Empirical dynamic modeling (EDM) is a framework for analysis and prediction of nonlinear dynamical systems. Applications include population dynamics, ecosystem service, medicine, neuroscience, dynamical systems, geophysics, and human-computer interaction. EDM was originally developed by Robert May and George Sugihara. It can be considered a methodology for data modeling, predictive analytics, dynamical system analysis, machine learning and time series analysis. == Description == Mathematical models have tremendous power to describe observations of real-world systems. They are routinely used to test hypothesis, explain mechanisms and predict future outcomes. However, real-world systems are often nonlinear and multidimensional, in some instances rendering explicit equation-based modeling problematic. Empirical models, which infer patterns and associations from the data instead of using hypothesized equations, represent a natural and flexible framework for modeling complex dynamics. Donald DeAngelis and Simeon Yurek illustrated that canonical statistical models are ill-posed when applied to nonlinear dynamical systems. A hallmark of nonlinear dynamics is state-dependence: system states are related to previous states governing transition from one state to another. EDM operates in this space, the multidimensional state-space of system dynamics rather than on one-dimensional observational time series. EDM does not presume relationships among states, for example, a functional dependence, but projects future states from localised, neighboring states. EDM is thus a state-space, nearest-neighbors paradigm where system dynamics are inferred from states derived from observational time series. This provides a model-free representation of the system naturally encompassing nonlinear dynamics. A cornerstone of EDM is recognition that time series observed from a dynamical system can be transformed into higher-dimensional state-spaces by time-delay embedding with Takens's theorem. The state-space models are evaluated based on in-sample fidelity to observations, conventionally with Pearson correlation between predictions and observations. == Methods == Primary EDM algorithms include Simplex projection, Sequential locally weighted global linear maps (S-Map) projection, Multivariate embedding in Simplex or S-Map, Convergent cross mapping (CCM), and Multiview Embeding, described below. Nearest neighbors are found according to: NN ( y , X , k ) = ‖ X N i E − y ‖ ≤ ‖ X N j E − y ‖ if 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ k {\displaystyle {\text{NN}}(y,X,k)=\|X_{N_{i}}^{E}-y\|\leq \|X_{N_{j}}^{E}-y\|{\text{ if }}1\leq i\leq j\leq k} === Simplex === Simplex projection is a nearest neighbor projection. It locates the k {\displaystyle k} nearest neighbors to the location in the state-space from which a prediction is desired. To minimize the number of free parameters k {\displaystyle k} is typically set to E + 1 {\displaystyle E+1} defining an E + 1 {\displaystyle E+1} dimensional simplex in the state-space. The prediction is computed as the average of the weighted phase-space simplex projected T p {\displaystyle Tp} points ahead. Each neighbor is weighted proportional to their distance to the projection origin vector in the state-space. Find k {\displaystyle k} nearest neighbor: N k ← NN ( y , X , k ) {\displaystyle N_{k}\gets {\text{NN}}(y,X,k)} Define the distance scale: d ← ‖ X N 1 E − y ‖ {\displaystyle d\gets \|X_{N_{1}}^{E}-y\|} Compute weights: For{ i = 1 , … , k {\displaystyle i=1,\dots ,k} } : w i ← exp ( − ‖ X N i E − y ‖ / d ) {\displaystyle w_{i}\gets \exp(-\|X_{N_{i}}^{E}-y\|/d)} Average of state-space simplex: y ^ ← ∑ i = 1 k ( w i X N i + T p ) / ∑ i = 1 k w i {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}\gets \sum _{i=1}^{k}\left(w_{i}X_{N_{i}+T_{p}}\right)/\sum _{i=1}^{k}w_{i}} === S-Map === S-Map extends the state-space prediction in Simplex from an average of the E + 1 {\displaystyle E+1} nearest neighbors to a linear regression fit to all neighbors, but localised with an exponential decay kernel. The exponential localisation function is F ( θ ) = exp ( − θ d / D ) {\displaystyle F(\theta )={\text{exp}}(-\theta d/D)} , where d {\displaystyle d} is the neighbor distance and D {\displaystyle D} the mean distance. In this way, depending