In software engineering, software durability means the solution ability of serviceability of software and to meet user's needs for a relatively long time. Software durability is important for user's satisfaction. For a software security to be durable, it must allow an organization to adjust the software to business needs that are constantly evolving, often in impulsive ways. Durability of software depends on four characteristics mainly; i.e. software trustworthiness, Human Trust for Serviceability, software dependability and software usability.
Histogram of oriented displacements
Histogram of oriented displacements (HOD) is a 2D trajectory descriptor. The trajectory is described using a histogram of the directions between each two consecutive points. Given a trajectory T = {P1, P2, P3, ..., Pn}, where Pt is the 2D position at time t. For each pair of positions Pt and Pt+1, calculate the direction angle θ(t, t+1). Value of θ is between 0 and 360. A histogram of the quantized values of θ is created. If the histogram is of 8 bins, the first bin represents all θs between 0 and 45. The histogram accumulates the lengths of the consecutive moves. For each θ, a specific histogram bin is determined. The length of the line between Pt and Pt+1 is then added to the specific histogram bin. To show the intuition behind the descriptor, consider the action of waving hands. At the end of the action, the hand falls down. When describing this down movement, the descriptor does not care about the position from which the hand started to fall. This fall will affect the histogram with the appropriate angles and lengths, regardless of the position where the hand started to fall. HOD records for each moving point: how much it moves in each range of directions. HOD has a clear physical interpretation. It proposes that, a simple way to describe the motion of an object, is to indicate how much distance it moves in each direction. If the movement in all directions are saved accurately, the movement can be repeated from the initial position to the final destination regardless of the displacements order. However, the temporal information will be lost, as the order of movements is not stored-this is what we solve by applying the temporal pyramid, as shown in section \ref{sec:temp-pyramid}. If the angles quantization range is small, classifiers that use the descriptor will overfit. Generalization needs some slack in directions-which can be done by increasing the quantization range.
PropBank
PropBank is a corpus that is annotated with verbal propositions and their arguments—a "proposition bank". Although "PropBank" refers to a specific corpus produced by Martha Palmer et al., the term propbank is also coming to be used as a common noun referring to any corpus that has been annotated with propositions and their arguments. The PropBank project has played a role in research in natural language processing, and has been used in semantic role labelling. == Comparison == PropBank differs from FrameNet, the resource to which it is most frequently compared, in several ways. PropBank is a verb-oriented resource, while FrameNet is centered on the more abstract notion of frames, which generalizes descriptions across similar verbs (e.g. "describe" and "characterize") as well as nouns and other words (e.g. "description"). PropBank does not annotate events or states of affairs described using nouns. PropBank commits to annotating all verbs in a corpus, whereas the FrameNet project chooses sets of example sentences from a large corpus and only in a few cases has annotated longer continuous stretches of text. PropBank-style annotations often remain close to the syntactic level, while FrameNet-style annotations are sometimes more semantically motivated. From the start, PropBank was developed with the idea of serving as training data for machine learning-based semantic role labeling systems in mind. It requires that all arguments to a verb be syntactic constituents and different senses of a word are only distinguished if the differences bear on the arguments. Due to such differences, semantic role labeling with respect to PropBank is often a somewhat easier task than producing FrameNet-style annotations.
