Differentiable imaging is a method within computational imaging that incorporates differentiable programming to design imaging systems. It treats the entire imaging process - from light passing through optical components to the numerical reconstruction—as a differentiable programming problem. This approach links optical hardware with numerical reconstruction, enabling joint optimization of both parts through differentiable programming. Differentiable imaging additionally extends the scope of computational imaging beyond image reconstruction, such as by aiding in characterization of optical components. == Background == Computational imaging combines optical hardware and computational algorithms to capture and reconstruct information that conventional imaging system cannot. This is achieved from a combination of the imaging system and the software used in the image reconstruction. Since the captured information may not directly show the image of the target, these systems often rely on numerical models that describe how light encodes the target. In practice, such models may deviate from the physical systems due to uncertainties such as noise, misalignments, manufacturing imperfections, environmental variations, etc. These uncertainties can cause a mismatch between the physical system and its numerical model, which may degrade reconstruction quality and limit the effectiveness of the hardware–software co-design. Uncertainty quantification is also studied in other hybrid physical–numerical systems, such as digital twin. While numerical modeling imaging systems date back to the several decades, such as the multislice method in electron microscopy or X-Ray nanotomography, differentiable imaging emphasizes jointly modeling uncertainties and solving inverse problems with image reconstruction simultaneously. Differentiable imaging transforms the traditional encoding model y = f ( x ) {\textstyle y=f(x)} into a more comprehensive formulation y = f ( x , θ ) {\textstyle y=f(x,\theta )} , where θ {\displaystyle \theta } represents a parameter set of mismatches between physical systems and numerical models. The forward model captures the entire imaging pipeline through a series of interconnected component functions: y = f ( x , θ ) , f = f n o i s e ∘ f c ∘ f o c ∘ f x ∘ f o i ∘ f i , {\displaystyle y=f(x,\theta ),\qquad f=f_{noise}\circ f_{c}\circ f_{oc}\circ f_{x}\circ f_{oi}\circ f_{i},} where the function composition operator ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } connects each system component, and θ = { θ c , θ o c , … } {\displaystyle \theta =\{\theta _{c},\theta _{oc},\ldots \}} encompasses uncertainty system parameters. Each component corresponds to specific physical processes within the imaging system, from illumination through object interactions to sensor behavior and noises. This forward model enables the formulation of an inverse problem that simultaneously optimizes system parameters while reconstructing images: x ∗ , θ ∗ = argmin x , θ L ( f ( x , θ ) , y ) + ∑ n = 1 N β n R n ( x ) {\displaystyle x^{},\theta ^{}={\text{argmin}}_{x,\theta }{\mathcal {L}}(f(x,\theta ),y)+\sum _{n=1}^{N}\beta _{n}{\mathcal {R}}_{n}(x)} s . t . x ∈ Ω x , θ ∈ Ω θ {\displaystyle s.t.\quad x\in \Omega _{x},\theta \in \Omega _{\theta }} Here, L ( f ( x , θ ) , y ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}(f(x,\theta ),y)} represents the fidelity term that quantifies the discrepancy between the model predictions and measured data. The whole process of the y = f ( x , θ ) {\displaystyle y=f(x,\theta )} is constructed as a computer graph based on differentiable programming, and the inverse problem is solved with gradient based algorithm, while the gradient is calculated with automatic differentiation. == Applications == One application of differentiable imaging is uncertainty management, which seeks to quantify and mitigate the impact of factors induce reality-numerical mismatch. Explicitly accounting for uncertainties can improve reconstruction accuracy and system robustness. Examples include: Model-related uncertainties: unknown or unmeasurable variables—for instance, optical system quantities that differ from the design specifications Data and system uncertainties: artifacts introduced during image acquisition, such as low-quality data, noise, or hardware imperfections Manufacturing uncertainties: variability in the production of imaging hardware—such as slight deviations in lens curvature or sensor alignment—that alters the physical system's behavior
2024–present global memory supply shortage
