Sikidy is a form of algebraic geomancy practiced by Malagasy peoples in Madagascar. It involves algorithmic operations performed on random data generated from tree seeds, which are ritually arranged in a tableau called a toetry and divinely interpreted after being mathematically operated on. Columns of seeds, designated "slaves" or "princes" belonging to respective "lands" for each, interact symbolically to express vintana ('fate') in the interpretation of the diviner. The diviner also prescribes solutions to problems and ways to avoid fated misfortune, often involving a sacrifice. The centuries-old practice derives from Islamic influence brought to the island by medieval Arab traders. The sikidy is consulted for a range of divinatory questions pertaining to fate and the future, including identifying sources of and rectifying misfortune, reading the fate of newborns, and planning annual migrations. The mathematics of sikidy involves Boolean algebra, symbolic logic and parity. == History == The practice is several centuries old, and is influenced by Arab geomantic traditions of Arab Muslim traders on the island. Most writers link the origins of sikidy to the "sea-going trade involving the southwest coast of India, the Persian Gulf, and the east coast of Africa in the 9th or 10th century C.E." Stephen Ellis and Solofo Randrianja describe sikidy as "probably one of the oldest components of Malagasy culture", writing that it most likely the product of an indigenous divinatory art later influenced by Islamic practice. Umar H. D. Danfulani writes that the integration of Arabic divination into indigenous divination is "clearly demonstrated" in Madagascar, where the Arabic astrological system was adapted to the indigenous agricultural system and meshed with Malagasy lunar months by "adapting indigenous months, volana, to the astrological months, vintana". Danfulani also describes the concepts in sikidy of "houses" (lands) and "kings in their houses" as retained from medieval Arabic astrology. Chemillier et al. say the practice's spread across Madagascar likely originated with the southeastern Antemoro people, among whom Arab influence was the strongest. Though the etymology of sikidy is unknown, it has been posited that the word derives from the Arabic sichr ('incantation' or 'charm'). Sikidy was of central importance to pre-Christian Malagasy religion, with one practitioner quoted in 1892 as calling sikidy "the Bible of our ancestors". A missionary report from 1616 describes one form of sikidy using tamarind seeds, and another using fingered markings in the sand. The early colonial French governor of Madagascar Étienne de Flacourt documented sikidy in the mid-17th century: Matatane country in southeastern Madagascar [...] where the Antemoro [...] live was a center of astrological study as early as the fourteenth century [...]. This area was also the site of early Arab settlements, although strict Islamic observances were lost centuries ago [...]. Historical evidence shows that Antemoro diviners, bearers of the astrological system, infiltrated nearly all the ancient kingdoms of Madagascar beginning in the sixteenth century. [...] Today, although many persons claim to be ombiasy [diviners], only the Antemoro diviners are considered true professionals. The area is still a famous place of learning where specialists go for training and then return to their home communities with a certain body of knowledge. Now we can better understand the degree of similarity of divination forms found throughout Madagascar. For centuries Matitanana has remained a training center for diviners who have migrated widely, usually attaining important positions in their home communities and with various royal families. Comparison of contemporary rites with centuries-old texts show that sikidy has been remarkably unchanged throughout its history. The "infiltration" of Malagasy kingdoms by Antemoro diviners, and Matitanana's role as a place for astrological and divinatory learning, help to explain the relatively uniform practicing of sikidy across Madagascar. Chemallier et al. write that the mathematical construction of the arrangement of seeds is procedurally consistent across all of Madagascar, with variations in practice between groups and regions being limited to more minor aspects, such as the alignment of figures according to cardinal directions. One exception is the simplified Merina sikidy joria. === Origin myths === Mythic tradition relating to the origin of sikidy "links [the practice] both to the return by walking on water of Arab ancestors who had intermarried with Malagasy but then left, and to the names of the days of the week" and holds that the art was supernaturally communicated to the ancestors, with Zanahary (the supreme deity of Malagasy religion) giving it to Ranakandriana, who then gave it to a line of diviners (Ranakandriana to Ramanitralanana to Rabibi-andrano to Andriambavi-maitso (who was a woman) to Andriam-bavi-nosy), the last of whom terminated the monopoly by giving it to the people, declaring: "Behold, I give you the sikidy, of which you may inquire what offerings you should present in order to obtain blessings; and what expiation