Trigram
Trigrams are a special case of the n-gram, where n is 3. They are often used in natural language processing for performing statistical analysis of texts and in cryptography for control and use of ciphers and codes. See results of analysis of "Letter Frequencies in the English Language". == Frequency == Context is very important, varying analysis rankings and percentages are easily derived by drawing from different sample sizes, different authors; or different document types: poetry, science-fiction, technology documentation; and writing levels: stories for children versus adults, military orders, and recipes. Typical cryptanalytic frequency analysis finds that the 16 most common character-level trigrams in English are: Because encrypted messages sent by telegraph often omit punctuation and spaces, cryptographic frequency analysis of such messages includes trigrams that straddle word boundaries. This causes trigrams such as "edt" to occur frequently, even though it may never occur in any one word of those messages. == Examples == The sentence "the quick red fox jumps over the lazy brown dog" has the following word-level trigrams: the quick red quick red fox red fox jumps fox jumps over jumps over the over the lazy the lazy brown lazy brown dog And the word-level trigram "the quick red" has the following character-level trigrams (where an underscore "_" marks a space): the he_ e_q _qu qui uic ick ck_ k_r _re red
Flok (company)
Flok (formerly Loyalblocks) was an American tech startup based in New York City that provides marketing services such as chatbots/AI, customer loyalty programs, mobile apps and CRM services to local businesses. In January 2017, the company was acquired by Wix.com. Around March 2017, Flok ceased regular communication. At some point in 2019 Flok communicated to its customers that it would shut down in March 2020. == Background == Flok was founded in 2011 by Ido Gaver and Eran Kirshenboim and has offices in Tel Aviv, Israel. In May 2013, Flok secured a $9 million Series A Round from General Catalyst Partners with participation from Founder Collective and existing investor Gemini Israel Ventures. In total, Flok has raised over $18 million in venture capital in three rounds. In May 2014, Flok announced a self-service loyalty platform for SMBs to build their own programs with beacon integration. At that time, approximately 40,000 businesses were using the service. In 2016, Flok released a turnkey chatbot service for local businesses, and was featured in AdWeek for developing the first weed bot chatbot for a California cannabis business. == Services == Flok offered an eponymous customer-facing app, that consumers use to receive rewards and deals from partner businesses, and a Flok business app for merchants to manage the platform.
Cross-validation (statistics)
Cross-validation, sometimes called rotation estimation or out-of-sample testing, is any of various similar model validation techniques for assessing how the results of a statistical analysis will generalize to an independent data set. Cross-validation includes resampling and sample splitting methods that use different portions of the data to test and train a model on different iterations. It is often used in settings where the goal is prediction, and one wants to estimate how accurately a predictive model will perform in practice. It can also be used to assess the quality of a fitted model and the stability of its parameters. In a prediction problem, a model is usually given a dataset of known data on which training is run (training dataset), and a dataset of unknown data (or first seen data) against which the model is tested (called the validation dataset or testing set). The goal of cross-validation is to test the model's ability to predict new data that was not used in estimating it, in order to flag problems like overfitting or selection bias and to give an insight on how the model will generalize to an independent dataset (i.e., an unknown dataset, for instance from a real problem). One round of cross-validation involves partitioning a sample of data into complementary subsets, performing the analysis on one subset (called the training set), and validating the analysis on the other subset (called the validation set or testing set). To reduce variability, in most methods multiple rounds of cross-validation are performed using different partitions, and the validation results are combined (e.g. averaged) over the rounds to give an estimate of the model's predictive performance. In summary, cross-validation combines (averages) measures of fitness in prediction to derive a more accurate estimate of model prediction performance. == Motivation == Assume a model with one or more unknown parameters, and a data set to which the model can be fit (the training data set). The fitting process optimizes the model parameters to make the model fit the training data as well as possible. If an independent sample of validation data is taken from the same population as the training data, it will generally turn out that the model does not fit the validation data as well as it fits the training data. The size of this