A global computer memory supply shortage started in 2024 due to supply constraints and rapid price escalation in the semiconductor memory market, particularly affecting DRAM and NAND flash memory. This shortage is sometimes labelled by tech media outlets as "RAMmageddon" or the "RAMpocalypse". Unlike the 2020–2023 global chip shortage, which stemmed primarily from pandemic-related supply chain disruptions from COVID-19, this shortage is driven by a structural reallocation of manufacturing capacity toward high-margin products for artificial intelligence infrastructure, creating scarcity of computer memory in consumer and enterprise PC markets. According to a 2026 Kearney's PERLab analysis, the shortage is expected to last at least until 2030, with CEOs agreeing with the timelines. == Background == Following a severe market downturn in 2022–2023, major memory manufacturers—Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, and Micron Technology—implemented strategic production cuts to stabilize pricing. By mid-2024, the rapid expansion of generative AI services triggered unprecedented demand for specialized memory products, particularly High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) used in AI accelerators and data center GPUs. Specialized components of semiconductor technology are also experiencing supply constraints due to high demand in AI application. For example, glass cloth, a high-performance glass fiber substrate used for power efficient high speed data transfer and a crucial component of semiconductor manufacturing, is experiencing a supply crisis. Nitto Boseki, a Japanese firm having overwhelming monopoly in its production, is not able to meet increased demands, making chip-makers such as Qualcomm, Apple, Nvidia and AMD compete for securing supply. There are also reports of smaller electronics companies struggling to find suppliers for components such as NAND flash. Memory suppliers are adapting to increased demands and market unpredictability by requiring prepayment or shorter time-frame of payment, which makes it more difficult for smaller firms to acquire capital to survive. By 2026, due to steadily increased demand on resources, CPUs are also experiencing shortage issues due to low fabrication capacity, prioritisation of server CPUs, and increased demand, with CPU prices also being forecast to increase by as much as 15%. The demand on memory has also increased strain on other electronic components such as hard disk devices, with reports such as Western Digital's hard disk supply for 2026 being booked for enterprise applications before February 2026. A 2024 McKinsey analysis projected that global demand for AI-ready data center capacity would grow at approximately 33% annually through 2030, with AI workloads consuming roughly 70% of total data center capacity by the decade's end. In addition, according to Kearney's State of Semiconductor 2025 Report, executives were already expecting a shortage in the <8nm wafer size with memory chips being mentioned as an acute source of concern. Multiple companies mentioned being prepared for it through long-term agreements with RAM suppliers or amassing additional inventory. On 24 March 2026, Google announced TurboQuant, a memory compression technology focused on large language models (LLM) and vector search engines, which it claimed achieves 6x lower memory consumption in tested local LLMs and 8x performance enhancement in tests running on H100 accelerators. The technology is also a drop in enhancement for existing inference pipeline. Amid speculation about memory demand trends, memory manufacturers, SanDisk, Micron, Western Digital and Seagate, among other companies involved in memory manufacture experienced stock price declines. Prices of memory kits also reduced in the following months, although still at inflated prices. == Causes == === HBM production displacement === HBM manufacturing requires significantly more wafer capacity per bit than standard DRAM modules. Industry sources reported that as manufacturers allocated increasing wafer capacity to HBM production to meet contracts with AI infrastructure providers, the supply of conventional DDR4 and DDR5 modules for consumer PCs and smartphones contracted sharply. By September 2025, Samsung Electronics had reportedly expanded its 1c DRAM capacity to target 60,000 wafers per month specifically for HBM4 production, further diverting resources from consumer memory lines. === Geopolitical and trade barriers === The supply chain was further constrained by escalating trade tensions between the United States and China. Throughout 2025, fears of U.S. regulatory backlash and new tariff structures led major manufacturers like Samsung and SK Hynix to halt sales of older semiconductor manufacturing equipment to Chinese entities, effectively capping production capacity in the region. Additionally, proposed tariff policies by the U.S. administration in late 2025 prompted supply chain realignments, with Apple reportedly accelerating plans to source all U.S.