Monica S. Lam

Monica Sin-Ling Lam is an American computer scientist. She is a professor in the Computer Science Department at Stanford University. == Education == Monica Lam received a B.Sc. from University of British Columbia in 1980 and a Ph.D. in computer science from Carnegie Mellon University in 1987. == Career == Lam joined the faculty of Computer Science at Stanford University in 1988. She has contributed to the research of a wide range of computer systems topics including compilers, program analysis, operating systems, security, computer architecture, and high-performance computing. More recently, she is working in natural language processing, and virtual assistants with an emphasis on privacy protection. She is the faculty director of the Open Virtual Assistant Lab, which organized the first workshop for the World Wide Voice Web. The lab developed the open-source Almond voice assistant, which is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Almond received Popular Science's Best of What's New award in 2019. Previously, Lam led the SUIF (Stanford University Intermediate Format) Compiler project, which produced a widely used compiler infrastructure known for its locality optimizations and interprocedural parallelization. Many of the compiler techniques she developed have been adopted by industry. Her other research projects included the architecture and compiler for the CMU Warp machine, a systolic array of VLIW processors, and the Stanford DASH distributed shared memory machine. In 1998, she took a sabbatical leave from Stanford to help start Tensilica Inc., a company that specializes in configurable processor cores. In another research project, her program analysis group developed a collection of tools for improving software security and reliability. They developed the first scalable context-sensitive inclusion-based pointer analysis and a freely available tool called BDDBDDB, that allows programmers to express context-sensitive analyses simply by writing Datalog queries. Other tools developed include Griffin, static and dynamic analysis for finding security vulnerabilities in Web applications such as SQL injection, a static and dynamic program query language called QL, a static memory leak detector called Clouseau, a dynamic buffer overrun detector called CRED, and a dynamic error diagnosis tool called DIDUCE. In the Collective project, her research group and she developed the concept of a livePC: subscribers of the livePC will automatically run the latest of the published PC virtual images with each reboot. This approach allows computers to be managed scalably and securely. In 2005, the group started a company called MokaFive to transfer the technology to industry. She also directed the MobiSocial laboratory at Stanford, as part of the Programmable Open Mobile Internet 2020 initiative. Lam is also the cofounder of Omlet, which launched in 2014. Omlet is the first product from MobiSocial. Omlet is an open, decentralized social networking tool, based on an extensible chat platform. Lam chaired the ACM SIGPLAN Programming Languages Design and Implementation Conference in 2000, served on the Editorial Board of ACM Transactions on Computer Systems and numerous program committees for conferences on languages and compilers (PLDI, POPL), operating systems (SOSP), and computer architecture (ASPLOS, ISCA). == Awards and honors == National Academy of Engineering member, 2019 University of British Columbia Computer Science 50th Anniversary Research Award, 2018 Fellow of the ACM, 2007 ACM Programming Language Design and Implementation Best Paper Award in 2004 ACM SIGSOFT Distinguished Paper Award in 2002 ACM Most Influential Programming Language Design and Implementation Paper Award in 2001 NSF Young Investigator award in 1992 Two of her papers were recognized in "20 Years of PLDI--a Selection (1979-1999)" One of her papers was recognized in the "25 Years of the International Symposia on Computer Architecture", 1988. == Selected works == Compilers: Principles, Techniques and Tools (2d Ed) (2006) (the "Dragon Book") by Alfred V. Aho, Monica S. Lam, Ravi Sethi, and Jeffrey D. Ullman (ISBN 0-321-48681-1) A Systolic Array Optimizing Compiler (1989) (ISBN 0-89838-300-5) Monica Lam, Dissertation

Standard test image

A standard test image is a digital image file used across different institutions to test image processing and image compression algorithms. By using the same standard test images, different labs are able to compare results, both visually and quantitatively. The images are in many cases chosen to represent natural or typical images that a class of processing techniques would need to deal with. Other test images are chosen because they present a range of challenges to image reconstruction algorithms, such as the reproduction of fine detail and textures, sharp transitions and edges, and uniform regions. == Historical origins == Test images as transmission system calibration material probably date back to the original Paris to Lyon pantelegraph link. Analogue fax equipment (and photographic equipment for the printing trade) were the largest user groups of the standardized image for calibration technology until the coming of television and digital image transmission systems. == Common test image resolutions == The standard resolution of the images is usually 512×512 or 720×576. Most of these images are available as TIFF files from the University of Southern California's Signal and Image Processing Institute. Kodak has released 768×512 images, available as PNGs, that was originally on Photo CD with higher resolution, that are widely used for comparing image compression techniques.