on the value of θ {\displaystyle \theta } , neighbors close to the prediction origin point have a higher weight than those further from it, such that a local linear approximation to the nonlinear system is reasonable. This localisation ability allows one to identify an optimal local scale, in-effect quantifying the degree of state dependence, and hence nonlinearity of the system. Another feature of S-Map is that for a properly fit model, the regression coefficients between variables have been shown to approximate the gradient (directional derivative) of variables along the manifold. These Jacobians represent the time-varying interaction strengths between system variables. Find k {\displaystyle k} nearest neighbor: N ← NN ( y , X , k ) {\displaystyle N\gets {\text{NN}}(y,X,k)} Sum of distances: D ← 1 k ∑ i = 1 k ‖ X N i E − y ‖ {\displaystyle D\gets {\frac {1}{k}}\sum _{i=1}^{k}\|X_{N_{i}}^{E}-y\|} Compute weights: For{ i = 1 , … , k {\displaystyle i=1,\dots ,k} } : w i ← exp ( − θ ‖ X N i E − y ‖ / D ) {\displaystyle w_{i}\gets \exp(-\theta \|X_{N_{i}}^{E}-y\|/D)} Reweighting matrix: W ← diag ( w i ) {\displaystyle W\gets {\text{diag}}(w_{i})} Design matrix: A ← [ 1 X N 1 X N 1 − 1 … X N 1 − E + 1 1 X N 2 X N 2 − 1 … X N 2 − E + 1 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ 1 X N k X N k − 1 … X N k − E + 1 ] {\displaystyle A\gets {\begin{bmatrix}1&X_{N_{1}}&X_{N_{1}-1}&\dots &X_{N_{1}-E+1}\\1&X_{N_{2}}&X_{N_{2}-1}&\dots &X_{N_{2}-E+1}\\\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\1&X_{N_{k}}&X_{N_{k}-1}&\dots &X_{N_{k}-E+1}\end{bmatrix}}} Weighted design matrix: A ← W A {\displaystyle A\gets WA} Response vector at T p {\displaystyle Tp} : b ← [ X N 1 + T p X N 2 + T p ⋮ X N k + T p ] {\displaystyle b\gets {\begin{bmatrix}X_{N_{1}+T_{p}}\\X_{N_{2}+T_{p}}\\\vdots \\X_{N_{k}+T_{p}}\end{bmatrix}}} Weighted response vector: b ← W b {\displaystyle b\gets Wb} Least squares solution (SVD): c ^ ← argmin c ‖ A c − b ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle {\hat {c}}\gets {\text{argmin}}_{c}\|Ac-b\|_{2}^{2}} Local linear model c ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {c}}} is prediction: y ^ ← c ^ 0 + ∑ i = 1 E c ^ i y i {\displaystyle {\hat {y}}\gets {\hat {c}}_{0}+\sum _{i=1}^{E}{\hat {c}}_{i}y_{i}} === Multivariate Embedding === Multivariate Embedding recognizes that time-delay embeddings are not the only valid state-space construction. In Simplex and S-Map one can generate a state-space from observational vectors, or time-delay embeddings of a single observational time series, or both. === Convergent Cross Mapping === Convergent cross mapping (CCM) leverages a corollary to the Generalized Takens Theorem that it should be possible to cross predict or cross map between variables observed from the same system. Suppose that in some dynamical system involving variables X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} , X {\displaystyle X} causes Y {\displaystyle Y} . Since X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} belong to the same dynamical system, their reconstructions (via embeddings) M x {\displaystyle M_{x}} , and M y {\displaystyle M_{y}} , also map to the same system. The causal variable X {\displaystyle X} leaves a signature on the affected variable Y {\displaystyle Y} , and consequently, the reconstructed states based on Y {\displaystyle Y} can be used to cross predict values of X {\displaystyle X} . CCM leverages this property to infer causality by predicting X {\displaystyle X} using the M y {\displaystyle M_{y}} library of points (or vice versa for the other direction of causality), while assessing improvements in cross map predictability as larger and larger random samplings of M y {\displaystyle M_{y}} are used. If the prediction skill of X {\displaystyle X} increases and saturates as the entire M y {\displaystyle M_{y}} is used, this provides evidence that X {\displaystyle X} is casually influencing Y {\displaystyle Y} . === Multiview Embedding === Multiview Embedding is a Dimensionality reduction technique where a large number of state-space time series vectors are combitorially assessed towards maximal model predictability. == Extensions == Extensions to EDM techniques include: Generalized Theorems for Nonlinear State Space Reconstruction Extended Convergent Cross Mapping Dynamic stability S-Map regularization Visual analytics with EDM Convergent Cross Sorting Expert system with EDM hybrid Sliding windows based on the extended convergent cross-mapping Empirical Mode Modeling Accounting for missing data and variable step sizes Accounting for observation noise Hierarchical Bayesian EDM via Gaussian processes Intelligent and Adaptive Control Optimal control via Empirical dynamic programming Multiview distance regularised S-map