-bound iPhones from India to avoid potential levies. === NAND flash capacity constraints === In the NAND flash segment, manufacturers prioritized higher-margin enterprise SSDs for data center applications while phasing out older process nodes more rapidly than anticipated. In November 2025, contract prices for NAND wafers increased by more than 60% month-over-month for certain product categories, with 512GB TLC experiencing the steepest rise as legacy manufacturing capacity was retired. == Impact on industry and consumers == === Manufacturer responses === Major PC manufacturers responded to component cost increases with significant price adjustments and supply chain strategies. Dell Technologies Chief Operating Officer Jeff Clarke stated during a November 2025 analyst call that the company had "never witnessed costs escalating at the current pace," describing tighter availability across DRAM, hard drives, and NAND flash memory. Analysts at Morgan Stanley downgraded Dell Technologies stock from "Overweight" to "Underweight" in late 2025, citing the company's heavy exposure to rising server memory costs. The firm warned that skyrocketing memory prices could significantly erode margins for server and PC OEMs. Conversely, Apple Inc. was reportedly less affected than its competitors, having secured long-term supply agreements for DRAM through the first quarter of 2026. Lenovo Chief Financial Officer Winston Cheng described the cost surge as "unprecedented" and disclosed that the company's memory inventories were approximately 50% above normal levels in anticipation of further price increases. === Consumer electronics sector === The shortage particularly affected smartphone manufacturers and other consumer electronics producers. DRAM prices reportedly rose by 172% throughout 2025, leading manufacturers like Samsung to halt new orders for DDR5 modules to reassess pricing structures and Micron to exit its 'Crucial' brand of consumer products. In Tokyo's Akihabara electronics district, retailers began limiting purchases of memory products to prevent hoarding, with prices for popular DDR5 memory modules more than doubling in some cases. Despite the broad trend of rising hardware costs, some companies engaged in aggressive pricing strategies to maintain market share; for example, Sony reduced the price of the PlayStation 5 by $100 for Black Friday 2025, potentially absorbing increased component costs to stimulate software ecosystem growth. Due to memory prices more than doubling in a single quarter, HP revealed in its Q1 2026 earnings call that memory costs account for 35% of PC build materials up from 15-18% previous quarter. Despite showing strong Q1 2026 earning driven by Windows 11 upgrade cycle and AI PC adoption, HP warned investors of low operating margins and up to double digit percentage decline for coming quarter. Trendforce, an IT analytics company, updated its forecast from 1.7% year-over-year growth in PC market to 2.6% year-over-year decline for 2026, amid backdrop of steadily increasing prices and supply crisis. Research and analytics firms, Gartner and IDC expect worldwide PC market to decline 10-11% and smartphone market to decline 8-9% in 2026. Gartner also projects that rising memory prices will make low-margin entry level laptops under 500 USD financially unviable in two years. The RAM shortage has delayed the release of Valve's second Steam Machine due to increased memory prices. The device was originally set to launch in early 2026. === AI infrastructure competition === Technology companies including Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms placed open-ended orders with memory suppliers, indicating they would accept as much supply as available regardless of cost, according to Reuters sources. The limited supply of AI chips has been cited as a reason for the slow down in compute growth. In October 2025, OpenAI formally announced a strategic partnership using letters of intent with Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix
CloudMinds
CloudMinds is an operator of cloud-based systems for cognitive robotics. == History == CloudMinds was founded in 2015 and is backed by SoftBank, Foxconn, Walden Venture Investments, and Keytone Ventures. CloudMinds has developed research in smart devices, robot control, high-speed security networks, and cloud intelligence integration. CloudMinds developed the Mobile Intranet Cloud Services (MCS) based on these technologies in order to increase the information security of the cloud robot remote control. The technology has been applied in the fields of finance, medicine, the military, public safety, and large-scale manufacturing. == U.S. sanctions == In May 2020, CloudMinds was added to the Bureau of Industry and Security's Entity List due to U.S. national security concerns.