you should make so as to avert evils, when any are ill or under apprehension of some future calamity". A mythic anecdote of Ranakandriana says that two men observed him one day playing in the sand. In fact he was practicing a form of sikidy worked in sand called sikidy alanana. The two men seized him, and Ranakandriana promised that he would teach them something if they released him. They agreed, and Ranakandriana taught them in depth how to work the sikidy. The two men then went to their chief and told him that they could tell him "the past and the future—what was good and what was bad—what increased and what diminished." The chief asked them to tell him how he could obtain plenty of cattle. The two men worked their sikidy and told the chief to kill all of his bulls, and that "great numbers would come to him" on the following Friday. The chieftain, doubting, asked what would happen if their prediction didn't come true, and the two men promised they would pay with their lives. The chief agreed and killed his bulls. On Thursday, thinking he'd been duped, he prematurely killed the first man of the two who'd told him about the divinatory art. On Friday, however, "vast herds" came amidst heavy rain, actually filling an immense plain in their crowd. The chieftain lamented the mpisikidy's wrongful execution and ordered for him a pompous funeral. The chieftain took the second man as his close adviser and friend, and trusted the sikidy forever afterwards. The British missionary William Ellis recorded in 1839 two idiomatic expressions used in Madagascar that come from this story: "Tsy mahandry andro Zoma" (lit. 'He cannot wait 'til Friday') is said of someone extremely impatient, and heavy rainshowers falling in rapid succession are called "sese omby" (lit. 'a crowding together of cattle'). == Rites and arrangement of seeds == The divination is performed by a practitioner called an mpisikidy, ny màsina (lit. 'sacred one'), ombiasy, or ambiàsa (derived from the Arabic anbia, meaning 'prophet') who guides the client through the process and interprets the results in the context of the client's inquiries and desires. As part of an mpisikidy's formal initiation into the art, which includes a long period of apprenticeship, the initiate (called a mianatsy) must gather 124 and 200 fàno (Entada sp.) or kily (tamarind) tree seeds for his subsequent ritual use in sikidy. Raymond Decary writes that, at least among the Sakalava, a man must be 40 years old before learning and practicing sikidy, or he risks death. Before beginning to study, a student practitioner must make incisions at the tips of his index finger, his middle finger, and his tongue, and put within the incisions a paste containing red pepper and crushed wasp. This paste impregnates the fingers that will move the seeds of the sikidy and the tongue that will speak their revelations with the power to decipher the sikidy. Once this is done, he leaves at dawn to search for a fano (Entada chrysostachys) tree. Upon finding it, he throws his spear at its branches, shaking the tree and causing its large seed pods to fall. During this act, some initiates say: "When you were on the steep peak and in the dense forest, on you the crabs climbed, from you the crocodiles made their bed, with their paws the birds trod on you. Whether you are suspended in the trees or buried, you are never dried up nor rotten." In his study (written in 1941 and revised in 1948), Decary reported that the salary paid by a mianatsy to his master is "not very high": up to five francs, plus a red rooster's feather. The mpisikidy ritually arranges his seeds into a sixteen-column table consisting of four columns of randomly-generated data (representing fate) and eight columns of data derived from logical ope
Multi-agent reinforcement learning
Multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) is a sub-field of reinforcement learning. It focuses on studying the behavior of multiple learning agents that coexist in a shared environment. Each agent is motivated by its own rewards, and does actions to advance its own interests; in some environments these interests are opposed to the interests of other agents, resulting in complex group dynamics. Multi-agent reinforcement learning is closely related to game theory and especially repeated games, as well as multi-agent systems. Its study combines the pursuit of finding ideal algorithms that maximize rewards with a more sociological set of concepts. While research in single-agent reinforcement learning is concerned with finding the algorithm that gets the biggest number of points for one agent, research in multi-agent reinforcement learning evaluates and quantifies social metrics, such as cooperation, reciprocity, equity, social influence, language and discrimination. == Definition == Similarly to single-agent reinforcement learning, multi-agent reinforcement learning is modeled as some form of a Markov decision process (MDP). Fix a set of agents I = { 1 , . . . , N } {\displaystyle I=\{1,...,N\}} . We then define: A set S {\displaystyle S} of environment states. One set A i {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}_{i}} of actions for each of the agents