Blobotics
Blobotics is a term describing research into chemical-based computer processors based on ions rather than electrons. Andrew Adamatzky, a computer scientist at the University of the West of England, Bristol used the term in an article in New Scientist March 28, 2005 [1]. The aim is to create 'liquid logic gates' which would be 'infinitely reconfigurable and self-healing'. The process relies on the Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction, a repeating cycle of three separate sets of reactions. Such a processor could form the basis of a robot which, using artificial sensors, interact with its surroundings in a way which mimics living creatures. The coining of the term was featured by ABC radio in Australia [2].
Cambridge Semantics
Cambridge Semantics is a privately held company headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with an office in San Diego, California. The company is an enterprise big data management and exploratory analytics software company. == History == Cambridge Semantics was founded in 2007 by Sean Martin, Lee Feigenbaum, Simon Martin, Rouben Meschian, Ben Szekely and Emmett Eldred who all previously worked at IBM's Advanced Technology Internet Group. In 2012, Cambridge Semantics appointed Chuck Pieper as chief executive. Pieper was previously at Credit Suisse. In January 2016, Cambridge Semantics acquired SPARQL City and its graph database intellectual property. On April 18, 2024, Altair Engineering acquired Cambridge Semantics. On 26 March 2025, Siemens announced the acquisition of Altair. == Products == Anzo Smart Data Lake uses Semantic Web Technologies. It allows IT departments and their business users to access data. AnzoGraph DB Graph database. AnzoGraph DB is a massively parallel processing (MPP) native graph database built for diverse data harmonization and analytics at scale (trillions of triples and more), speed and deep link insights. It is used for embedded analytics that require graph algorithms, graph views, named queries, aggregates, geospatial, built-in data science functions, data warehouse-style BI and reporting functions. It allows users to load and query RDF data using SPARQL or Cypher for OLAP-style analytics. == Marketing == Cambridge Semantics named SIIA Codie award 2018 finalist. Cambridge Semantics named 2018 Gold Stevie Award Winner for 'Big Data Solutions'. Cambridge Semantics named KMWorld’s 2018 ‘100 Companies That Matter in Knowledge Management’. Cambridge Semantics named to Database Trends and Applications' 'Trend-Setting Products in Data and Information Management for 2018'. Cambridge Semantics named to KMWorld Trend-Setting Products of 2017. Cambridge Semantics named to Database Trends and Applications 'DBTA 100: The Companies That Matter Most in Data'. Cambridge Semantics named SIIA Codie award 2017 winner for ‘Best Text Analytics and Semantic Technology Solution’. Cambridge Semantics named 2017 Silver Stevie Award Winner for 'Big Data Solutions'. Cambridge Semantics named KMWorld’s 2017 ‘100 Companies That Matter in Knowledge Management’. Cambridge Semantics named SIIA Codie award 2016 finalist. Cambridge Semantics named KMWorld’s 2016 ‘100 Companies That Matter in Knowledge Management’ and KMWorld Trend-Setting Products of 2015. Cambridge Semantics named 2016 Bio-IT World Best of Show People's Choice Award Contenders and 2015 Bio-IT best of show finalist. Anzo Insider Trading Investigation and Surveillance named 2015 CODiE Award finalist. Cambridge Semantics Selected as Finalist for 2014 MIT Sloan CIO Symposium's Innovation Showcase. Cambridge Semantics named SIIA CODiE Award 2014 finalist. Cambridge Semantics Win 2013 SIIA CODiE Award for best business intelligence and analytics solution. Cambridge Semantics wins KMWorld 2012 Promise Award. Cambridge Semantics wins Best of Show at 2012 Bio-IT World Conference.