GeneTalk
GeneTalk is a web-based platform, tool, and database for filtering, reduction and prioritization of human sequence variants from next-generation sequencing (NGS) data. GeneTalk allows editing annotation about sequence variants and build up a crowd sourced database with clinically relevant information for diagnostics of genetic disorders. GeneTalk allows searching for information about specific sequence variants and connects to experts on variants that are potentially disease-relevant. == Application to diagnostics == Users can upload NGS data in Variant Call Format (VCF) onto the GeneTalk server into their accounts. All entries of the file are preprocessed and shown in the integrated VCF viewer. Filtering tools are set by the user to reduce the number of clinically non-relevant variants. After filtering and prioritization users can interpret relevant variants by retrieving information (annotations) about variants from the GeneTalk database. The communication platform allow users to contact experts about specific variants, genes, or genetic disorders, to exchange knowledge and expertise. === Analysis procedure === Steps required to analyze VCF files Upload VCF file Edit pedigree and phenotype information for segregation filtering Filter VCF file by editing the filtering options View results and annotations Add annotations === Filtering tools === The following filtering options may be used to reduce the non-relevant sequence variants in VCF files. Functional – filter out variants that have effects on protein level Linkage – filter out variants that are on specified chromosomes Gene panel – filter variants by genes or gene panels, subscribe to publicly available gene panels or create own ones Frequency – show only variants with a genotype frequency lower than specified Inheritance – filter out variants by presumed mode of inheritance Annotation – show only variants with a score for medical relevance and scientific evidence == Communication platform and expert network == Users can share VCF files with colleagues and coworkers. The integrated mailing systems allows users to contact experts easily. Users can create annotations and comments and rate annotations regarding medical relevance and scientific evidence, that is helpful for the community of users for diagnosis of genetic disorders. Registered users provide information about their field of knowledge in their profile and can be contacted by other users. == Potential applications == Developing diagnostics Genetic analysis Capturing data generated by community Communication and exchange of knowledge and expertise
Microsoft Sway
Microsoft Sway is a presentation program and is part of the Microsoft 365 family of products. Sway was offered for general release by Microsoft in August 2015. It allows users who have a Microsoft account to combine text and media to create a presentable website. Users can pull content locally from the device in use, or from internet sources such as Bing, Facebook, OneDrive, and YouTube. Sway is distinguished from Microsoft FrontPage and Microsoft Expression Web – unrelated web design programs previously developed by Microsoft – in that Sway includes a method for hosting sites. Sway sites are stored on Microsoft's servers and are tied to the user's Microsoft account. They can be viewed and edited from any web browser through Office on the web. There is no offline editing or viewing function, but sites can be accessed using the app for Windows, and formerly iOS. == History == Sway was developed internally by Microsoft. In late 2014, the company announced an invite-only preview version of Sway and announced that Sway would not require an Office 365 subscription. An iOS app was released as a preview on 31 October 2014, but was discontinued on 17 December 2018 due to low usage. As of July 17, 2021, the Sway iOS app's discontinuance in 2018 was the last piece of news posted in the Sway tech blog. The Sway feature blog has not received an update since April 2017. The Microsoft Office Roadmap did not include any items related to Sway ever since. The iOS application is no longer under active development, and is not available for download. Since 2023, Microsoft has been consolidating the domains of its Microsoft 365 apps and services under cloud.microsoft. By 2025, the vast majority of services, including Sway, have already migrated to the cloud.microsoft domain. == Features == Users are able to add content from various sources into their Sway presentations. Some of the integrated services are owned by Microsoft, including OneNote, Bing, and other Sway sites. The program also provides native integration with other services, including YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Mixcloud, and Infogram.
