥ c ≥ m {\displaystyle p+m\geq c\geq m} At the end: r = p + m − c {\displaystyle r=p+m-c} At the beginning, a token is produced for the source place (p = 1) and at the end, a token is consumed from the sink place (c' = c + 1). When the replay ends, the fitness value can be computed as follows: 1 2 ( 1 − m c ) + 1 2 ( 1 − r p ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {m}{c}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {r}{p}})} == Example == Suppose there is a process model in Petri net notation as follows: === Example 1: Replay the trace (a, b, c, d) on the model M === Step 1: A token is initiated. There is one produced token ( p = 1 {\displaystyle p=1} ). Step 2: The activity a {\displaystyle \mathbf {a} } consumes 1 token to be fired and produces 2 tokens ( p = 1 + 2 = 3 {\displaystyle p=1+2=3} and c = 1 {\displaystyle c=1} ). Step 3: The activity b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } consumes 1 token and produces 1 token ( p = 3 + 1 = 4 {\displaystyle p=3+1=4} and c = 1 + 1 = 2 {\displaystyle c=1+1=2} ). Step 4: The activity c {\displaystyle \mathbf {c} } consumes 1 token and produces 1 token ( p = 4 + 1 = 5 {\displaystyle p=4+1=5} and c = 2 + 1 = 3 {\displaystyle c=2+1=3} ). Step 5: The activity d {\displaystyle \mathbf {d} } consumes 2 tokens and produces 1 token ( p = 5 + 1 = 6 {\displaystyle p=5+1=6} , c = 3 + 2 = 5 {\displaystyle c=3+2=5} ). Step 6: The token at the end place is consumed ( c = 5 + 1 = 6 {\displaystyle c=5+1=6} ). The trace is complete. The fitness of the trace ( a , b , c , d {\displaystyle \mathbf {a,b,c,d} } ) on the model M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } is: 1 2 ( 1 − m c ) + 1 2 ( 1 − r p ) = 1 2 ( 1 − 0 6 ) + 1 2 ( 1 − 0 6 ) = 1 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {m}{c}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {r}{p}})={\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {0}{6}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {0}{6}})=1} === Example 2: Replay the trace (a, b, d) on the model M === Step 1: A token is initiated. There is one produced token ( p = 1 {\displaystyle p=1} ). Step 2: The activity a {\displaystyle \mathbf {a} } consumes 1 token to be fired and produces 2 tokens ( p = 1 + 2 = 3 {\displaystyle p=1+2=3} and c = 1 {\displaystyle c=1} ). Step 3: The activity b {\displaystyle \mathbf {b} } consumes 1 token and produces 1 token ( p = 3 + 1 = 4 {\displaystyle p=3+1=4} and c = 1 + 1 = 2 {\displaystyle c=1+1=2} ). Step 4: The activity d {\displaystyle \mathbf {d} } needs to be fired but there are not enough tokens. One artificial token was produced and the missing token counter is increased by one ( m = 1 {\displaystyle m=1} ). The artificial token and the token at place [ b , d ] {\displaystyle [\mathbf {b,d} ]} are consumed ( c = 2 + 2 = 4 {\displaystyle c=2+2=4} ) and one token is produced at place end ( p = 4 + 1 = 5 {\displaystyle p=4+1=5} ). Step 5: The token in the end place is consumed ( c = 4 + 1 = 5 {\displaystyle c=4+1=5} ). The trace is complete. There is one remaining token at place [ a , c ] {\displaystyle [\mathbf {a,c} ]} ( r = 1 {\displaystyle r=1} ). The fitness of the trace ( a , b , d {\displaystyle \mathbf {a,b,d} } ) on the model M {\displaystyle \mathbf {M} } is: 1 2 ( 1 − m c ) + 1 2 ( 1 − r p ) = 1 2 ( 1 − 1 5 ) + 1 2 ( 1 − 1 5 ) = 0.8 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {m}{c}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {r}{p}})={\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {1}{5}})+{\frac {1}{2}}(1-{\frac {1}{5}})=0.8}

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial intelligence in Brazilian industry