Point-to-point encryption
Point-to-point encryption (P2PE) is a standard established by the PCI Security Standards Council. Payment solutions that offer similar encryption but do not meet the P2PE standard are referred to as end-to-end encryption (E2EE) solutions. The objective of P2PE and E2EE is to provide a payment security solution that instantaneously converts confidential payment card (credit and debit card) data and information into indecipherable code at the time the card is swiped, in order to prevent hacking and fraud. It is designed to maximize the security of payment card transactions in an increasingly complex regulatory environment. == The standard == The P2PE Standard defines the requirements that a "solution" must meet in order to be accepted as a PCI-validated P2PE solution. A "solution" is a complete set of hardware, software, gateway, decryption, device handling, etc. Only "solutions" can be validated; individual pieces of hardware such as card readers cannot be validated. It is also a common mistake to refer to P2PE validated solutions as "certified"; there is no such certification. The determination of whether or not a solution meets the P2PE standard is the responsibility of a P2PE Qualified Security Assessor (P2PE-QSA). P2PE-QSA companies are independent third-party companies who employ assessors that have met the PCI Security Standards Council's requirements for education and experience, and have passed the requisite exam. The PCI Security Standards Council does not validate solutions. == How it works == As a payment card is swiped through a card reading device, referred to as a point of interaction (POI) device, at the merchant location or point of sale, the device immediately encrypts the card information. A device that is part of a PCI-validated P2PE solution uses an algorithmic calculation to encrypt the confidential payment card data. From the POI, the encrypted, indecipherable codes are sent to the payment gateway or processor for decryption. The keys for encryption and decryption are never available to the merchant, making card data entirely invisible to the retailer. Once the encrypted codes are within the secure data zone of the payment processor, the codes are decrypted to the original card numbers and then passed to the issuing bank for authorization. The bank either approves or rejects the transaction, depending upon the card holder's payment account status. The merchant is then notified if the payment is accepted or rejected to complete the process along with a token that the merchant can store. This token is a unique number reference to the original transaction that the merchant can use should they ever be needed to perform research or refund the customer without ever knowing the customer's card information (tokenization). There are also Qualified Integrator and Reseller (QIR) Companies, which are businesses authorized to "implement, configure, and/or support validated" PA-DSS Payment Applications, and perform qualified installations. == Solution providers == According to the PCI Security Standards Council:The P2PE solution provider is a third-party entity (for example, a processor, acquirer, or payment gateway) that has overall responsibility for the design and implementation of a specific P2PE solution, and manages P2PE solutions for its merchant customers. The solution provider has overall responsibility for ensuring that all P2PE requirements are met, including any P2PE requirements performed by third-party organizations on behalf of the solution provider (for example, certification authorities and key-injection facilities). == Benefits == === Customer benefits === P2PE significantly reduces the risk of payment card fraud by instantaneously encrypting confidential cardholder data at the moment a payment card is swiped or "dipped" if it is a chip card at the card reading device (payment terminal) or POI. === Merchant benefits === P2PE significantly facilitates merchant responsibilities: With a P2PE validated solution, merchants save significant time and money as PCI requirements may be greatly reduced. Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS). For organizations who use a P2PE validated solution provider, the PCI Self Assessment Questionnaire is reduced from 12 sections to 4 sections and the controls are reduced from 329 questions to just 35. In the event of fraud, the P2PE Solution Provider, not the merchant, is held accountable for data loss and resulting fines that may be assessed by the card brands (American Express, Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and JCB). The PCI Security Standards Council does not assess penalties on Solution Providers or Merchants. The payment process with P2PE is quicker than other transaction processes, thus creating simpler and faster customer–merchant transactions. == Point-to-point encryption versus end-to-end encryption == === Point-to-point === A point-to-point connection directly links system 1 (the point of payment card acceptance) to system 2 (the point of payment processing). A true P2PE solution is determined with three main factors: The solution uses a hardware-to-hardware encryption and decryption process along with a POI device that has SRED (Secure Reading and Exchange of Data) listed as a function. The solution has been validated to the PCI P2PE Standard which includes specific POI device requirements such as strict controls regarding shipping, receiving, tamper-evident packaging, and installation. A solution includes merchant education in the form of a P2PE Instruction Manual, which guides the merchant on POI device use, storage, return for repairs, and regular PCI reporting. === End-to-end === End-to-end encryption as the name suggests has the advantage over P2PE that card details are not unencrypted between the two endpoints. If the endpoints are a PCI PED validated PIN pad and a POS acquirer, there is no opportunity for the card details to be intercepted. It is obviously important that the endpoints (the PED and gateway) are provided by PCI accredited organisations. == PCI point-to-point encryption requirements == The requirements include: Secure encryption of payment card data at the point of interaction (POI), P2PE validated application(s) at the point of interaction, Secure management of encryption and decryption devices, Management of the decryption environment and all decrypted account data, Use of secure encryption methodologies and cryptographic key operations, including key generation, distribution, loading/injection, administration, and usage.
Malleability (cryptography)
Malleability is a property of some cryptographic algorithms. An encryption algorithm is said to be malleable if it is possible to transform a ciphertext into another ciphertext which decrypts to a related plaintext. That is, given an encryption of a plaintext m {\displaystyle m} , it is possible to generate another ciphertext which decrypts to f ( m ) {\displaystyle f(m)} , for a known function f {\displaystyle f} , without necessarily knowing or learning m {\displaystyle m} . Malleability is often an undesirable property in a general-purpose cryptosystem, since it allows an attacker to modify the contents of a message. For example, suppose that a bank uses a stream cipher to hide its financial information, and a user sends an encrypted message containing, say, "TRANSFER $0000100.00 TO ACCOUNT #199." If an attacker can modify the message on the wire, and can guess the format of the unencrypted message, the attacker could change the amount of the transaction, or the recipient of the funds, e.g. "TRANSFER $0100000.00 TO ACCOUNT #227". Malleability does not refer to the attacker's ability to read the encrypted message. Both before and after tampering, the attacker cannot read the encrypted message. On the other hand, some cryptosystems are malleable by design. In other words, in some circumstances it may be viewed as a feature that anyone can transform an encryption of m {\displaystyle m} into a valid encryption of f ( m ) {\displaystyle f(m)} (for some restricted class of functions f {\displaystyle f} ) without necessarily learning m {\displaystyle m} . Such schemes are known as homomorphic encryption schemes. A cryptosystem may be semantically secure against chosen-plaintext attacks or even non-adaptive chosen-ciphertext attacks (CCA1) while still being malleable. However, security against adaptive chosen-ciphertext attacks (CCA2) is equivalent to non-malleability. == Example malleable cryptosystems == In a stream cipher, the ciphertext is produced by taking the exclusive or of the plaintext and a pseudorandom stream based on a secret key k {\displaystyle k} , as E ( m ) = m ⊕ S ( k ) {\displaystyle E(m)=m\oplus S(k)} . An adversary can construct an encryption of m ⊕ t {\displaystyle m\oplus t} for any t {\displaystyle t} , as E ( m ) ⊕ t = m ⊕ t ⊕ S ( k ) = E ( m ⊕ t ) {\displaystyle E(m)\oplus t=m\oplus t\oplus S(k)=E(m\oplus t)} . In