Automated essay scoring
Automated essay scoring (AES) is the use of specialized computer programs to assign grades to essays written in an educational setting. It is a form of educational assessment and an application of natural language processing. Its objective is to classify a large set of textual entities into a small number of discrete categories, corresponding to the possible grades, for example, the numbers 1 to 6. Therefore, it can be considered a problem of statistical classification. Several factors have contributed to a growing interest in AES. Among them are cost, accountability, standards, and technology. Rising education costs have led to pressure to hold the educational system accountable for results by imposing standards. The advance of information technology promises to measure educational achievement at reduced cost. The use of AES for high-stakes testing in education has generated significant backlash, with opponents pointing to research that computers cannot yet grade writing accurately and arguing that their use for such purposes promotes teaching writing in reductive ways (i.e. teaching to the test). == History == Most historical summaries of AES trace the origins of the field to the work of Ellis Batten Page. In 1966, he argued for the possibility of scoring essays by computer, and in 1968 he published his successful work with a program called Project Essay Grade (PEG). Using the technology of that time, computerized essay scoring would not have been cost-effective, so Page abated his efforts for about two decades. Eventually, Page sold PEG to Measurement Incorporated. By 1990, desktop computers had become so powerful and so widespread that AES was a practical possibility. As early as 1982, a UNIX program called Writer's Workbench was able to offer punctuation, spelling and grammar advice. In collaboration with several companies (notably Educational Testing Service), Page updated PEG and ran some successful trials in the early 1990s. Peter Foltz and Thomas Landauer developed a system using a scoring engine called the Intelligent Essay Assessor (IEA). IEA was first used to score essays in 1997 for their undergraduate courses. It is now a product from Pearson Educational Technologies and used for scoring within a number of commercial products and state and national exams. IntelliMetric is Vantage Learning's AES engine. Its development began in 1996. It was first used commercially to score essays in 1998. Educational Testing Service offers "e-rater", an automated essay scoring program. It was first used commercially in February 1999. Jill Burstein was the team leader in its development. ETS's Criterion Online Writing Evaluation Service uses the e-rater engine to provide both scores and targeted feedback. Lawrence Rudner has done some work with Bayesian scoring, and developed a system called BETSY (Bayesian Essay Test Scoring sYstem). Some of his results have been published in print or online, but no commercial system incorporates BETSY as yet. Under the leadership of Howard Mitzel and Sue Lottridge, Pacific Metrics developed a constructed response automated scoring engine, CRASE. Currently utilized by several state departments of education and in a U.S. Department of Education-funded Enhanced Assessment Grant, Pacific Metrics’ technology has been used in large-scale formative and summative assessment environments since 2007. Measurement Inc. acquired the rights to PEG in 2002 and has continued to develop it. In 2012, the Hewlett Foundation sponsored a competition on Kaggle called the Automated Student Assessment Prize (ASAP). 201 challenge participants attempted to predict, using AES, the scores that human raters would give to thousands of essays written to eight different prompts. The intent was to demonstrate that AES can be as reliable as human raters, or more so. The competition also hosted a separate demonstration among nine AES vendors on a subset of the ASAP data. Although the investigators reported that the automated essay scoring was as reliable as human scoring, this claim was not substantiated by any statistical tests because some of the vendors required that no such tests be performed as a precondition for their participation. Moreover, the claim that the Hewlett Study demonstrated that AES can be as reliable as human raters has since been strongly contested, including by Randy E. Bennett, the Norman O. Frederiksen Chair in Assessment Innovation at the Educational Testing Service. Some of the major criticisms of the study have been that five of the eight datasets consisted of paragraphs rather than essays, four of the eight data sets were graded by human readers for content only rather than for writing ability, and that rather than measuring human readers and the AES machines against the "true score", the average of the two readers' scores, the study employed an artificial construct, the "resolved score", which in four datasets consisted of the higher of the two human scores if there was a disagreement. This last practice, in particular, gave the machines an unfair advantage by allowing them to round up for these datasets. In 1966, Page hypothesized that, in the future, the computer-based judge will be better correlated with each human judge than the other human judges are. Despite criticizing the applicability of this approach to essay marking in general, this hypothesis was supported for marking free text answers to short questions, such as those typical of the British GCSE system. Results of supervised learning demonstrate that the automatic systems perform well when marking by different human teachers is in good agreement. Unsupervised clustering of answers showed that excellent papers and weak papers formed