  In 2022, 16.9% (1,620) of the 9,586 Brazilian industrial companies with 100 or more employees used artificial intelligence in their operations Among the companies that used AI, the areas of administration (73.8%), product project development (65.9%), processes, services and marketing (65.1%) were those that used it the most, followed by the areas of production (56.4%) and logistics (48.4%). == Current scenario == === Adoption in Brazilian industrial sectors === In senior management, the majority (56%) of executives have a long-term vision for its use. The study also shows that IT, Innovation, and Marketing are the areas where AI use is most widespread, and that 43% of companies are developing or adapting the algorithms they use. The majority of large institutions that reported some type of AI use purchased these solutions from other companies (76%). Some factors for the adoption of artificial intelligence in companies include the establishment of an autonomous strategy by the company (87.0%), and the influence of suppliers and/or customers (63.0%) and the main difficulties in using technologies were high costs (80.8%), lack of qualified personnel in the company (54.6%) and excessive economic risks (49.5%). Three variables are considered the most relevant to explain the option to use AI: the implementation of a digital security policy, the size of companies with 250 or more employees and the characteristics of the company related to information and communication. When analyzing AI use by company size in Brazil, large companies have the highest proportion of AI use, mainly due to their investment capacity and technology experimentation. However, when comparing Brazil and Europe, indicators show an acceleration in AI use among large European companies, while in Brazil the situation remains stable. In 2023, 30% of large companies in the European bloc used some type of AI, a figure that rose to 41% in 2024, while in Brazil these proportions were 41% in 2023 and 38% in 2024. === Workforce === The challenge of upskilling begins with employees who are capable of understanding recent technological changes. Similarly, companies must create the environment and conditions for workforce development conducive to innovation, and universities must be prepared to provide knowledge aligned with the transition process, which in turn must be supported by public policies. The concern with training a specialized workforce in AI can be seen in the low number of graduates and PhDs in computer science and computer engineering in Brazil, compared to the number shown in other countries. As recorded in the document Recommendations for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence in Brazil, 2019 data from the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) indicate that "the number of PhDs graduated annually in computing remained below 400 in 2016, and is not expected to have increased during the Covid-19 pandemic" (ABC, 2023). In the United States, by contrast, the number of PhDs graduated in these two areas has remained around 1,800 for the past 11 years, and during this period, the number of PhDs specializing in AI jumped from 10% to 19%. Based on data from the CNPq Lattes Platform (October 2019), it is possible to observe that the number of professionals in the AI field in Brazil is 4,429 specialists. This is still a small number compared to the 415,166 IT jobs in the country's business sector alone. === R&D, scientific production and integration with industry === China and the United States lead in the number of publications. These two countries are followed by the G7 members: India, Austria, South Korea, and Spain. Brazil appears in the next group, alongside the Netherlands, Russia, Indonesia, and Ireland. Regarding the promotion of research and technologies related to AI, public entities such as the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Capes) and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) stood out as the main funders. Currently, different countries and territories have been promoting the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). In the Brazilian case, one of the main initiatives is the creation of Engineering Research Centers/Applied Research Centers (CPE/CPA) in AI by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), in collaboration with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI), the Ministry of Communications (MC) and the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br). In terms of the number of patents filed and the volume of investments, the leading nations in AI are the United States, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia, India, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Singapore, Canada, Israel, and Italy. Brazil appears among the top twenty countries in some rankings, mainly due to its good number of publications (approximately 10% of the number of articles published by the United States). The US is home to approximately 60% of the world's top AI researchers, followed by China (11%), Europe (10%), and Canada (6%). To change this scenario, in August 2024, the Brazilian government announced an investment of R$23 billion until 2028 in artificial intelligence, seeking to “transform the country into a global reference in innovation”. == Future challenges == The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2020) report highlighted three factors that hinder the digital transformation journey and application of AI in Brazil: insufficient infrastructure, high costs due to the tax system, and financial limitations, such as limited access to financing. The costs of adopting technology, its incompatibility with the business, and the lack of training also represent obstacles that Brazilian industry must overcome. There are also inherent obstacles for companies. A McKinsey review emphasizes that once a company chooses one or more sectors to focus on, it must select specific applications. Buyers aren't interested in artificial intelligence simply because it's a breakthrough technology; they want AI to generate a good return on investment, whether by solving specific problems, saving money, or increasing sales. If an AI vendor tried to offer a horizontal solution, the value proposition might not be as compelling. Part of the solution to Brazil's technological backwardness involves building an ecosystem fueled by private institutions, universities, and governments.