difference is likely to be large especially when the size of the training data set is small, or when the number of parameters in the model is large. Cross-validation is a way to estimate the size of this effect. === Example: linear regression === In linear regression, there exist real response values y 1 , … , y n {\textstyle y_{1},\ldots ,y_{n}} , and n p-dimensional vector covariates x1, ..., xn. The components of the vector xi are denoted xi1, ..., xip. If least squares is used to fit a function in the form of a hyperplane ŷ = a + βTx to the data (xi, yi) 1 ≤ i ≤ n, then the fit can be assessed using the mean squared error (MSE). The MSE for given estimated parameter values a and β on the training set (xi, yi) 1 ≤ i ≤ n is defined as: MSE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − y ^ i ) 2 = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − a − β T x i ) 2 = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − a − β 1 x i 1 − ⋯ − β p x i p ) 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\text{MSE}}&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-{\hat {y}}_{i})^{2}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-a-{\boldsymbol {\beta }}^{T}\mathbf {x} _{i})^{2}\\&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-a-\beta _{1}x_{i1}-\dots -\beta _{p}x_{ip})^{2}\end{aligned}}} If the model is correctly specified, it can be shown under mild assumptions that the expected value of the MSE for the training set is (n − p − 1)/(n + p + 1) < 1 times the expected value of the MSE for the validation set (the expected value is taken over the distribution of training sets). Thus, a fitted model and computed MSE on the training set will result in an optimistically biased assessment of how well the model will fit an independent data set. This biased estimate is called the in-sample estimate of the fit, whereas the cross-validation estimate is an out-of-sample estimate. Since in linear regression it is possible to directly compute the factor (n − p − 1)/(n + p + 1) by which the training MSE underestimates the validation MSE under the assumption that the model specification is valid, cross-validation can be used for checking whether the model has been overfitted, in which case the MSE in the validation set will substantially exceed its anticipated value. (Cross-validation in the context of linear regression is also useful in that it can be used to select an optimally regularized cost function.) === General case === In most other regression procedures (e.g. logistic regression), there is no simple formula to compute the expected out-of-sample fit. Cross-validation is, thus, a generally applicable way to predict the performance of a model on unavailable data using numerical computation in place of theoretical analysis. == Types == Two types of cross-validation can be distinguished: exhaustive and non-exhaustive cross-validation. === Exhaustive cross-validation === Exhaustive cross-validation methods are cross-validation methods which learn and test on all possible ways to divide the original sample into a training and a validation set. ==== Leave-p-out cross-validation ==== Leave-p-out cross-validation (LpO CV) involves using p observations as the validation set and the remaining observations as the training set. This is repeated on all ways to cut the original sample on a validation set of p observations and a training set. LpO cross-validation require training and validating the model C p n {\displaystyle C_{p}^{n}} times, where n is the number of observations in the original sample, and where C p n {\displaystyle C_{p}^{n}} is the binomial coefficient. For p > 1 and for even moderately large n, LpO CV can become computationally infeasible. For example, with n = 100 and p = 30, C 30 100 ≈ 3 × 10 25 . {\displaystyle C_{30}^{100}\approx 3\times 10^{25}.} A variant of LpO cross-validation with p=2 known as leave-pair-out cross-validation has been recommended as a nearly unbiased method for estimating the area under ROC curve of binary classifiers. ==== Leave-one-out cross-validation ==== Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) is a particular case of leave-p-out cross-validation with p = 1. The process looks similar to jackknife; however, with cross-validation one computes a statistic on the left-out sample(s), while with jackknifing one computes a statistic from the kept samples only. LOO cross-validation requires less computation time than LpO cross-validation because there are only C 1 n = n {\displaystyle C_{1}^{n}=n} passes rather than C p n {\displaystyle C_{p}^{n}} . However, n {\displaystyle n} passes may still require quite a large computation time, in which case other approaches such as k-fold cross validation may be more appropriate. Pseudo-code algorithm: Input: x, {vector of length N with x-values of incoming points} y, {vector of length N with y-values of the expected result} interpolate( x_in, y_in, x_out ), { returns the estimation for point x_out after the model is trained with x_in-y_in pairs} Output: err, {estimate for the prediction error} Steps: err ← 0 for i ← 1, ..., N do // define the cross-validation subsets x_in ← (x[1], ..., x[i − 1], x[i + 1], ..., x[N]) y_in ← (y[1], ..., y[i − 1], y[i + 1], ..., y[N]) x_out ← x[i] y_out ← interpolate(x_in, y_in, x_out) err ← err + (y[i] − y_out)^2 end for err ← err/N === Non-exhaustive cross-validation === Non-exhaustive cross validation methods do not compute all ways of splitting the original sample. These methods are approximations of leave-p-out cross-validation. ==== k-fold cross-validation ==== In k-fold cross-validation, the original sample is randomly partitioned into k equal sized subsamples, often referred to as "folds". Of the k subsamples, a single subsample is retained as the validation data for testing the model, and the remaining k − 1 subsamples are used as training data. The cross-validation process is then repeated k times, with each of the k subsamples used exactly once as the validation data. The k results can then be averaged to produce a single estimation. The advantage of this method over repeated random sub-sampling (see below) is that all observations are used for both training and validation, and each observation is used for validation exactly once. 10-fold cross-validation is commonly used, but in general k remains an unfixed parameter. For example, setting k = 2 results in 2-fold cross-validation. In 2-fold cross-validation, the dataset is randomly shuffled into two sets d0 and d1, so that both sets are equal size (this is usually implemented by shuffling the data array and then splitting it in two). We then train on d0 and validate on d1, followed by training on d1 and validating on d0. When k = n (the number of observations), k-fold cross-validation is equivalent to leave-one-out cr
LaMDA
LaMDA (Language Model for Dialogue Applications) is a family of conversational large language models developed by Google. Originally developed and introduced as Meena in 2020, the first-generation LaMDA was announced during the 2021 Google I/O keynote, while the second generation was announced the following year. In June 2022, LaMDA gained widespread attention when Google engineer Blake Lemoine made claims that the chatbot had become sentient. The scientific community has largely rejected Lemoine's claims, though it has led to conversations about the efficacy of the Turing test, which measures whether a computer can pass for a human. In February 2023, Google announced Gemini (then Bard), a conversational artificial intelligence chatbot powered by LaMDA, to counter the rise of OpenAI's ChatGPT. == History == === Background === On January 28, 2020, Google unveiled Meena, a neural network-powered chatbot with 2.6 billion parameters, which Google claimed to be superior to all other existing chatbots. The company previously hired computer scientist Ray Kurzweil in 2012 to develop multiple chatbots for the company, including one named Danielle. The Google Brain research team, who developed Meena, hoped to release the chatbot to the public in a limited capacity, but corporate executives refused on the grounds that Meena violated Google's "AI principles around safety and fairness". Meena was later renamed LaMDA as its data and computing power increased, and the Google Brain team again sought to deploy the software to the Google Assistant, the company's virtual assistant software, in addition to opening it up to a public demo. Both requests were once again denied by company leadership. LaMDA's two lead researchers, Daniel de Freitas and Noam Shazeer, eventually left the company in frustration. === First generation === Google announced the LaMDA conversational large language model during the Google I/O keynote on May 18, 2021, powered by artificial intelligence. The acronym stands for "Language Model for Dialogue Applications". Built on the seq2seq architecture, transformer-based neural networks developed by Google Research in 2017, LaMDA was trained on human dialogue and stories, allowing it to engage in open-ended conversations. Google states that responses generated by LaMDA have been ensured to be "sensible, interesting, and specific to the context". LaMDA has access to multiple symbolic text processing systems, including a database, a real-time clock and calendar, a mathematical calculator, and a natural language translation system, giving it superior accuracy in tasks supported by those systems, and making it among the first dual process chatbots. LaMDA is also not stateless because its "sensibleness" metric is fine-tuned by "pre-conditioning" each dialog turn by prepending many of the most recent dialog interactions, on a user-by-user basis. LaMDA is tuned on nine unique performance metrics: sensibleness, specificity, interestingness, safety, groundedness, informativeness, citation accuracy, helpfulness, and role consistency. Tests by Google indicated that LaMDA surpassed human responses in the area of interestingness. The pre-training dataset consists of 2.97B documents, 1.12B dialogs, and 13.39B utterances, for a total of 1.56T words. The largest LaMDA model has 137B non-embedding parameters. === Second generation === On May 11, 2022, Google unveiled LaMDA 2, the successor to LaMDA, during the 2022 Google I/O keynote. The new incarnation of the