i ∈ I = { 1 , … , N } {\displaystyle i\in I=\{1,\dots ,N\}} . P a → ( s , s ′ ) = Pr ( s t + 1 = s ′ ∣ s t = s , a → t = a → ) {\displaystyle P_{\vec {a}}(s,s')=\Pr(s_{t+1}=s'\mid s_{t}=s,{\vec {a}}_{t}={\vec {a}})} is the probability of transition (at time t {\displaystyle t} ) from state s {\displaystyle s} to state s ′ {\displaystyle s'} under joint action a → {\displaystyle {\vec {a}}} . R → a → ( s , s ′ ) {\displaystyle {\vec {R}}_{\vec {a}}(s,s')} is the immediate joint reward after the transition from s {\displaystyle s} to s ′ {\displaystyle s'} with joint action a → {\displaystyle {\vec {a}}} . In settings with perfect information, such as the games of chess and Go, the MDP would be fully observable. In settings with imperfect information, especially in real-world applications like self-driving cars, each agent would access an observation that only has part of the information about the current state. In the partially observable setting, the core model is the partially observable stochastic game in the general case, and the decentralized POMDP in the cooperative case. == Cooperation vs. competition == When multiple agents are acting in a shared environment their interests might be aligned or misaligned. MARL allows exploring all the different alignments and how they affect the agents' behavior: In pure competition settings, the agents' rewards are exactly opposite to each other, and therefore they are playing against each other. Pure cooperation settings are the other extreme, in which agents get the exact same rewards, and therefore they are playing with each other. Mixed-sum settings cover all the games that combine elements of both cooperation and competition. === Pure competition settings === When two agents are playing a zero-sum game, they are in pure competition with each other. Many traditional games such as chess and Go fall under this category, as do two-player variants of video games like StarCraft. Because each agent can only win at the expense of the other agent, many complexities are stripped away. There is no prospect of communication or social dilemmas, as neither agent is incentivized to take actions that benefit its opponent. The Deep Blue and AlphaGo projects demonstrate how to optimize the performance of agents in pure competition settings. One complexity that is not stripped away in pure competition settings is autocurricula. As the agents' policy is improved using self-play, multiple layers of learning may occur. === Pure cooperation settings === MARL is used to explore how separate agents with identical interests can communicate and work together. Pure cooperation settings are explored in recreational cooperative games such as Overcooked, as well as real-world scenarios in robotics. In pure cooperation settings all the agents get identical rewards, which means that social dilemmas do not occur. In pure cooperation settings, oftentimes there are an arbitrary number of coordination strategies, and agents converge to specific "conventions" when coordinating with each other. The notion of conventions has been studied in language and also alluded to in more general multi-agent collaborative tasks. === Mixed-sum settings === Most real-world scenarios involving multiple agents have elements of both cooperation and competition. For example, when multiple self-driving cars are planning their respective paths, each of them has interests that are diverging but not exclusive: Each car is minimizing the amount of time it's taking to reach its destination, but all cars have the shared interest of avoiding a traffic collision. Zero-sum settings with three or more agents often exhibit similar properties to mixed-sum settings, since each pair of agents might have a non-zero utility sum between them. Mixed-sum settings can be explored using classic matrix games such as prisoner's dilemma, more complex sequential social dilemmas, and recreational games such as Among Us, Diplomacy and StarCraft II. Mixed-sum settings can give rise to communication and social dilemmas. == Social dilemmas == As in game theory, much of the research in MARL revolves around social dilemmas, such as prisoner's dilemma, chicken and stag hunt. While game theory research might focus on Nash equilibria and what an ideal policy for an agent would be, MARL research focuses on how the agents would learn these ideal policies using a trial-and-error process. The reinforcement learning algorithms that are used to train the agents are maximizing the agent's own reward; the conflict between the needs of the agents and the needs of the group is a subject of active research. Various techniques have been explored in order to induce cooperation in agents: Modifying the environment rules, adding intrinsic rewards, and more. === Sequential social dilemmas === Social dilemmas like prisoner's dilemma, chicken and stag hunt are "matrix games". Each agent takes only one action from a choice of two possible actions, and a simple 2x2 matrix is used to describe the reward that each agent will get, given the actions that each agent took. In humans and other living creatures, social dilemmas tend to be more complex. Agents take multiple actions over time, and