  Read more →
• 

  Virtual directory

  In computing, the term virtual directory has a couple of meanings. It may simply designate (for example in IIS) a folder which appears in a path but which is not actually a subfolder of the preceding folder in the path. However, this article will discuss the term in the context of directory services and identity management. A virtual directory or virtual directory server (VDS) in this context is a software layer that delivers a single access point for identity management applications and service platforms. A virtual directory operates as a high-performance, lightweight abstraction layer that resides between client applications and disparate types of identity-data repositories, such as proprietary and standard directories, databases, web services, and applications. A virtual directory receives queries and directs them to the appropriate data sources by abstracting and virtualizing data. The virtual directory integrates identity data from multiple heterogeneous data stores and presents it as though it were coming from one source. This ability to reach into disparate repositories makes virtual directory technology ideal for consolidating data stored in a distributed environment. As of 2011, virtual directory servers most commonly use the LDAP protocol, but more sophisticated virtual directories can also support SQL as well as DSML and SPML. Industry experts have heralded the importance of the virtual directory in modernizing the identity infrastructure. According to Dave Kearns of Network World, "Virtualization is hot and a virtual directory is the building block, or foundation, you should be looking at for your next identity management project." In addition, Gartner analyst, Bob Blakley said that virtual directories are playing an increasingly vital role. In his report, “The Emerging Architecture of Identity Management,” Blakley wrote: “In the first phase, production of identities will be separated from consumption of identities through the introduction of a virtual directory interface.” == Capabilities == Virtual directories can have some or all of the following capabilities: Aggregate identity data across sources to create a single point of access. Create high-availability for authoritative data stores. Act as identity firewall by preventing denial-of-service attacks on the primary data stores through an additional virtual layer. Support a common searchable namespace for centralized authentication. Present a unified virtual view of user information stored across multiple systems. Delegate authentication to backend sources through source-specific security means. Virtualize data sources to support migration from legacy data stores without modifying the applications that rely on them. Enrich identities with attributes pulled from multiple data stores, based on a link between user entries. Some advanced identity virtualization platforms can also: Enable application-specific, customized views of identity data without violating internal or external regulations governing identity data. Reveal contextual relationships between objects through hierarchical directory structures. Develop advanced correlation across diverse sources using correlation rules. Build a global user identity by correlating unique user accounts across various data stores, and enrich identities with attributes pulled from multiple data stores, based on a link between user entries. Enable constant data refresh for real-time updates through a persistent cache. == Advantages == Virtual directories: Enable faster deployment because users do not need to add and sync additional application-specific data sources Leverage existing identity infrastructure and security investments to deploy new services Deliver high availability of data sources Provide application-specific views of identity data which can help avoid the need to develop a master enterprise schema Allow a single view of identity data without violating internal or external regulations governing identity data Act as identity firewalls by preventing denial-of-service attacks on the primary data-stores and providing further security on access to sensitive data Can reflect changes made to authoritative sources in real-time Leverages existing update processes of authoritative sources, so no separate (sometimes manual) process to update a central directory is needed Present a unified virtual view of user information from multiple systems so that it appears to reside in a single system Can secure all backend storage locations with a single security policy == Disadvantages == An original disadvantage is public perception of "push & pull technologies" which is the general classification of "virtual directories" depending on the nature of their deployment. Virtual directories were initially designed and later deployed with "push technologies" in mind, which also contravened with privacy laws of the United States. This is no longer the case. There are, however, other disadvantages in the current technologies. The classical virtual directory based on proxy cannot modify underlying data structures or create new views based on the relationships of data from across multiple systems. So if an application requires a different structure, such as a flattened list of identities, or a deeper hierarchy for delegated administration, a virtual directory is limited. Many virtual directories cannot correlate same-users across multiple diverse sources in the case of duplicate users Virtual directories without advanced caching technologies cannot scale to heterogeneous, high-volume environments. == Sample terminology == Unify metadata: Extract schemas from the local data source, map them to a common format, and link the same identities from different data silos based on a unique identifier. Namespace joining: Create a single large directory by bringing multiple directories together at the namespace level. For instance, if one directory has the namespace "ou=internal,dc=domain,dc=com" and a second directory has the namespace "ou=external,dc=domain,dc=com," then creating a virtual directory with both namespaces is an example of namespace joining. Identity joining: Enrich identities with attributes pulled from multiple data stores, based on a link between user entries. For instance if the user joeuser exists in a directory as "cn=joeuser,ou=users" and in a database with a username of "joeuser" then the "joeuser" identity can be constructed from both the directory and the database. Data remapping: The translation of data inside of the virtual directory. For instance, mapping “uid” to “samaccountname,” so a client application that only supports a standard LDAP-compliant data source is able to search an Active Directory namespace, as well. Query routing: Route requests based on certain criteria, such as “write operations going to a master, while read operations are forwarded to replicas.” Identity routing: Virtual directories may support the routing of requests based on certain criteria (such as write operations going to a master while read operations being forwarded to replicas). Authoritative source: A "virtualized" data repository, such as a directory or database, that the virtual directory can trust for user data. Server groups: Group one or more servers containing the same data and functionality. A typical implementation is the multi-master, multi-replica environment in which replicas process "read" requests and are in one server group, while masters process "write" requests and are in another, so that servers are grouped by their response to external stimuli, even though all share the same data. == Use cases == The following are sample use cases of virtual directories: Integrating multiple directory namespaces to create a central enterprise directory. Supporting infrastructure integrations after mergers and acquisitions. Centralizing identity storage across the infrastructure, making identity information available to applications through various protocols (including LDAP, JDBC, and web services). Creating a single access point for web access management (WAM) tools. Enabling web single sign-on (SSO) across varied sources or domains. Supporting role-based, fine-grained authorization policies Enabling authentication across different security domains using each domain’s specific credential checking method. Improving secure access to information both inside and outside of the firewall.