Overcategorization

Overcategorization or category clutter is a phenomenon during classification where too many categories or classes are assigned to a document, record, or item. Overcategorization is related to the library and information science (LIS) concepts of document classification and subject indexing. It is also related to online shopping where excessive product categories can overwhelm users with too many choices or make it more difficult for customers to find the products they need. Although these categories are intended to improve organization and ease of navigation when shipping online, too many categories can lower customer satisfaction, increase difficulty navigating the online store, and reduce future shopping intentions. In LIS, the ideal number of terms that should be assigned to classify an item are measured by the variables precision and recall. Assigning few category labels that are most closely related to the content of the item being classified will result in searches that have high precision, I.e., where a high proportion of the results are closely related to the query. Assigning more category labels to each item will reduce the precision of each search, but increase the recall, retrieving more relevant results. Related LIS concepts include exhaustivity of indexing and information overload. == Basic principles == If too many categories are assigned to a given document, the implications for users depend on how informative the links are. If the user is able to distinguish between useful and not useful links, the damage is limited: The user only wastes time selecting links. In many cases, however, the user cannot judge whether or not a given link will turn out to be fruitful. In that case he or she has to follow the link and to read or skim another document. The worst case scenario is, of course, that even after reading the new document the user is unable to decide whether or not it might be useful if its subject matter is not thoroughly investigated. Overcategorization also has another unpleasant implication: It makes the system (for example in Wikipedia) difficult to maintain in a consistent way. If the system is inconsistent, it means that when the user considers the links in a given category, he or she will not find all documents relevant to that category. Basically, the problem of overcategorization should be understood from the perspective of relevance and the traditional measures of recall and precision. If too few relevant categories are assigned to a document, recall may decrease. If too many non-relevant categories are assigned, precision becomes lower. The hard job is to say which categories are fruitful or relevant for future use of the document.

Organizational metacognition

Organizational metacognition is knowing what an organization knows, a concept related to metacognition, organizational learning, the learning organization and sensemaking. It is used to describe how organizations and teams develop an awareness of their own thinking, learning how to learn, where awareness of ignorance can motivate learning. The organizational deutero-learning concept identified by Argyris and Schon defines when organizations learn how to carry out single-loop and double-loop learning. It has also been described as learning how to learn through a process of collaborative inquiry and reflection (evaluative inquiry). "When an organization engages in deutero-learning its members learn about the previous context for learning. They reflect on and inquire into previous episodes of organizational learning, or failure to learn. They discover what they did that facilitated or inhibited learning, they invent new strategies for learning, they produce these strategies, and they evaluate and generalize what they have produced" Learning what facilitates and inhibits learning enables organizations to develop new strategies to develop their knowledge. For example, identification of a gap between perceived performance (such as satisfaction) and actual performance (outcomes) creates an awareness that makes the organization understand that learning needs to occur, driving appropriate changes to the environment and processes. == Learning prototypes == Wijnhoven (2001) grouped four learning prototypes that best meet learning needs, the match between these needs and learning norms dictating an organization's learning capabilities; deutero-learning is the acquisition of these capabilities. knowledge gap analysis classification of problems to select operationally required knowledge and skills coping with organizational tremors and jolts by anticipation, response and adjustments of behavioural repertoires decisional uncertainty measurement == Terminological ambiguities == Organizational metacognition and organizational deutero-learning have both been described as the concept or phenomenon where organizations learn how to learn. Argyris and Schon (1978) place deutero-learning into their cognitive theory of action framework, neglecting aspects of adaptive behaviour and context core to Bateson's (1972) original definitions. In order to resolve terminological ambiguities, Visser (2007) reviewed and reformulated the concept of deutero-learning as, "the behavioral adaptation to patterns of conditioning in relationships in organizational contexts, distinguishing it from meta-learning and planned learning" (pg. 659). == Significance == Organizational metacognition is considered a key norm to the prescriptive concept of the learning organization. Its significance has been recognized by industry, the military and in disaster response. == Examples in practice == Examples of poor metacognition (deutero-learning) have been described in knowledge network environments, "Knowledge networking is important to most competitive enterprises today. Enterprise knowledge is becoming ever more specialized in nature, so no single person or organization can know everything in detail. Hence addressing complex, multidisciplinary problems requires developing and accessing a network of knowledgeable people and organizations. The problem is, many otherwise knowledgeable people and organizations are not fully aware of their knowledge networks, and even more problematic, they are not aware that they are not aware. This focuses our attention toward organizational metacognition."

Mathematical knowledge management

Mathematical knowledge management (MKM) is the study of how society can effectively make use of the vast and growing literature on mathematics. It studies approaches such as databases of mathematical knowledge, automated processing of formulae and the use of semantic information, and artificial intelligence. Mathematics is particularly suited to a systematic study of automated knowledge processing due to the high degree of interconnectedness between different areas of mathematics.