the RSA cryptosystem, a plaintext m {\displaystyle m} is encrypted as E ( m ) = m e mod n {\displaystyle E(m)=m^{e}{\bmod {n}}} , where ( e , n ) {\displaystyle (e,n)} is the public key. Given such a ciphertext, an adversary can construct an encryption of m t {\displaystyle mt} for any t {\displaystyle t} , as E ( m ) ⋅ t e mod n = ( m t ) e mod n = E ( m t ) {\textstyle E(m)\cdot t^{e}{\bmod {n}}=(mt)^{e}{\bmod {n}}=E(mt)} . For this reason, RSA is commonly used together with padding methods such as OAEP or PKCS1. In the ElGamal cryptosystem, a plaintext m {\displaystyle m} is encrypted as E ( m ) = ( g b , m A b ) {\displaystyle E(m)=(g^{b},mA^{b})} , where ( g , A ) {\displaystyle (g,A)} is the public key. Given such a ciphertext ( c 1 , c 2 ) {\displaystyle (c_{1},c_{2})} , an adversary can compute ( c 1 , t ⋅ c 2 ) {\displaystyle (c_{1},t\cdot c_{2})} , which is a valid encryption of t m {\displaystyle tm} , for any t {\displaystyle t} . In contrast, the Cramer-Shoup system (which is based on ElGamal) is not malleable. In the Paillier, ElGamal, and RSA cryptosystems, it is also possible to combine several ciphertexts together in a useful way to produce a related ciphertext. In Paillier, given only the public key and an encryption of m 1 {\displaystyle m_{1}} and m 2 {\displaystyle m_{2}} , one can compute a valid encryption of their sum m 1 + m 2 {\displaystyle m_{1}+m_{2}} . In ElGamal and in RSA, one can combine encryptions of m 1 {\displaystyle m_{1}} and m 2 {\displaystyle m_{2}} to obtain a valid encryption of their product m 1 m 2 {\displaystyle m_{1}m_{2}} . Block ciphers in the cipher block chaining mode of operation, for example, are partly malleable: flipping a bit in a ciphertext block will completely mangle the plaintext it decrypts to, but will result in the same bit being flipped in the plaintext of the next block. This allows an attacker to 'sacrifice' one block of plaintext in order to change some data in the next one, possibly managing to maliciously alter the message. This is essentially the core idea of the padding oracle attack on CBC, which allows the attacker to decrypt almost an entire ciphertext without knowing the key. For this and many other reasons, a message authentication code is required to guard against any method of tampering. == Complete non-malleability == Fischlin, in 2005, defined the notion of complete non-malleability as the ability of the system to remain non-malleable while giving the adversary additional power to choose a new public key which could be a function of the original public key. In other words, the adversary shouldn't be able to come up with a ciphertext whose underlying plaintext is related to the original message through a relation that also takes public keys into account.
Load file
A load file in the litigation community is commonly referred to as the file used to import data (coded, captured or extracted data from ESI processing) into a database; or the file used to link images. These load files carry commands, commanding the software to carry out certain functions with the data found in them. Load files are usually ASCII text files that have delimited fields of information. Such load files may have data about documents to be imported into a document management software such as Concordance or Summation. Or they may have the path or directory where images may reside so that the software can link such images to their corresponding records. Some database programs take one load file for importing images and another for importing data while others take only one load file for both pieces of information. OCR or Search-able Text which is considered "data" is also imported into most database programs via the same load files. Though some people prefer to load the OCR into their databases by running a separate command to search and find the desired text. Commonly used databases and their corresponding file extensions are: Summation (DII , CSV), Concordance (OPT, DAT), Sanction (SDT), IPRO (LFP), Ringtail (MDB) and DB/TextWorks (TXT).
G.9963
Recommendation G.9963 is a home networking standard under development at the International Telecommunication Union standards sector, the ITU-T. It was begun in 2010 by ITU-T to add multiple-input and multiple-output (known as MIMO) capabilities to the G.hn standard originally defined in Recommendation G.9960. The standard is also known as "G.hn-mimo". As part of the family of G.hn standards, G.9963 was endorsed by the HomeGrid Forum.