  Read more →
• 

  Ugly duckling theorem

  The ugly duckling theorem is an argument showing that classification is not really possible without some sort of bias. More particularly, it assumes finitely many properties combinable by logical connectives, and finitely many objects; it asserts that any two different objects share the same number of (extensional) properties. The theorem is named after Hans Christian Andersen's 1843 story "The Ugly Duckling", because it shows that a duckling is just as similar to a swan as two swans are to each other. It was derived by Satosi Watanabe in 1969. == Mathematical formula == Suppose there are n things in the universe, and one wants to put them into classes or categories. One has no preconceived ideas or biases about what sorts of categories are "natural" or "normal" and what are not. So one has to consider all the possible classes that could be, all the possible ways of making a set out of the n objects. There are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such ways, the size of the power set of n objects. One can use that to measure the similarity between two objects, and one would see how many sets they have in common. However, one cannot. Any two objects have exactly the same number of classes in common if we can form any possible class, namely 2 n − 1 {\displaystyle 2^{n-1}} (half the total number of classes there are). To see this is so, one may imagine each class is represented by an n-bit string (or binary encoded integer), with a zero for each element not in the class and a one for each element in the class. As one finds, there are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such strings. As all possible choices of zeros and ones are there, any two bit-positions will agree exactly half the time. One may pick two elements and reorder the bits so they are the first two, and imagine the numbers sorted lexicographically. The first 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} numbers will have bit #1 set to zero, and the second 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} will have it set to one. Within each of those blocks, the top 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have bit #2 set to zero and the other 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have it as one, so they agree on two blocks of 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} or on half of all the cases, no matter which two elements one picks. So if we have no preconceived bias about which categories are better, everything is then equally similar (or equally dissimilar). The number of predicates simultaneously satisfied by two non-identical elements is constant over all such pairs. Thus, some kind of inductive bias is needed to make judgements to prefer certain categories over others. === Boolean functions === Let x 1 , x 2 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}} be a set of vectors of k {\displaystyle k} booleans each. The ugly duckling is the vector which is least like the others. Given the booleans, this can be computed using Hamming distance. However, the choice of boolean features to consider could have been somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps there were features derivable from the original features that were important for identifying the ugly duckling. The set of booleans in the vector can be extended with new features computed as boolean functions of the k {\displaystyle k} original features. The only canonical way to do this is to extend it with all possible Boolean functions. The resulting completed vectors have 2 k {\displaystyle 2^{k}} features. The ugly duckling theorem states that there is no ugly duckling because any two completed vectors will either be equal or differ in exactly half of the features. Proof. Let x and y be two vectors. If they are the same, then their completed vectors must also be the same because any Boolean function of x will agree with the same Boolean function of y. If x and y are different, then there exists a coordinate i {\displaystyle i} where the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of x {\displaystyle x} differs from the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of y {\displaystyle y} . Now the completed features contain every Boolean function on k {\displaystyle k} Boolean variables, with each one exactly once. Viewing these Boolean functions as polynomials in k {\displaystyle k} variables over GF(2), segregate the functions into pairs ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} where f {\displaystyle f} contains the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate as a linear term and g {\displaystyle g} is f {\displaystyle f} without that linear term. Now, for every such pair ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} , x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} will agree on exactly one of the two functions. If they agree on one, they must disagree on the other and vice versa. (This proof is believed to be due to Watanabe.) == Discussion == A possible way around the ugly duckling theorem would be to introduce a constraint on how similarity is measured by limiting the properties involved in classification, for instance, between A and B. However Medin et al. (1993) point out that this does not actually resolve the arbitrariness or bias problem since in what respects A is similar to B: "varies with the stimulus context and task, so that there is no unique answer, to the question of how similar is one object to another". For example, "a barberpole and a zebra would be more similar than a horse and a zebra if the feature striped had sufficient weight. Of course, if these feature weights were fixed, then these similarity relations would be constrained". Yet the property "striped" as a weight 'fix' or constraint is arbitrary itself, meaning: "unless one can specify such criteria, then the claim that categorization is based on attribute matching is almost entirely vacuous". Stamos (2003) remarked that some judgments of overall similarity are non-arbitrary in the sense they are useful: "Presumably, people's perceptual and conceptual processes have evolved that information that matters to human needs and goals can be roughly approximated by a similarity heuristic... If you are in the jungle and you see a tiger but you decide not to stereotype (perhaps because you believe that similarity is a false friend), then you will probably be eaten. In other words, in the biological world stereotyping based on veridical judgments of overall similarity statistically results in greater survival and reproductive success." Unless some properties are considered more salient, or 'weighted' more important than others, everything will appear equally similar, hence Watanabe (1986) wrote: "any objects, in so far as they are distinguishable, are equally similar". In a weaker setting that assumes infinitely many properties, Murphy and Medin (1985) give an example of two putative classified things, plums and lawnmowers: "Suppose that one is to list the attributes that plums and lawnmowers have in common in order to judge their similarity. It is easy to see that the list could be infinite: Both weigh less than 10,000 kg (and less than 10,001 kg), both did not exist 10,000,000 years ago (and 10,000,001 years ago), both cannot hear well, both can be dropped, both take up space, and so on. Likewise, the list of differences could be infinite… any two entities can be arbitrarily similar or dissimilar by changing the criterion of what counts as a relevant attribute." According to Woodward, the ugly duckling theorem is related to Schaffer's Conservation Law for Generalization Performance, which states that all algorithms for learning of boolean functions from input/output examples have the same overall generalization performance as random guessing. The latter result is generalized by Woodward to functions on countably infinite domains.