well-defined clusters, and the automated marking rule for these clusters worked well, whereas marks given by human teachers for the third cluster ('mixed') can be controversial, and the reliability of any assessment of works from the 'mixed' cluster can often be questioned (both human and computer-based). == Different dimensions of essay quality == According to a recent survey, modern AES systems try to score different dimensions of an essay's quality in order to provide feedback to users. These dimensions include the following items: Grammaticality: following grammar rules Usage: using of prepositions, word usage Mechanics: following rules for spelling, punctuation, capitalization Style: word choice, sentence structure variety Relevance: how relevant of the content to the prompt Organization: how well the essay is structured Development: development of ideas with examples Cohesion: appropriate use of transition phrases Coherence: appropriate transitions between ideas Thesis Clarity: clarity of the thesis Persuasiveness: convincingness of the major argument == Procedure == From the beginning, the basic procedure for AES has been to start with a training set of essays that have been carefully hand-scored. The program evaluates surface features of the text of each essay, such as the total number of words, the number of subordinate clauses, or the ratio of uppercase to lowercase letters—quantities that can be measured without any human insight. It then constructs a mathematical model that relates these quantities to the scores that the essays received. The same model is then applied to calculate scores of new essays. Recently, one such mathematical model was created by Isaac Persing and Vincent Ng. which not only evaluates essays on the above features, but also on their argument strength. It evaluates various features of the essay, such as the agreement level of the author and reasons for the same, adherence to the prompt's topic, locations of argument components (major claim, claim, premise), errors in the arguments, cohesion in the arguments among various other features. In contrast to the other models mentioned above, this model is closer in duplicating human insight while grading essays. Due to the growing popularity of deep neural networks, deep learning approaches have been adopted for automated essay scoring, generally obtaining superior results, often surpassing inter-human agreement levels. The various AES programs differ in what specific surface features they measure, how many essays are required in the training set, and most significantly in the mathematical modeling technique. Early attempts used linear regression. Modern systems may use linear regression or other machine learning techniques often in combination with other statistical techniques such as latent semantic analysis and Bayesian inference. The automated essay scoring task has also been studied in the cross-domain setting using machine learning models, where the models are trained on essays written for one prompt (topic) and tested on essays written for another prompt. Successful approaches in the cross-domain scenario are based on deep neural networks or models that combine deep and shallow features. == Criteria for success == Any method of a
Cooperative storage cloud
A cooperative storage cloud is a decentralized model of networked online storage where data is stored on multiple computers (nodes), hosted by the participants cooperating in the cloud. For the cooperative scheme to be viable, the total storage contributed in aggregate must be at least equal to the amount of storage needed by end users. However, some nodes may contribute less storage and some may contribute more. There may be reward models to compensate the nodes contributing more. Unlike a traditional storage cloud, a cooperative does not directly employ dedicated servers for the actual storage of the data, thereby eliminating the need for a significant dedicated hardware investment. Each node in the cooperative runs specialized software which communicates with a centralized control and orchestration server, thereby allowing the node to both consume and contribute storage space to the cloud. The centralized control and orchestration server requires several orders of magnitude less resources (storage, computing power, and bandwidth) to operate, relative to the overall capacity of the cooperative. == Data security == Files hosted in the cloud are fragmented and encrypted before leaving the local machine. They are then distributed randomly using a load balancing and geo-distribution algorithm to other nodes in the cooperative. Users can add an additional layer of security and reduce storage space by compressing and encrypting files before they are copied to the cloud. == Data redundancy == In order to maintain data integrity and high availability across a relatively unreliable set of computers over a wide area network like the Internet, the source node will add some level of redundancy to each data block. This allows the system to recreate the entire block even if some nodes are temporarily unavailable (due to loss of network connectivity, the machine being powered off or a hardware failure). The most storage and bandwidth efficient forms of redundancy use erasure coding techniques like Reed–Solomon. A simple, less CPU intensive but more expensive form of redundancy is duplicate copies. == Flexible contribution == Due to bandwidth or hardware constraints some nodes may not be able to contribute as much space as they consume in the cloud. On the other hand, nodes with large storage space and limited or no bandwidth constraints may contribute more than they consume, thereby the cooperative can stay in balance.