the distinction between cooperating and defecting is not as clear cut as in matrix games. The concept of a sequential social dilemma (SSD) was introduced in 2017 as an attempt to model that complexity. There is ongoing research into defining different kinds of SSDs and showing cooperative behavior in the agents that act in them. == Autocurricula == An autocurriculum (plural: autocurricula) is a reinforcement learning concept that's salient in multi-agent experiments. As agents improve their performance, they change their environment; this change in the environment affects themselves and the other agents. The feedback loop results in several distinct phases of learning, each depending on the previous one. The stacked layers of learning are called an autocurriculum. Autocurricula are especially apparent in adversarial settings, where each group of agents is racing to counter the current strategy of the opposing group. The Hide and Seek game is an accessible example of an autocurriculum occurring in an adversarial setting. In this experiment, a team of seekers is competing against a team of hiders. Whenever one of the teams learns a new strategy, the opposing team adapts its strategy to give the best possible counter. When the hiders learn to use boxes to build a shelter, the seekers respond by learning to use a ramp to break into that shelter. The hiders respond by locking the ramps, making them unavailable for the seekers to use. The seekers then respond by "box surfing", exploiting a glitch in the game to penetrate the shelter. Each "level" of learning is an emergent phenomenon, with the previous level as its premise. This results in a stack of behaviors, each dependent on its predecessor. Autocurricula in reinforcement learning experiments are compared to the stages of the evolution of life on Earth and the development of human culture. A major stage in evolution happened 2-3 billion years ago, when photosynthesizing life forms started to produce massive amounts of oxygen, changing the balance of gases in the atmosphere. In the next stages of evolution, oxygen-breathing life forms evolved, eventually leading up to land mammals and human beings. These later stages could only happen after the photosynthesis stage made oxygen widely available. Similarly, human culture could not have gone through the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century without the resources and insights gaine
Conjugate coding
Conjugate coding is a cryptographic tool, introduced by Stephen Wiesner in the late 1960s. It is part of the two applications Wiesner described for quantum coding, along with a method for creating fraud-proof banking notes. The application that the concept was based on was a method of transmitting multiple messages in such a way that reading one destroys the others. This is called quantum multiplexing and it uses photons polarized in conjugate bases as "qubits" to pass information. Conjugate coding also is a simple extension of a random number generator. At the behest of Charles Bennett, Wiesner published the manuscript explaining the basic idea of conjugate coding with a number of examples but it was not embraced because it was significantly ahead of its time. Because its publication has been rejected, it was developed to the world of public-key cryptography in the 1980s as oblivious transfer, first by Michael Rabin and then by Shimon Even. It is used in the field of quantum computing. The initial concept of quantum cryptography developed by Bennett and Gilles Brassard was also based on this concept.
Opinion Space
Developed at UC Berkeley, "Opinion Space" (also known as The Collective Discovery Engine) is a social media technology designed to help communities generate and exchange ideas about important issues and policies. Version 1.0 was launched on April 4, 2009, at UC Berkeley, and explored the question "Do you think legalizing marijuana is a good idea?" It has since undergone 4 different iterations, and been used in partnership with various organizations including The Occupy movement (Version 4.0, 5/24/2013) and the African Robots Network (Version 4.0, 5/25/2013). Opinion Space has also been used in collaboration with the United States State Department and the University of California's Berkeley Center for New Media (Version 2.0, 12/1/2009 and Version 3.0, 2/25/2012) to gain public perspective on foreign policy issues. Then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton explained, "Opinion Space will harness the power of connection technologies to provide a unique forum for international dialogue. This is...an opportunity to extend our engagement beyond the halls of government directly to the people of the world" (2010). The website uses data visualization and statistical analysis to present and develop public opinion and ideas. Opinion Space is a self-organizing system that uses an intuitive graphical "map" that displays patterns, trends, and insights as they emerge and employs the wisdom of crowds to identify and highlight the most insightful ideas. The system uses a game model that incorporates techniques from deliberative polling, collaborative filtering, and multidimensional visualization.
Blinding (cryptography)
In cryptography, blinding first became known in the context of blind signatures, where the message author blinds the message with a random blinding factor, the signer then signs it and the message author "unblinds" it; signer and message author are different parties. Since the late 1990s, blinding mostly refers to countermeasures against side-channel attacks on encryption devices, where the random blinding and the "unblinding" happen on the encryption devices. The techniques used for blinding signatures were adapted to prevent attackers from knowing the input to the modular exponentiation function for Diffie-Hellman or RSA. Blinding must be applied with care, for example Rabin–Williams signatures. If blinding is applied to the formatted message but the random value does not honor Jacobi requirements on p and q, then it could lead to private key recovery. A demonstration of the recovery can be seen in CVE-2015-2141 discovered by Evgeny Sidorov. Side-channel attacks allow an adversary to recover information about the input to a cryptographic operation within an asymmetric encryption scheme, by measuring something other than the algorithm's result, e.g., power consumption, computation time, or radio-frequency emanations by a device. Typically these attacks depend on the attacker knowing the characteristics of the algorithm, as well as (some) inputs. In this setting, blinding serves to alter the algorithm's input into some unpredictable state. Depending on the characteristics of the blinding function, this can prevent some or all leakage of useful information. Note that security depends also on the resistance of the blinding functions themselves to side-channel attacks. == Examples == In RSA blinding involves computing the blinding operation E(x) = (xr)e mod N, where r is a random integer between 1 and N and relatively prime to N (i.e. gcd(r, N) = 1), x is the plaintext, e is the public RSA exponent and N is the RSA modulus. As usual, the decryption function f(z) = zd mod N is applied thus giving f(E(x)) = (xr)ed mod N = xr mod N. Finally it is unblinded using the function D(z) = zr−1 mod N. Multiplying xr mod N by r−1 mod N yields x, as desired. When decrypting in this manner, an adversary who is able to measure time taken by this operation would not be able to make use of this information (by applying timing attacks RSA is known to be vulnerable to) as they does not know the constant r and hence has no knowledge of the real input fed to the RSA primitives. Blinding in GPG 1.x
Protocol engineering
Protocol engineering is the application of systematic methods to the development of communication protocols. It uses many of the principles of software engineering, but it is specific to the development of distributed systems. == History == When the first experimental and commercial computer networks were developed in the 1970s, the concept of protocols was not yet well developed. These were the first distributed systems. In the context of the newly adopted layered protocol architecture (see OSI model), the definition of the protocol of a specific layer should be such that any entity implementing that specification in one computer would be compatible with any other computer containing an entity implementing the same specification, and their interactions should be such that the desired communication service would be obtained. On the other hand, the protocol specification should be abstract enough to allow different choices for the implementation on different computers. It was recognized that a precise specification of the expected service provided by the given layer was important. It is important for the verification of the protocol, which should demonstrate that the communication service is provided if both protocol entities implement the protocol specification correctly. This principle was later followed during the standardization of the OSI protocol stack, in particular for the transport layer. It was also recognized that some kind of formalized protocol specification would be useful for the verification of the protocol and for developing implementations, as well as test cases for checking the conformance of an implementation against the specification. While initially mainly finite-state machine were used as (simplified) models of a protocol entity, in the 1980s three formal specification languages were standardized, two by ISO and one by ITU. The latter, called SDL, was later used in industry and has been merged with UML state machines. == Principles == The following are the most important principles for the development of protocols: Layered architecture: A protocol layer at the level n consists of two (or more) entities that have a service interface through which the service of the layer is provided to the users of the protocol, and which uses the service provided by a local entity of level (n-1). The service specification of a layer describes, in an abstract and global view, the behavior of the layer as visible at the service interfaces of the layer. The protocol specification defines the requirements that should be satisfied by each entity implementation. Protocol verification