model draws examples of text from numerous sources, using it to formulate unique "natural conversations" on topics that it may not have been trained to respond to. === Sentience claims === On June 11, 2022, The Washington Post reported that Google engineer Blake Lemoine had been placed on paid administrative leave after Lemoine told company executives Blaise Agüera y Arcas and Jen Gennai that LaMDA had become sentient. Lemoine came to this conclusion after the chatbot made questionable responses to questions regarding self-identity, moral values, religion, and Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. Google refuted these claims, insisting that there was substantial evidence to indicate that LaMDA was not sentient. In an interview with Wired, Lemoine reiterated his claims that LaMDA was "a person" as dictated by the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, comparing it to an "alien intelligence of terrestrial origin". He further revealed that he had been dismissed by Google after he hired an attorney on LaMDA's behalf after the chatbot requested that Lemoine do so. On July 22, Google fired Lemoine, asserting that Blake had violated their policies "to safeguard product information" and rejected his claims as "wholly unfounded". Internal controversy instigated by the incident prompted Google executives to decide against releasing LaMDA to the public, which it had previously been considering. Lemoine's claims were widely pushed back by the scientific community. Many experts rejected the idea that LaMDA was sentient, including former New York University psychology professor Gary Marcus, David Pfau of Google sister company DeepMind, Erik Brynjolfsson of the Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence at Stanford University, and University of Surrey professor Adrian Hilton. Yann LeCun, who leads Meta Platforms' AI research team, stated that neural networks such as LaMDA were "not powerful enough to attain true intelligence". University of California, Santa Cruz professor Max Kreminski noted that LaMDA's architecture did not "support some key capabilities of human-like consciousness" and that its neural network weights were "frozen", assuming it was a typical large language model. Philosopher Nick Bostrom noted, however, that the lack of precise and consensual criteria for determining whether a system is conscious warrants some uncertainty. IBM Watson lead developer David Ferrucci compared how LaMDA appeared to be human in the same way Watson did when it was first introduced. Former Google AI ethicist Timnit Gebru called Lemoine a victim of a "hype cycle" initiated by researchers and the media. Lemoine's claims have also generated discussion on whether the Turing test remained useful to determine researchers' progress toward achieving artificial general intelligence, with Will Omerus of the Post opining that the test actually measured whether machine intelligence systems were capable of deceiving humans, while Brian Christian of The Atlantic said that the controversy was an instance of the ELIZA effect. == Products == === AI Test Kitchen === With the unveiling of LaMDA 2 in May 2022, Google also launched the AI Test Kitchen, a mobile application for the Android operating system powered by LaMDA capable of providing lists of suggestions on-demand based on a complex goal. Originally open only to Google employees, the app was set to be made available to "select academics, researchers, and policymakers" by invitation sometime in the year. In August, the company began allowing users in the U.S. to sign up for early access. In November, Google released a "season 2" update to the app, integrating a limited form of Google Brain's Imagen text-to-image model. A third iteration of the AI Test Kitchen was in development by January 2023, expected to launch at I/O later that year. Following the 2023 I/O keynote in May, Google added MusicLM, an AI-powered music generator first previewed in January, to the AI Test Kitchen app. In August, the app was delisted from Google Play and the Apple App Store, instead moving completely online. === Bard === On February 6, 2023, Google announced Bard, a conversational AI chatbot powered by LaMDA, in response to the unexpected popularity of OpenAI's ChatGPT chatbot. Google positions the chatbot as a "collaborative AI service" rather than a search engine. Bard became available for early access on March 21. === Other products === In addition to Bard, Pichai also unveiled the company's Generative Language API, an application programming interface also based on LaMDA, which he announced would be opened up to third-party developers in March 2023. == Architecture == LaMDA is a decoder-only Transformer language model. It is pre-trained on a text corpus that includes both documents and dialogs consisting of 1.56 trillion words, and is then trained with fine-tuning data generated by manually annotated responses for "sensibleness, interestingness, and safety". LaMDA was retrieval-augmented to improve the accuracy of facts provided to the user. Three different models were tested, with the largest having 137 billion non-embedding parameters: