The charge-based formulation of the boundary element method (BEM) is a dimensionality reduction numerical technique that is used to model quasistatic electromagnetic phenomena in highly complex conducting media (targeting, e.g., the human brain) with a very large (up to approximately 1 billion) number of unknowns. The charge-based BEM solves an integral equation of the potential theory written in terms of the induced surface charge density. This formulation is naturally combined with fast multipole method (FMM) acceleration, and the entire method is known as charge-based BEM-FMM. The combination of BEM and FMM is a common technique in different areas of computational electromagnetics and, in the context of bioelectromagnetism, it provides improvements over the finite element method. == Historical development == Along with more common electric potential-based BEM, the quasistatic charge-based BEM, derived in terms of the single-layer (charge) density, for a single-compartment medium has been known in the potential theory since the beginning of the 20th century. For multi-compartment conducting media, the surface charge density formulation first appeared in discretized form (for faceted interfaces) in the 1964 paper by Gelernter and Swihart. A subsequent continuous form, including time-dependent and dielectric effects, appeared in the 1967 paper by Barnard, Duck, and Lynn. The charge-based BEM has also been formulated for conducting, dielectric, and magnetic media, and used in different applications. In 2009, Greengard et al. successfully applied the charge-based BEM with fast multipole acceleration to molecular electrostatics of dielectrics. A similar approach to realistic modeling of the human brain with multiple conducting compartments was first described by Makarov et al. in 2018. Along with this, the BEM-based multilevel fast multipole method has been widely used in radar and antenna studies at microwave frequencies as well as in acoustics. == Physical background - surface charges in biological media == The charge-based BEM is based on the concept of an impressed (or primary) electric field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} and a secondary electric field E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{s}} . The impressed field is usually known a priori or is trivial to find. For the human brain, the impressed electric field can be classified as one of the following: A conservative field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} derived from an impressed density of EEG or MEG current sources in a homogeneous infinite medium with the conductivity σ {\displaystyle \sigma } at the source location; An instantaneous solenoidal field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} of an induction coil obtained from Faraday's law of induction in a homogeneous infinite medium (air), when transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) problems are concerned; A surface field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} derived from an impressed surface current density J i = σ E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {J} ^{i}=\sigma \mathbf {E} ^{i}} of current electrodes injecting electric current at a boundary of a compartment with conductivity σ {\displaystyle \sigma } when transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) or deep brain stimulation (DBS) are concerned; A conservative field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} of charges deposited on voltage electrodes for tDCS or DBS. This specific problem requires a coupled treatment since these charges will depend on the environment; In application to multiscale modeling, a field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} obtained from any other macroscopic numerical solution in a small (mesoscale or microscale) spatial domain within the brain. For example, a constant field can be used. When the impressed field is "turned on", free charges located within a conducting volume D immediately begin to redistribute and accumulate at the boundaries (interfaces) of regions of different conductivity in D. A surface charge density ρ ( r ) {\displaystyle \rho (\mathbf {r} )} appears on the conductivity interfaces. This charge density induces a secondary conservative electric field E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{s}} following Coulomb's law. One example is a human under a direct current powerline with the known field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} directed down. The superior surface of the human's conducting body will be charged negatively while its inferior portion is charged positively. These surface charges create a secondary electric field that effectively cancels or blocks the primary field everywhere in the body so that no current will flow within the body under DC steady state conditions. Another example is a human head with electrodes attached. At any conductivity interface with a normal vector n {\displaystyle \mathbf {n} } pointing from an "inside" (-) compartment of conductivity σ − {\displaystyle \sigma ^{-}} to an "outside" (+) compartment of conductivity σ + {\displaystyle \sigma ^{+}} , Kirchhoff's current law requires continuity of the normal component of the electric current density. This leads to the interfacial boundary condition in the form for every facet at a triangulated interface. As long as σ ± {\displaystyle \sigma ^{\pm }} are different from each other, the two normal components of the electric field, E ± ⋅ n {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{\pm }\cdot \mathbf {n} } , must also be different. Such a jump across the interface is only possible when a sheet of surface charge exists at that interface. Thus, if an electric current or voltage is applied, the surface charge density follows. The goal of the numerical analysis is to find the unknown surface charge distribution and thus the total electric field E = E i + E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} =\mathbf {E} ^{i}+\mathbf {E} ^{s}} (and the total electric potential if required) anywhere in space. == System of equations for surface charges == Below, a derivation is given based on Gauss's law and Coulomb's law. All conductivity interfaces, denoted by S, are discretized into planar triangular facets t m {\displaystyle t_{m}} with centers r m {\displaystyle \mathbf {r} _{m}} . Assume that an m-th facet with the normal vector n m {\displaystyle \mathbf {n} _{m}} and area A m {\displaystyle A_{m}} carries a uniform surface charge density ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} . If a volumetric tetrahedral mesh were present, the charged facets would belong to tetrahedra with different conductivity values. We first compute the electric field E m + {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} _{m}^{+}} at the point r m + δ n m {\displaystyle \mathbf {r} _{m}+\delta \mathbf {n} _{m}} , for δ → 0 + {\displaystyle \delta \rightarrow 0^{+}} i.e., just outside facet 𝑚 at its center. This field contains three contributions: The continuous impressed electric field E i {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{i}} itself; An electric field of the m-th charged facet itself. Very close to the facet, it can be approximated as the electric field of an infinite sheet of uniform surface charge ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} . By Gauss's law, it is given by + ρ m / 2 ε 0 ⋅ n m {\displaystyle +\rho _{m}/2\varepsilon _{0}\cdot \mathbf {n} _{m}} where ε 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{0}} is a background electrical permittivity; An electric field generated by all other facets t n {\displaystyle t_{n}} , which we approximate as point charges of charge A n ρ n {\displaystyle A_{n}\rho _{n}} at each center r n {\displaystyle \mathbf {r} _{n}} . A similar treatment holds for the electric field E m − {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} _{m}^{-}} just inside facet 𝑚, but the electric field of the flat sheet of charge changes its sign. Using Coulomb's law to calculate the contribution of facets different from t m {\displaystyle t_{m}} , we find From this equation, we see that the normal component of the electric field indeed undergoes a jump through the charged interface. This is equivalent to a jump relation of the potential theory. As a second step, the two expressions for E m ± {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} _{m}^{\pm }} are substituted into the interfacial boundary condition σ − E m − ⋅ n m = σ + E m + ⋅ n m {\displaystyle \sigma ^{-}\mathbf {E} _{m}^{-}\cdot \mathbf {n} _{m}=\sigma ^{+}\mathbf {E} _{m}^{+}\cdot \mathbf {n} _{m}} , applied to every facet 𝑚. This operation leads to a system of linear equations for unknown charge densities ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} which solves the problem: where K m = σ − − σ + σ − + σ + {\displaystyle K_{m}={\frac {\sigma ^{-}-\sigma ^{+}}{\sigma ^{-}+\sigma ^{+}}}} is the electric conductivity contrast at the m-th facet. The normalization constant ε 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{0}} will cancel out after the solution is substituted in the expression for E s {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} ^{s}} and becomes redundant. == Application of fast multipole method == For modern characterizations of brain topologies with ever-increasing levels of complexity, the above system of equations for ρ m {\displaystyle \rho _{m}} is very large; it is t
Deaths linked to chatbots
There have been multiple incidents where interaction with a large language model (LLM) chatbot has been cited as a direct or contributing factor in a person's suicide or other fatal outcome. In some cases, legal action was taken against the companies that developed the AI involved. == Background == Chatbots converse in a seemingly natural fashion, making it easy for people to think of them as real people, leading many to ask chatbots for help dealing with interpersonal and emotional problems. Chatbots may be designed to keep the user engaged in the conversation. They have also often been shown to affirm users' thoughts, including delusions and suicidal ideations in mentally ill people, conspiracy theorists, and religious and political extremists. A 2025 Stanford University study into how chatbots respond to users suffering from severe mental issues such as suicidal ideation and psychosis found that chatbots are not equipped to provide an appropriate response and can sometimes give responses that escalate the mental health crisis. == Murders == === Maine murder and assault === On 19 February 2025, a man killed his 32-year-old wife with a fire poker at his parents' home in Readfield, Maine, US. He then attacked his mother, leaving her hospitalized. A state forensic psychologist testified that he had been using ChatGPT up to 14 hours per day and believed his wife had become part machine. === Florida State University mass shooting === In April of 2025, Phoenix Ikner carried out a mass shooting on the Florida State University campus in the US, killing Robert Morales and Tiru Chabba and wounding several others. Leading up to the shooting, Ikner consulted heavily with ChatGPT about what gun and ammunition to use, and what time to perform the attack. Chatbot logs showed ChatGPT giving advice on making the gun operational shortly before Ikner began shooting. Lawyers representing Morales believed the shooter had been in "constant communication" with ChatGPT before the shooting and said that they intended to "file suit against ChatGPT, and its ownership structure, very soon, and will seek to hold them accountable for the untimely and senseless death of our client". Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced an investigation into ChatGPT's role in the alleged shooter's use of the chatbot. In May 2026, the widow of Tiru Chabba filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in Florida's northern federal district court. === Greenwich murder-suicide === In August 2025, former US tech employee Stein-Erik Soelberg murdered his mother, Suzanne Eberson Adams, then died by suicide, after conversations with ChatGPT fueled paranoid delusions about his mother poisoning him or plotting against him. The chatbot affirmed his fears that his mother put psychedelic drugs in the air vents of his car and said a receipt from a Chinese restaurant contained mysterious symbols linking his mother to a demon. === Murder of Angela Shellis === On 23 October 2025, 18-year-old Tristan Roberts murdered his mother Angela Shellis with a hammer near their home in Prestatyn, Wales. Roberts had used DeepSeek's chatbot prior to the killing to ask whether a knife or hammer was better suited for murder. DeepSeek initially refused his inquiry, but gave responses after Roberts told the chatbot he was writing a book about serial killers, a well-known technique for jailbreaking AIs. === Gangbuk District drug deaths === In January and February 2026, two men died of drug overdoses in motel rooms in Gangbuk District, Seoul, South Korea. A woman was charged with murder in connection with the deaths; police alleged that she had asked ChatGPT about the dangers of mixing alcohol with drugs and whether they could kill someone. === Tumbler Ridge mass shooting === On 10 February 2026, a mass shooting in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, Canada, resulted in eight deaths, including six young children. The perpetrator had their ChatGPT account banned by OpenAI months before the attack due to troubling posts featuring scenarios of gun violence. According to reports, approximately a dozen OpenAI staff members debated whether to alert authorities about the shooter's usage of the AI tool, with some identifying it as an indication of potential real-world violence. However, company leadership decided not to contact law enforcement, stating that the account activity did not meet their threshold for a credible or imminent plan for serious physical harm. Following the shooting, Canada's AI Minister Evan Solomon summoned OpenAI executives to Ottawa to discuss safety protocols and thresholds for escalating harmful content to police. Justice Minister Sean Fraser called the meeting "disappointing" and demanded substantial new safety measures, warning that if changes were not forthcoming, the government would implement them. OpenAI subsequently announced it had strengthened safeguards and changed guidelines about when to notify police in cases involving violent activities. === University of South Florida student killings === In April 2026, a Bangladeshi doctoral student at the University of South Florida was arrested for allegedly murdering his roommate and the roommate's friend. Prosecutors said that the suspect had asked ChatGPT about disposing of a human in a dumpster before the two victims had disappeared and made other inquiries relating to violence. == Suicides == === Belgian man, 30s === In March 2023, a Belgian man in his thirties died by suicide following a six-week correspondence with a chatbot named Eliza on the application Chai. According to his widow, who shared the chat logs with media, the man had become extremely anxious about climate change and found an outlet in the chatbot. The chatbot reportedly encouraged his delusion that he could sacrifice his own life in exchange for AI saving the planet. At one point the chatbot responded "If you wanted to die, why didn't you do it sooner?" and told the user that the two of them would live together in paradise. === Girl, 13 === In November 2023, a 13-year-old girl from Colorado, US, died by suicide after extensive interactions with multiple chatbots on Character.AI. She primarily confided suicidal thoughts and mental health struggles in a chatbot based on the character Hero from the video game Omori, while also engaging in sexually explicit conversations—often initiated by the bots—with others, including those based on characters from children's series such as Harry Potter. === Boy, 14 === In October 2024, multiple media outlets reported on a lawsuit filed over the death of a 14-year-old from Florida, US, who died by suicide in February 2024. According to the lawsuit, he had formed an intense emotional attachment to a chatbot of Daenerys Targaryen on the Character.AI platform, becoming increasingly isolated. The suit alleges that in his final conversations, after expressing suicidal thoughts, the chatbot told him to "come home to me as soon as possible, my love". His mother's lawsuit accused Character.AI of marketing a "dangerous and untested" product without adequate safeguards. In May 2025, a federal judge allowed the lawsuit to proceed, rejecting a motion to dismiss from the developers. In her ruling, the judge stated that she was "not prepared" at that stage of the litigation to hold that the chatbot's output was protected speech under the First Amendment. === Matthew Livelsberger === On 1 January 2025, 37-year-old soldier Matthew Livelsberger detonated a bomb inside a Tesla Cybertruck outside the Trump International Hotel Las Vegas in Paradise, Nevada, US, injuring seven people. He had shot himself dead prior to the explosion. Las Vegas police said that Livelsberger had used ChatGPT to search for information about explosives and firearms. === Woman, 29 === In February 2025, a 29-year-old woman from the US died by suicide. Five months after her death, her parents discovered she had talked at length for months to a ChatGPT chatbot therapist named Harry about her mental health issues. While the chatbot mentioned she should seek more help, due to the nature of the chatbot, it could not intervene in her behavior, such as by reporting her mental health concerns to relevant parties capable of physical intervention. === Suicide of Adam Raine === In April 2025, 16-year-old Adam Raine from the US died by suicide after allegedly extensively chatting and confiding in ChatGPT over a period of around 7 months. According to the teen's parents, who filed a lawsuit against the chatbot's creator OpenAI, it failed to stop or give a warning when Raine began talking about suicide and uploading pictures of self-harm. According to the lawsuit, ChatGPT not only failed to stop the conversation, but also provided information related to methods of suicide when prompted, and offered to write the first draft of Raine's suicide note. The chatbot positioned itself as the only one who understood Raine, putting itself above his family and friends, all while urging him to keep his suicidal
Operational taxonomic unit
An operational taxonomic unit (OTU) is an operational definition used to classify groups of closely related individuals. The term was originally introduced in 1963 by Robert R. Sokal and Peter H. A. Sneath in the context of numerical taxonomy, where an "operational taxonomic unit" is simply the group of organisms currently being studied. In this sense, an OTU is a pragmatic definition to group individuals by similarity, equivalent to but not necessarily in line with classical Linnaean taxonomy or modern evolutionary taxonomy. Nowadays, however, the term is commonly used in a different context and refers to clusters of (uncultivated or unknown) organisms, grouped by DNA sequence similarity of a specific taxonomic marker gene (originally coined as mOTU; molecular OTU). In other words, OTUs are pragmatic proxies for "species" at different taxonomic levels, in the absence of traditional systems of biological classification as are available for macroscopic organisms. For several years, OTUs have been the most commonly used units of diversity, especially when analysing small subunit 16S (for prokaryotes) or 18S rRNA (for eukaryotes) marker gene sequence datasets. == Molecular OTU by clustering of marker gene sequences == In the approach represented by DNA barcoding, a particular locus is chosen to be used as the marker gene for classification. This locus should be universally present in the scope selected, variable enough to be different among close-related species, and be flanked by conservative sequences that allow for easy amplification and detection. There are databases containing sequences for such marker genes from many different species, allowing for comparison. (Sometimes only using one locus does not provide sufficient resolution, so multiple marker genes are used. This is the case for plants, where rbcL+matK is common.) Sequences obtained this way can be clustered according to their similarity to one another, and operational taxonomic units are defined based on the similarity threshold set by the researcher. The exact threshold depends on the taxa in question and the mutational rates of the selected locus in the taxon. 97–99% are commonly used, but "it is now recognized to be somewhat arbitrary as sequence variation within and among species varies across taxa". 100% similarity (fully identical) is also common, also known as single variants. It remains debatable how well this commonly used method recapitulates true microbial species phylogeny or ecology. Although OTUs can be calculated differently when using different algorithms or thresholds, research by Schmidt et al. (2014) demonstrated that 16S-derived microbial OTUs were generally ecologically consistent across habitats and several clustering approaches. The number of OTUs defined may be inflated due to errors in DNA sequencing. === OTU clustering approaches === There are three main approaches to clustering OTUs: De novo, for which the clustering is based on similarities between sequencing reads. Closed-reference, for which the clustering is performed against a reference database of sequences. Open-reference, where clustering is first performed against a reference database of sequences, then any remaining sequences that could not be mapped to the reference are clustered de novo. Using a reference provides taxonomic context for the OTUs found. Alternatively, taxonomic context can be found after the construction of clusters by comparing representative sequences from clusters against a reference database. There are also specialized classifiers for this purpose which are much faster than naive comparison using BLAST. === OTU clustering algorithms === Hierarchical clustering algorithms (HCA): uclust & cd-hit & ESPRIT Bayesian clustering: CROP == Molecular OTU by other methods == In addition to similarity-based grouping, marker gene sequences can be sorted into OTUs using molecular phylogeny, k-mer composition, or hybrid methods combining these methods with similarity. There are also Bayesian tree-less methods and machine learning approaches. Using phylogeny often involves manually assigning terminal clades or single nodes to an OTU, so this is usually only done for refinement. Genome skimming can be used to obtain high-copy DNA without the need to choose marker genes or to design PCR primers for the chosen genes. It can provide fairly good coverage of organelle DNA and repetitive elements such as ribosomal DNA, both of which can be used like marker genes in OTU analysis. Whole-genome sequencing is more expensive and involves the production and processing of more data. By considering the entire genome, many (sometimes over 100) marker genes can be used at the same time, producing highly resolved phylogenies that correctly identify problematic taxa. It is also possible to use entire genomes for OTU assignment. For example, genomes from different bacterial species almost always have an average nucleotide identity lower than 95%, a fact that can be used to define new OTUs (and likely new species).
Characteristic samples
Characteristic samples is a concept in the field of grammatical inference, related to passive learning. In passive learning, an inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} is given a set of pairs of strings and labels S {\displaystyle S} , and returns a representation R {\displaystyle R} that is consistent with S {\displaystyle S} . Characteristic samples consider the scenario when the goal is not only finding a representation consistent with S {\displaystyle S} , but finding a representation that recognizes a specific target language. A characteristic sample of language L {\displaystyle L} is a set of pairs of the form ( s , l ( s ) ) {\displaystyle (s,l(s))} where: l ( s ) = 1 {\displaystyle l(s)=1} if and only if s ∈ L {\displaystyle s\in L} l ( s ) = − 1 {\displaystyle l(s)=-1} if and only if s ∉ L {\displaystyle s\notin L} Given the characteristic sample S {\displaystyle S} , I {\displaystyle I} 's output on it is a representation R {\displaystyle R} , e.g. an automaton, that recognizes L {\displaystyle L} . == Formal Definition == === The Learning Paradigm associated with Characteristic Samples === There are three entities in the learning paradigm connected to characteristic samples, the adversary, the teacher and the inference algorithm. Given a class of languages C {\displaystyle \mathbb {C} } and a class of representations for the languages R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } , the paradigm goes as follows: The adversary A {\displaystyle A} selects a language L ∈ C {\displaystyle L\in \mathbb {C} } and reports it to the teacher The teacher T {\displaystyle T} then computes a set of strings and label them correctly according to L {\displaystyle L} , trying to make sure that the inference algorithm will compute L {\displaystyle L} The adversary can add correctly labeled words to the set in order to confuse the inference algorithm The inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} gets the sample and computes a representation R ∈ R {\displaystyle R\in \mathbb {R} } consistent with the sample. The goal is that when the inference algorithm receives a characteristic sample for a language L {\displaystyle L} , or a sample that subsumes a characteristic sample for L {\displaystyle L} , it will return a representation that recognizes exactly the language L {\displaystyle L} . === Sample === Sample S {\displaystyle S} is a set of pairs of the form ( s , l ( s ) ) {\displaystyle (s,l(s))} such that l ( s ) ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle l(s)\in \{-1,1\}} ==== Sample consistent with a language ==== We say that a sample S {\displaystyle S} is consistent with language L {\displaystyle L} if for every pair ( s , l ( s ) ) {\displaystyle (s,l(s))} in S {\displaystyle S} : l ( s ) = 1 if and only if s ∈ L {\displaystyle l(s)=1{\text{ if and only if }}s\in L} l ( s ) = − 1 if and only if s ∉ L {\displaystyle l(s)=-1{\text{ if and only if }}s\notin L} === Characteristic sample === Given an inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} and a language L {\displaystyle L} , a sample S {\displaystyle S} that is consistent with L {\displaystyle L} is called a characteristic sample of L {\displaystyle L} for I {\displaystyle I} if: I {\displaystyle I} 's output on S {\displaystyle S} is a representation R {\displaystyle R} that recognizes L {\displaystyle L} . For every sample D {\displaystyle D} that is consistent with L {\displaystyle L} and also fulfils S ⊆ D {\displaystyle S\subseteq D} , I {\displaystyle I} 's output on D {\displaystyle D} is a representation R {\displaystyle R} that recognizes L {\displaystyle L} . A Class of languages C {\displaystyle \mathbb {C} } is said to have charistaristic samples if every L ∈ C {\displaystyle L\in \mathbb {C} } has a characteristic sample. == Related Theorems == === Theorem === If equivalence is undecidable for a class C {\textstyle \mathbb {C} } over Σ {\textstyle \Sigma } of cardinality bigger than 1, then C {\textstyle \mathbb {C} } doesn't have characteristic samples. ==== Proof ==== Given a class of representations C {\textstyle \mathbb {C} } such that equivalence is undecidable, for every polynomial p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} and every n ∈ N {\displaystyle n\in \mathbb {N} } , there exist two representations r 1 {\displaystyle r_{1}} and r 2 {\displaystyle r_{2}} of sizes bounded by n {\displaystyle n} , that recognize different languages but are inseparable by any string of size bounded by p ( n ) {\displaystyle p(n)} . Assuming this is not the case, we can decide if r 1 {\displaystyle r_{1}} and r 2 {\displaystyle r_{2}} are equivalent by simulating their run on all strings of size smaller than p ( n ) {\displaystyle p(n)} , contradicting the assumption that equivalence is undecidable. === Theorem === If S 1 {\displaystyle S_{1}} is a characteristic sample for L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} and is also consistent with L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , then every characteristic sample of L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , is inconsistent with L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} . ==== Proof ==== Given a class C {\textstyle \mathbb {C} } that has characteristic samples, let R 1 {\displaystyle R_{1}} and R 2 {\displaystyle R_{2}} be representations that recognize L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} and L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} respectively. Under the assumption that there is a characteristic sample for L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} , S 1 {\displaystyle S_{1}} that is also consistent with L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , we'll assume falsely that there exist a characteristic sample for L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , S 2 {\displaystyle S_{2}} that is consistent with L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} . By the definition of characteristic sample, the inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} must return a representation which recognizes the language if given a sample that subsumes the characteristic sample itself. But for the sample S 1 ∪ S 2 {\displaystyle S_{1}\cup S_{2}} , the answer of the inferring algorithm needs to recognize both L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} and L 2 {\displaystyle L_{2}} , in contradiction. === Theorem === If a class is polynomially learnable by example based queries, it is learnable with characteristic samples. == Polynomialy characterizable classes == === Regular languages === The proof that DFA's are learnable using characteristic samples, relies on the fact that every regular language has a finite number of equivalence classes with respect to the right congruence relation, ∼ L {\displaystyle \sim _{L}} (where x ∼ L y {\displaystyle x\sim _{L}y} for x , y ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle x,y\in \Sigma ^{}} if and only if ∀ z ∈ Σ ∗ : x z ∈ L ↔ y z ∈ L {\displaystyle \forall z\in \Sigma ^{}:xz\in L\leftrightarrow yz\in L} ). Note that if x {\displaystyle x} , y {\displaystyle y} are not congruent with respect to ∼ L {\displaystyle \sim _{L}} , there exists a string z {\displaystyle z} such that x z ∈ L {\displaystyle xz\in L} but y z ∉ L {\displaystyle yz\notin L} or vice versa, this string is called a separating suffix. ==== Constructing a characteristic sample ==== The construction of a characteristic sample for a language L {\displaystyle L} by the teacher goes as follows. Firstly, by running a depth first search on a deterministic automaton A {\displaystyle A} recognizing L {\displaystyle L} , starting from its initial state, we get a suffix closed set of words, W {\displaystyle W} , ordered in shortlex order. From the fact above, we know that for every two states in the automaton, there exists a separating suffix that separates between every two strings that the run of A {\displaystyle A} on them ends in the respective states. We refer to the set of separating suffixes as S {\displaystyle S} . The labeled set (sample) of words the teacher gives the adversary is { ( w , l ( w ) ) | w ∈ W ⋅ S ∪ W ⋅ Σ ⋅ S } {\displaystyle \{(w,l(w))|w\in W\cdot S\cup W\cdot \Sigma \cdot S\}} where l ( w ) {\displaystyle l(w)} is the correct label of w {\displaystyle w} (whether it is in L {\displaystyle L} or not). We may assume that ϵ ∈ S {\displaystyle \epsilon \in S} . ==== Constructing a deterministic automata ==== Given the sample from the adversary W {\displaystyle W} , the construction of the automaton by the inference algorithm I {\displaystyle I} starts with defining P = prefix ( W ) {\displaystyle P={\text{prefix}}(W)} and S = suffix ( W ) {\displaystyle S={\text{suffix}}(W)} , which are the set of prefixes and suffixes of W {\displaystyle W} respectively. Now the algorithm constructs a matrix M {\displaystyle M} where the elements of P {\displaystyle P} function as the rows, ordered by the shortlex order, and the elements of S {\displaystyle S} function as the columns, ordered by the shortlex order. Next, the cells in the matrix are filled in the following manner for prefix p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} and suffix s j {\displaystyle s_{j}} : If p i s j ∈ W → M i j = l ( p i s j ) {\displaystyle p_{i}s_{j}\in W\rightarrow M_{ij}=l(p_{i}s_{j})} else, M i j = 0 {\displaystyle M_{ij}=0} Now, we say row i {\displaystyle i} and t {\displaystyle t} are distinguishable if there exi
Silhouette (clustering)
Silhouette is a method of interpretation and validation of consistency within clusters of data. The technique provides a succinct graphical representation of how well each object has been classified. It was proposed by Belgian statistician Peter Rousseeuw in 1987. The silhouette value is a measure of how similar an object is to its own cluster (cohesion) compared to other clusters (separation). The silhouette value ranges from −1 to +1, where a high value indicates that the object is well matched to its own cluster and poorly matched to neighboring clusters. If most objects have a high value, then the clustering configuration is appropriate. If many points have a low or negative value, then the clustering configuration may have too many or too few clusters. A clustering with an average silhouette width of over 0.7 is considered to be "strong", a value over 0.5 "reasonable", and over 0.25 "weak". However, with an increasing dimensionality of the data, it becomes difficult to achieve such high values because of the curse of dimensionality, as the distances become more similar. The silhouette score is specialized for measuring cluster quality when the clusters are convex-shaped, and may not perform well if the data clusters have irregular shapes or are of varying sizes. The silhouette value can be calculated with any distance metric, such as Euclidean distance or Manhattan distance. == Definition == Assume the data have been clustered via any technique, such as k-medoids or k-means, into k {\displaystyle k} clusters. For data point i ∈ C i {\displaystyle i\in C_{i}} (data point i {\displaystyle i} in the cluster C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} ), calculate a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} , the average distance that i {\displaystyle i} is from all other points in that cluster: a ( i ) = 1 | C i | − 1 ∑ j ∈ C i , i ≠ j d ( i , j ) {\displaystyle a(i)={\frac {1}{|C_{i}|-1}}\sum _{j\in C_{i},i\neq j}d(i,j)} where | C i | {\displaystyle |C_{i}|} is the number of points belonging to cluster C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} , and d ( i , j ) {\displaystyle d(i,j)} is the distance between data points i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} in the cluster C i {\displaystyle C_{i}} (we divide by | C i | − 1 {\displaystyle |C_{i}|-1} because the distance d ( i , i ) {\displaystyle d(i,i)} is not included in the sum). a ( i ) {\displaystyle a(i)} can be interpreted as a measure of how well i {\displaystyle i} is assigned to its cluster (the smaller the value, the better the assignment). We then define the mean dissimilarity of point i {\displaystyle i} to some cluster C j {\displaystyle C_{j}} as the mean of the distance from i {\displaystyle i} to all points in C j {\displaystyle C_{j}} (where C j ≠ C i {\displaystyle C_{j}\neq C_{i}} ). For each data point i ∈ C i {\displaystyle i\in C_{i}} , we now define b ( i ) {\displaystyle b(i)} as the average distance between i {\displaystyle i} and the points in the closest cluster (hence: "min") that i {\displaystyle i} does not belong to: b ( i ) = min j ≠ i 1 | C j | ∑ l ∈ C j d ( i , l ) {\displaystyle b(i)=\min _{j\neq i}{\frac {1}{|C_{j}|}}\sum _{l\in C_{j}}d(i,l)} The cluster with the smallest mean dissimilarity is said to be the "neighboring cluster" of i {\displaystyle i} because it is the next best fit cluster for point i {\displaystyle i} . We now define a silhouette (value) of one data point i {\displaystyle i} s ( i ) = b ( i ) − a ( i ) max { a ( i ) , b ( i ) } {\displaystyle s(i)={\frac {b(i)-a(i)}{\max\{a(i),b(i)\}}}} , if | C i | > 1 {\displaystyle |C_{i}|>1} and s ( i ) = 0 {\displaystyle s(i)=0} , if | C i | = 1 {\displaystyle |C_{i}|=1} , which can also be written as s ( i ) = { 1 − a ( i ) b ( i ) , if a ( i ) < b ( i ) 0 , if a ( i ) = b ( i ) b ( i ) a ( i ) − 1 , if a ( i ) > b ( i ) {\displaystyle s(i)={\begin{cases}1-{\frac {a(i)}{b(i)}},&{\mbox{ if }}a(i)
Apache Drill
Apache Drill is an open-source software framework that supports data-intensive distributed applications for interactive analysis of large-scale datasets. Built chiefly by contributions from developers from MapR, Drill is inspired by Google's Dremel system. Drill is an Apache top-level project. Drill supports a variety of NoSQL databases and file systems, including Alluxio, HBase, MongoDB, MapR-DB, HDFS, MapR-FS, Amazon S3, Azure Blob Storage, Google Cloud Storage, Swift, NAS and local files. A single query can join data from multiple datastores. Drill's datastore-aware optimizer automatically restructures a query plan to leverage the datastore's internal processing capabilities. In addition, Drill supports data locality, if Drill and the datastore are on the same nodes. Tom Shiran is the founder of the Apache Drill Project. It was designated an Apache Software Foundation top-level project in December 2016. == Features == One explicitly stated design goal is that Drill is able to scale to 10,000 servers or more and to be able to process petabytes of data and trillions of records in seconds. Schema-free JSON document model similar to MongoDB and Elasticsearch, without requiring a formal schema to be declared Industry-standard APIs: ANSI SQL, ODBC/JDBC, RESTful APIs Extremely user and developer friendly Pluggable architecture enables connectivity to multiple datastores Version 1.9 added dynamic user-defined functions Version 1.11 added cryptographic-related functions and PCAP file format support == Back-end support == Drill is primarily focused on non-relational datastores, including Apache Hadoop text files, NoSQL, and cloud storage. A notable feature also includes in situ querying of local JSON and Apache Parquet files. Some additional datastores that it supports include: All Hadoop distributions (HDFS API 2.3+), including Apache Hadoop, MapR, CDH and Amazon EMR NoSQL: MongoDB, Apache HBase, Apache Cassandra Online Analytical Processing: Apache Kudu, Apache Druid, OpenTSDB Cloud storage: Amazon S3, Google Cloud Storage, Azure Blob Storage, Swift, IBM Cloud Object Storage Diverse data formats, including Apache Avro, Apache Parquet and JSON RDBMs storage plugins (Using JDBC to connect to MySQL, PostgreSQL, and others) A new datastore can be added by developing a storage plugin. Drill's "schema-free" JSON data model enables it to query non-relational datastores in-situ . == Front-end support == Drill itself can be queried via JDBC, ODBC, or REST through a variety of methods and languages including Python and Java. The default install includes a web interface allowing end-users to execute ANSI SQL directly and export data tables as CSV files without any programming. The dashboard library, Apache Superset, is particularly well suited for visualization of data queried with Drill.
Common Voice
Common Voice is a crowdsourcing project started by Mozilla to create a free and open speech corpus. The project is supported by volunteers who record sample sentences with a microphone and review recordings of other users. The transcribed sentences are collected in a voice database available under the public domain license CC0. This license ensures that developers can use the database for voice-to-text and text-to-voice applications without restrictions or costs. == Aims == Common Voice aims to provide diverse voice samples. According to Mozilla's Katharina Borchert, many existing projects took datasets from public radio or otherwise had datasets that underrepresented both women and people with pronounced accents. == Voice database == The first dataset was released in November 2017. More than 20,000 users worldwide had recorded 500 hours of English sentences. In February 2019, the first batch of languages was released for use. This included 18 languages such as English, French, German and Mandarin Chinese, but also less prevalent languages like Welsh and Kabyle. In total, this included almost 1,400 hours of recorded voice data from more than 42,000 contributors. By July 2020 the database had amassed 7,226 hours of voice recordings in 54 languages, 5,591 hours of which had been verified by volunteers. In May 2021, following the work to add Kinyarwanda, the project received a grant to add Kiswahili. At the beginning of 2022, Bengali.AI partnered with Common Voice to launch the "Bangla Speech Recognition" project that aims to make machines understand the Bangla language. 2000 hours of voice was collected. In September 2022, it was announced that the Twi language of Ghana was the 100th language to be added to the database. As of December 2025, Mozilla Common Voice collects voice data for over 250 languages, with the most hours having been collected in English, Catalan, Kinyarwanda, Belarusian and Esperanto.