consists of showing that two (or more) entities satisfying the protocol specification will provide at their service interfaces the specified service of that layer. The (verified) protocol specification is used mainly for the following two activities: The development of an entity implementation. Note that the abstract properties of the service interface are defined by the service specification (and also used by the protocol specification), but the detailed nature of the interface can be chosen during the implementation process, separately for each entity. Test suite development for conformance testing. Protocol conformance testing checks that a given entity implementation conforms to the protocol specification. The conformance test cases are developed based on the protocol specification and are applicable to all entity implementations. Therefore standard conformance test suites have been developed for certain protocol standards. == Methods and tools == Tools for the activities of protocol verification, entity implementation and test suite development can be developed when the protocol specification is written in a formalized language which can be understood by the tool. As mentioned, formal specification languages have been proposed for protocol specification, and the first methods and tools where based on finite-state machine models. Reachability analysis was proposed to understand all possible behaviors of a distributed system, which is essential for protocol verification. This was later complemented with model checking. However, finite-state descriptions are not powerful enough to describe constraints between message parameters and the local variables in the entities. Such constraints can be described by the standardized formal specification languages mentioned above, for which powerful tools have been developed. It is in the field of protocol engineering that model-based development was used very early. These methods and tools have later been used for software engineering as well as hardware design, especially for distributed and real-time systems. On the other hand, many methods and tools developed in the more general context of software engineering can also be used of the development of protocols, for instance model checking for protocol verification, and agile methods for entity implementations. == Constructive methods for protocol design == Most protocols are designed by human intuition and discussions during the standardization process. However, some methods have been proposed for using constructive methods possibly supported by tools to automatically derive protocols that satisfy certain properties. The following are a few examples: Semi-automatic protocol synthesis: The user defines all message sending actions of the entities, and the tool derives all necessary reception actions (even if several messages are in transit). Synchronizing protocol: The state transitions of one protocol entity are given by the user, and the method derives the behavior of the other entity such that it remains in states that correspond to the former entity. Protocol derived from service specification: The service specification is given by the user and the method derives a suitable protocol for all entities. Protocol for control applications: The specification of one entity (called the plant - which must be controlled) is given, and the method derives a specification of the other entity such that certain fail states of the plant are never reached and certain given properties of the plant's service interactions are satisfied. This is a case of supervisory control. == Books == Ming T. Liu, Protocol Engineering, Advances in Computers, Volume 29, 1989, Pages 79–195. G.J. Holzmann, Design and Validation of Computer Protocols, Prentice Hall, 1991. H. König, Protocol Engineering, Springer, 2012. M. Popovic, Communication Protocol Engineering, CRC Press, 2nd Ed. 2018. P. Venkataram, S.S. Manvi, B.S. Babu, Communication Protocol Engineering, 2014.
Completeness (cryptography)
In cryptography, a boolean function is said to be complete if the value of each output bit depends on all input bits. This is a desirable property to have in an encryption cipher, so that if one bit of the input (plaintext) is changed, every bit of the output (ciphertext) has an average of 50% probability of changing. The easiest way to show why this is good is the following: consider that if we changed our 8-byte plaintext's last byte, it would only have any effect on the 8th byte of the ciphertext. This would mean that if the attacker guessed 256 different plaintext-ciphertext pairs, he would always know the last byte of every 8byte sequence we send (effectively 12.5% of all our data). Finding out 256 plaintext-ciphertext pairs is not hard at all in the internet world, given that standard protocols are used, and standard protocols have standard headers and commands (e.g. "get", "put", "mail from:", etc.) which the attacker can safely guess. On the other hand, if our cipher has this property (and is generally secure in other ways, too), the attacker would need to collect 264 (~1020) plaintext-ciphertext pairs to crack the cipher in this way.