  Read more →
• 

  Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal

  In January 2022, 15—the pseudonymous Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) artificial intelligence researcher and creator of the non-commercial generative artificial intelligence voice synthesis research project 15.ai—discovered that the blockchain-based technology company Voiceverse had plagiarized from their platform. Voiceverse marketed itself as a service that offered AI voice cloning technology that could be purchased and traded as non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Amid heightened controversy over NFTs in the gaming industry, voice actor Troy Baker (who has been described as one of the most famous voice actors in video games) announced his partnership with Voiceverse on January 14, 2022, triggering immediate backlash over concerns about the environmental impact of NFTs, potential for fraud, predatory monetization in video games, and the potential of AI displacing jobs for human voice actors. Later that same day, 15 revealed through server logs that Voiceverse had generated voice lines using 15's free text-to-speech platform, pitch-shifted the audio to make them unrecognizable, and falsely marketed the samples as their own technology before selling them as NFTs. Within an hour of being confronted with evidence, Voiceverse confessed and stated that their marketing team had used 15.ai without proper attribution while rushing to create a technology demo to coincide with Baker's partnership announcement, further exacerbating the already negative reception to the original announcement. In response, 15 replied "Go fuck yourself"; the interaction went viral and garnered a large amount of support for the developer. News publications universally characterized this incident as Voiceverse having "stolen" from 15.ai. The next day, Baker appeared on a podcast and stated that his motivation had been to help independent creators who were unable to afford professional voice actors. Following continued backlash and the plagiarism revelation, Baker ended his partnership with Voiceverse on January 31, 2022. Subsequently, the incident was documented in multiple AI ethics databases, criticisms of predatory monetization in video games, and retrospectives as one of the earliest instances of plagiarism and theft stemming from artificial intelligence during the AI boom. == Background == === Troy Baker === Troy Baker is a prominent voice actor in the video game industry best known for his performances as Joel Miller in The Last of Us franchise. Baker has been described as "ubiquitous" by Polygon, "one of the most high-profile and prolific voice actors in video games" by Eurogamer, and "arguably the most famous voice actor in the gaming industry" by GameGuru. His other prominent roles include voicing Agent John "Jonesy" Jones in Fortnite, Booker DeWitt in BioShock Infinite, and both Batman and Joker in multiple Batman video games. As of October 2025, Baker holds the record for the most acting nominations at the BAFTA Games Awards, with five between 2013 and 2021. === Voiceverse === Voiceverse is a blockchain-based startup founded by the Bored Ape Yacht Club that marketed itself as offering AI voice cloning technology in the form of NFTs. Prior to the announcement of their partnership with Baker, Voiceverse had partnered with LOVO, Inc., an AI voice platform that, according to LOVO, could generate human-like voices. Voiceverse stated that any user who purchases a voice NFT would have unlimited and perpetual access to the voice model, which could be used to create content such as audiobooks, YouTube videos, podcasts, e-learning materials, in-game voice chat, and Zoom calls. Voiceverse promised that buyers would "OWN [sic] all of the IP" of content they created using these voices. Voiceverse's roadmap included plans to release 8,888 initial voice NFTs, a feature to add emotions to existing voices, and the ability for users to mint their own voices as NFTs. Prior to Baker's partnership, Voiceverse had also partnered with voice actors Charlet Chung, who voices D.Va in Overwatch, and Andy Milonakis of The Andy Milonakis Show. === 15.ai === 15.ai is a free web application launched in 2020 that uses artificial intelligence to generate text-to-speech voices of fictional characters from popular media. Created by a pseudonymous artificial intelligence researcher known as 15, who began developing the technology as a freshman during their undergraduate research at MIT, it was an early example of an application of generative artificial intelligence during the initial stages of the AI boom. The platform showed that deep neural networks could generate emotionally expressive speech with only 15 seconds of speech; the name "15.ai" references the creator's statement that a voice can be convincingly cloned with just 15 seconds of audio, as opposed to the tens of hours of data previously required. 15.ai became an Internet phenomenon in early 2021 when content utilizing it went viral on social media and quickly gained widespread use among various Internet fandoms. 15 has emphasized that it remain free and non-commercial; it only requires users to give proper credit when using the service for content creation. === NFTs in the video game industry === By early 2022, NFTs had become highly controversial within the gaming industry. Critics raised concerns about their environmental impact due to the significant energy consumption of blockchain technology. In addition, the prevalence of scams, fraud, and potential money laundering associated with NFT sales, as well as fears that NFTs were a new form of predatory monetization following the increasing frequency of loot boxes, caused vocal pushback from the gaming community. Several major gaming companies had begun exploring NFT integration into their products, though fan backlash had already forced some projects to be cancelled. On December 16, 2021, the developers of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2: Heart of Chernobyl announced that they would be including NFTs in the game, but cancelled within an hour of the announcement due to immediate universal backlash. Simultaneously, the rise of AI voice technology raised concerns among voice actors about potential job displacement and the devaluation of their work amidst the voice acting industry's ongoing struggles for better compensation and working conditions. == Partnership announcement and backlash == On January 14, 2022, 1:02 a.m. EST, Baker announced on Twitter that he was partnering with Voiceverse "to explore ways where together we might bring new tools to new creators to make new things, and allow everyone a chance to own & invest in the IP's they create." The announcement concluded with the statement "You can hate. Or you can create." Baker's specific role with Voiceverse remained unclear at the time of the announcement. Along with Baker's announcement, Voiceverse promoted their supposed voice AI technology on Twitter by posting animated videos that featured a cat character created by NFT firm Chubbiverse. The videos concluded with text that read "The Voice Powered By Voiceverse"; Voiceverse stated on Twitter that the voices in the animations had been generated using their own AI voice synthesis technology and presented the videos as a technology demonstration of their voice NFT capabilities. The announcement provoked immediate and widespread backlash from the gaming community. Baker's tweet received thousands of replies and quote retweets (the vast majority of which were negative), far more than the number of likes; Michael McWhertor of Polygon described it as a "textbook example of being ratioed" and commented that reactions had been amplified by the final part of Baker's announcement. Michael Beckwith of Metro called Baker's approach "bizarrely aggressive". Later that day, Baker responded to the backlash by apologizing for his choice of words. He said he appreciated people's thoughts and acknowledged that the "hate/create part might have been a bit antagonistic," calling it a "bad attempt to bring levity". Despite the apology, Baker and his fellow voice actors did not distance themselves from Voiceverse at this point. At the same time, Voiceverse attempted to address the criticisms, stating that they were working to move to more environmentally friendly blockchain technology and that voice actors would receive royalties from NFT sales, with actors benefiting from any increase in NFT value. == Plagiarism revelation == On December 13, 2021, amidst the increasingly negative reactions toward NFTs among the general public, the creator of 15.ai (known pseudonymously as 15) announced that they had "no interest in incorporating NFTs into any aspect of [their] work." On January 14, 2022, 11:17 a.m. EST (10 hours after Baker's initial announcement), 15 commented on the Voiceverse venture, stating that it "sounds like a scam". Two hours later, at 1:20 p.m., 15 explicitly accused Voiceverse of "actively attempting to appropriate [15's] work for [Voiceverse's] own benefit." 15 provided evidence through

  Read more →
• 

  Knowledge organization system

  Knowledge organization system (KOS), concept system, or concept scheme is the generic term used in knowledge organization (KO) for the selection of concepts with an indication of selected semantic relations. Despite their differences in type, coverage, and application, all KOS aim to support the organization of knowledge and information to facilitate their management and retrieval. KOS vary in complexity from simple sorted lists to complex relational networks. They represent both structural and functional features, and serve to eliminate ambiguity, control synonyms, establish relationships, and present properties. From their origins in library and information science (LIS), KOS have been applied to other domains and disciplines within science and industry, although scholarly research and debate remain primarily within the KO field. Challenges of KOS include ambiguity of terminology, repercussions of biased systems, and potential obsolescence. KOS can be expressed in RDF and RDFS as per the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) recommendation by W3C, which aims to enable the sharing and linking of KOS via the Web. One of the largest collections of KOS is the BARTOC registry. == Types == While different schema of KOS have been proposed, most are generally arranged in terms of the complexity of their construction and maintenance. Some scholars argue that organizing KOS on a spectrum oversimplifies the shared characteristics among them, and may even result in a non-ideal structure being chosen. The following types are not exhaustive, and are often not mutually-exclusive in practice. === Term lists === Term lists are the least structured form of KOS. They include lists, glossaries, dictionaries, and synonym rings. Authority files and gazetteers may also be considered term lists, however other scholars categorize them and directories as "metadata-like models". Examples include the Union List of Artist Names name authority file and the GeoNames gazetteer. === Categorization and classification === KOS that emphasize specific (and often hierarchical) structures include subject headings, taxonomies, categorization schema, and classification schema & systems. Despite inconsistent use of the terms "categorization" and "classification" in some literature, categorization is generally loosely-assembled grouping schema and may include attributes that are not mutually exclusive (or having fuzzy boundaries), while classification is related to the arrangement of non-overlapping and mutually-exclusive classes. Classification schema may be universal (such as Dewey Decimal Classification and Information Coding Classification) or domain-specific (such as the National Library of Medicine Classification). === Relationship models === The types of KOS with greatest complexity and which utilize connections between concepts include thesauri, semantic networks, and ontologies. One of the most prominent examples of a semantic network is WordNet. === Others === Certain structures proposed to be considered types of KOS—but are not consistently included in schema—include folksonomies, topic maps, web directory structures, publication organization systems, and bibliometric maps. Some KOS organize other KOS themselves—for instance, PeriodO is a gazetteer of periodization categories. == Applications == Some early KOS were developed as a support system for abstracting and indexing services to be used by specially-trained searchers. With the growth of information digitization, usability became increasingly accessible, and more complex structures were developed. Prominent examples of KOS outside of LIS include organism taxonomy in biology, the periodic table of elements in chemistry, SIC and NAICS classification systems for industry & business, and AGROVOC agricultural controlled vocabulary. == Challenges == The study and design of KOS is an ongoing topic of discussion among KO scholars. === Terminology === [There is] a serious lack of vocabulary control in the literature on controlled vocabulary. Inconsistency of terminology within the study of KOS is a common issue. For instance, "ontology" is used for both a specific type of KOS as well as a generic term for any KOS. The terms "taxonomy", "classification", and "categorization" are also sometimes used interchangeably. === Bias === As knowledge can be historically and culturally biased, scholars have also discussed how KOS themselves can perpetuate harmful practices or stereotypes. For example, a number of concerns and criticisms about the classification of mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders have been raised, contributing to ongoing revisions. Ethical and intentional design approaches have been proposed for multi-perspective KOS in efforts to mitigate bias and other harmful practices. === Obsolescence === The possible obsolescence of the thesaurus and other simpler KOS has been the topic of debate, especially in the face of increasingly complex ontologies, the growing usage of "Google-like retrieval systems", and the move of KO theory and research away from LIS and toward computer science. Supporters of thesauri argue its continued usefulness for metadata enrichment, vocabulary mapping, and web services, as well as its usage in specific domains such as corporate intranets and digital image libraries.

  Read more →
• 

  Information logistics

  Information Logistics (IL) deals with the flow of information between human or machine actors within or between any number of organizations that in turn form a value creating network (see, e.g.). IL is closely related to information management, information operations and information technology. == Definition == The term Information Logistics (IL) may be used in either of two ways: Firstly, it can be defined as "managing and controlling information handling processes optimally with respect to time (flow time and capacity), storage, distribution and presentation in such a way that it contributes to company results in concurrence with the costs of capturing (creation, searching, maintenance etc)." (Petri,2017) Thus IL utilizes logistic principles to optimize information handling. Secondly, IL can be seen as a concept using information technology to optimize logistics. A term which is closely related to the first meaning of Information Logistics is Data Logistics, a concept used in Computer Networking. "The study of solutions to problems in Computer Systems that flexibly span resources and services relating to Data Movement, Data Storage and Data Processing." [ref?] Systems that support general Data Logistics solutions thus must span the traditionally separate fields of Networking, File/Database Systems and Process Management. Data Logistics is a more general form of the term Logistical Networking, used as the name of a particular network storage architecture and software stack. == Goal == The goal of Information Logistics is to deliver the right product, consisting of the right information element, in the right format, at the right place at the right time for the right people at the right price and all of this is customer demand driven. If this goal is to be achieved, knowledge workers are best equipped with information for the task at hand for improved interaction with its customers and machines are enabled to respond automatically to meaningful information. Methods for achieving the goal are: the analysis of information demand intelligent information storage the optimization of the flow of information maintaining both security and organizational flexibility integrated information and billing solutions The expression was formed by the Indian mathematician and librarian S. R. Ranganathan . The supply of a product is part of the discipline Logistics. The purpose of this discipline is described as follows: Logistics is the teachings of the plans and the effective and efficient run of supply. The contemporary logistics focuses on the organization, planning, control and implementation of the flow of goods, money, information and people. Information Logistics focusses on information. Information (from Latin informare: "shape, shapes, instruct") means in a general sense everything that adds knowledge and thus reduce ignorance or lack of precision. In a stricter sense, raw data only becomes information to those who can interpret it. Interpreting relevant, related information produces insight that either leads to existing, or eventually builds new, knowledge. == Information element == An information element (IE) is an information component that is located in the organizational value chain. The combination of certain IEs leads to an information product (IP), which is any final product in the form of information that a person needs to have. When a higher number of different IEs are required, it often results in more planning problems in capacity and inherently leads to a non-delivery of the IP. To illustrate the concept of an IP, an example is shown of a bottleneck analysis in HR (by J. Willems 2008). Here, the illustration shows how the information elements (e.g. qualifications) build up the information product (e.g. HR file). == Data logistics == Data logistics is a concept that developed independently of information logistics in the 1990s, in response to the explosion of Internet content and traffic due to the invention of the World Wide Web (WWW). Some motivations for the emergence of interest in Data Logistics included: The incorporation of network hyperlinks into content encoded in HTML encouraged users to freely dereference those links without regard to, or in many cases without even having any knowledge of, the identity (much less the geographical or network topological location of) the target Web server. The growth in the volume of Web hits, combined with the steady increase in the size of Web-delivered objects such as images, audio and video clips resulted in the localized overloading of the bandwidth and processing resources of the local and/or wide area network and/or the Web server infrastructure. The resulting Internet bottleneck can cause Web clients to experience poor performance or complete denial of access to servers that host high volume sites (the so-called Slashdot effect). The growth in all Internet traffic, especially across international telecommunication links, resulted in stress to institutional infrastructure and high costs on networks that billed Internet traffic on a per-use basis. Much of this traffic was redundant, the results of repeated requests by many independent users to access the same stored files and content. Large files and content retrieved from distant Web servers was often delayed due to high delays experienced over long and complex Internet paths. These factors led to interest in the use of large scale storage (and to a lesser extent, processing) resources to cache the response to network requests, first at the Internet endpoint using a Web browser cache and later at intermediate network locations using shared network caches. This line of development also gave rise to Web server replication and other techniques for offloading and distributing the work of delivering large volume Web services to widely dispersed client communities, ultimately resulting in the creation of modern Content delivery networks. At the same time, research efforts in server replication and content delivery gave rise to a number of related projects and strategies, including Logistical Networking (LN). The name LN was intended as an analogy to physical supply chain logistics, in which goods are not only carried from source to destination on networks of roads, but are also stored at warehouses located throughout the transportation infrastructure. This led to a nomenclature in which LN network storage resources are termed "storage depots". The principles that underpin LN have been abstracted into the more general study of scheduling and optimization across the traditional infrastructure silos of Storage, Networking and Processing which was named Data Logistics. === Illustrative examples of data logistics === Data Caching and Replication are classic examples of Data Logistics solutions to problems in Computer Systems and Networking with high data access latencies or data transfer resource limitations. It works mainly across the areas of data transfer and data storage. Dynamic Compression in data transfer is another example which uses computational resources to minimize the bandwidth requirements of data transfer.

  Read more →
• 

  Continuous Exposure Management

  Continuous Exposure Management (CEM) is a cybersecurity approach that provides continuous, real-time monitoring, assessment, and prioritization of an organization’s security vulnerabilities and exposures. CEM focuses on identifying and mitigating risks by analyzing attack paths and providing recommendations, ensuring organizations maintain a resilient cybersecurity posture. == Overview == CEM platforms enable organizations to detect and remediate cybersecurity exposures, such as vulnerabilities, misconfigurations and weak credentials, across their entire ecosystem, including on-premises, cloud environments, and hybrid infrastructures. By simulating potential attack scenarios and mapping attack paths, these platforms help organizations understand how exposures could be exploited and which ones pose the greatest risk to critical assets. The XM Cyber Continuous Exposure Management platform, for example, integrates automated attack path mapping and contextual risk analysis, allowing security teams to prioritize remediation efforts effectively. In 2023, the platform uncovered over 40 million exposures affecting 11.5 million critical business entities. As cyber threats evolve, CEM platforms are becoming indispensable for modern enterprises. According to Gartner, organizations implementing continuous exposure management are three times less likely to experience a breach by 2026. In addition to risk mapping and simulation, some CEM approaches incorporate automated security validation to verify the exploitability of identified vulnerabilities. Platforms such as Pentera utilize automated security testing to emulate real-world adversary behavior across the network, identifying how security gaps could be leveraged to gain access to critical assets. This process aims to move beyond theoretical risk assessments by providing empirical evidence of exposure, allowing security teams to focus remediation efforts on validated attack vectors. By integrating this validation phase into the broader exposure management lifecycle, organizations can refine their prioritization strategies based on the actual effectiveness of their existing security controls and the proven reachability of their most sensitive data. == Key features == CEM platforms are designed to address the dynamic nature of cybersecurity risks through the following features: Attack Path Simulation: Continuously maps attack paths to critical assets, highlighting exploitable exposures and chokepoints. Risk Prioritization: Focuses on exposures with the highest impact on critical assets, ensuring efficient allocation of resources. Remediation Guidance: Provides clear, actionable recommendations to resolve exposures and strengthen defenses. Integration with Existing Tools: Seamlessly works with Security Information and Event Management (SIEM), ticketing, and Security Orchestration, Automation, and Response (SOAR) systems. Real-time Monitoring: Offers continuous visibility into exposures, ensuring that new ones are quickly identified and addressed.

  Read more →
• 

  Pointer jumping

  Pointer jumping or path doubling is a design technique for parallel algorithms that operate on pointer structures, such as linked lists and directed graphs. Pointer jumping allows an algorithm to follow paths with a time complexity that is logarithmic with respect to the length of the longest path. It does this by "jumping" to the end of the path computed by neighbors. The basic operation of pointer jumping is to replace each neighbor in a pointer structure with its neighbor's neighbor. In each step of the algorithm, this replacement is done for all nodes in the data structure, which can be done independently in parallel. In the next step when a neighbor's neighbor is followed, the neighbor's path already followed in the previous step is added to the node's followed path in a single step. Thus, each step effectively doubles the distance traversed by the explored paths. Pointer jumping is best understood by looking at simple examples such as list ranking and root finding. == List ranking == One of the simpler tasks that can be solved by a pointer jumping algorithm is the list ranking problem. This problem is defined as follows: given a linked list of N nodes, find the distance (measured in the number of nodes) of each node to the end of the list. The distance d(n) is defined as follows, for nodes n that point to their successor by a pointer called next: If n.next is nil, then d(n) = 0. For any other node, d(n) = d(n.next) + 1. This problem can easily be solved in linear time on a sequential machine, but a parallel algorithm can do better: given n processors, the problem can be solved in logarithmic time, O(log N), by the following pointer jumping algorithm: The pointer jumping occurs in the last line of the algorithm, where each node's next pointer is reset to skip the node's direct successor. It is assumed, as in common in the PRAM model of computation, that memory access are performed in lock-step, so that each n.next.next memory fetch is performed before each n.next memory store; otherwise, processors may clobber each other's data, producing inconsistencies. The following diagram follows how the parallel list ranking algorithm uses pointer jumping for a linked list with 11 elements. As the algorithm describes, the first iteration starts initialized with all ranks set to 1 except those with a null pointer for next. The first iteration looks at immediate neighbors. Each subsequent iteration jumps twice as far as the previous. Analyzing the algorithm yields a logarithmic running time. The initialization loop takes constant time, because each of the N processors performs a constant amount of work, all in parallel. The inner loop of the main loop also takes constant time, as does (by assumption) the termination check for the loop, so the running time is determined by how often this inner loop is executed. Since the pointer jumping in each iteration splits the list into two parts, one consisting of the "odd" elements and one of the "even" elements, the length of the list pointed to by each processor's n is halved in each iteration, which can be done at most O(log N) time before each list has a length of at most one. == Root finding == Following a path in a graph is an inherently serial operation, but pointer jumping reduces the total amount of work by following all paths simultaneously and sharing results among dependent operations. Pointer jumping iterates and finds a successor — a vertex closer to the tree root — each time. By following successors computed for other vertices, the traversal down each path can be doubled every iteration, which means that the tree roots can be found in logarithmic time. Pointer doubling operates on an array successor with an entry for every vertex in the graph. Each successor[i] is initialized with the parent index of vertex i if that vertex is not a root or to i itself if that vertex is a root. At each iteration, each successor is updated to its successor's successor. The root is found when the successor's successor points to itself. The following pseudocode demonstrates the algorithm. algorithm Input: An array parent representing a forest of trees. parent[i] is the parent of vertex i or itself for a root Output: An array containing the root ancestor for every vertex for i ← 1 to length(parent) do in parallel successor[i] ← parent[i] while true for i ← 1 to length(successor) do in parallel successor_next[i] ← successor[successor[i]] if successor_next = successor then break for i ← 1 to length(successor) do in parallel successor[i] ← successor_next[i] return successor The following image provides an example of using pointer jumping on a small forest. On each iteration the successor points to the vertex following one more successor. After two iterations, every vertex points to its root node. == History and examples == Although the name pointer jumping would come later, JáJá attributes the first uses of the technique in early parallel graph algorithms and list ranking. The technique has been described with other names such as shortcutting, but by the 1990s textbooks on parallel algorithms consistently used the term pointer jumping. Today, pointer jumping is considered a software design pattern for operating on recursive data types in parallel. As a technique for following linked paths, graph algorithms are a natural fit for pointer jumping. Consequently, several parallel graph algorithms utilizing pointer jumping have been designed. These include algorithms for finding the roots of a forest of rooted trees, connected components, minimum spanning trees, and biconnected components. However, pointer jumping has also shown to be useful in a variety of other problems including computer vision, image compression, and Bayesian inference.

  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 →