North Atlantic Population Project

The North Atlantic Population Project (NAPP) is a collaboration of historical demographers in Britain, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden to produce a massive census microdata collection for the North Atlantic Region in the late-nineteenth century. The database includes complete individual-level census enumerations for each country, and provides information on over 110 million people. This large scale allows detailed analysis of small geographic areas and population subgroups. The NAPP database is designed to be compatible with the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS), and is disseminated through the IPUMS data-access system at the Minnesota Population Center, University of Minnesota. Major collaborators on the project include Lisa Dillon, University of Montreal; Chad Gaffield, University of Ottawa; Ólöf Garðarsdóttir, Statistics Iceland; Marianne Jarnes Erikstad, University of Tromsø; Jan Oldervall University of Bergen; Evan Roberts, University of Minnesota; Steven Ruggles, University of Minnesota; Kevin Schürer, UK Data Archive; Gunnar Thorvaldsen, University of Tromsø; and Matthew Woollard, UK Data Archive. The project is also coordinated by the Minnesota Population Center at the University of Minnesota.

Algorithm IMED

In multi-armed bandit problems, IMED (for Indexed Minimum Empirical Divergence) is an algorithm developed in 2015 by Junya Honda and Akimichi Takemura. It is the first algorithm proved to be asymptotically optimal respect to the problem-dependant Lai–Robbins lower bound for distributions in ( − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle (-\infty ,1]} . == Multi-armed bandit problem == The Multi-armed bandit problem is a sequential game where one player has to choose at each turn between K {\displaystyle K} actions (arms). Behind every arm a {\displaystyle a} there is an unknown distribution ν a {\displaystyle \nu _{a}} that lies in a set D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} known by the player (for example, D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} can be the set of Gaussian distributions or Bernoulli distributions). At each turn t {\displaystyle t} the player chooses (pulls) an arm a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} , he then gets an observation X t {\displaystyle X_{t}} of the distribution ν a t {\displaystyle \nu _{a_{t}}} . === Regret minimization === The goal is to minimize the regret at time T {\displaystyle T} that is defined as R T := ∑ a = 1 K Δ a E [ N a ( T ) ] {\displaystyle R_{T}:=\sum _{a=1}^{K}\Delta _{a}\mathbb {E} [N_{a}(T)]} where μ a := E [ ν a ] {\displaystyle \mu _{a}:=\mathbb {E} [\nu _{a}]} is the mean of arm a {\displaystyle a} μ ∗ := max a μ a {\displaystyle \mu ^{}:=\max _{a}\mu _{a}} is the highest mean Δ a := μ ∗ − μ a {\displaystyle \Delta _{a}:=\mu ^{}-\mu _{a}} N a ( t ) {\displaystyle N_{a}(t)} is the number of pulls of arm a {\displaystyle a} up to turn t {\displaystyle t} The player has to find an algorithm that chooses at each turn t {\displaystyle t} which arm to pull based on the previous actions and observations ( a s , X s ) s < t {\displaystyle (a_{s},X_{s})_{s μ } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{inf}(\nu ,\mu ,{\mathcal {D}}):=\inf \left\{\mathrm {KL} (\nu ,{\tilde {\nu }})\ |\ {\tilde {\nu }}\in {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1]),\ \mathbb {E} [{\tilde {\nu }}]>\mu \right\}} K L {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} } is the Kullback–Leibler divergence P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1])} is the set of distribution in [ − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle [-\infty ,1]} ν ^ a ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t)} is the empirical distribution of arm a {\displaystyle a} at turn t {\displaystyle t} μ ^ ∗ ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\mu }}^{}(t)} is the highest empirical mean of turn t {\displaystyle t} Remark : For arms a {\displaystyle a} that verify μ ^ a ( t ) = μ ^ ∗ ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\mu }}_{a}(t)={\hat {\mu }}^{}(t)} we have K i n f ( ν ^ a ( t ) , μ ^ ∗ ( t ) ) = 0 {\displaystyle K_{inf}({\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t),{\hat {\mu }}^{}(t))=0} . Then there index is equal to ln ⁡ ( N a ( t ) ) {\displaystyle \ln(N_{a}(t))} === Pseudocode === for each arm i do: n[i] ← 1; nu[i] ← None; mu[i] ← None for t from 1 to K do: select arm t observe reward r n[t] ← n[t] + 1 nu[t] ← update empirical distribution mu[t] ← update empirical mean for t from K+1 to T do: mu ← highest mu for each arm i do: scoreK[i] ← n[i] K_inf(nu[i],mu) scoreN[i] ← ln(n[i]) index[i] ← scoreK[i] + scoreN[i] select arm a with smallest index[a] observe reward r n[a] ← n[a] + 1 nu[a] ← update empirical distribution mu[a] ← update empirical mean == Theoretical results == In the multi-armed bandit problem we have the asymptotic Lai–Robbins lower bound asymptotic lower bound on regret. The algorithm IMED is the first algorithm that matches this lower bound for distribution in ( − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle (-\infty ,1]} in the first order. If the distribution are also bounded then it also match the second order. It is the first algorithm that match the second under of this lower bound. === Lai–Robbins lower bound === In 1985 Lai and Robbins proved an asymptotic, problem-dependent lower bound on regret. In 2018, Aurelien Garivier, Pierre Menard and Gilles Stoltz proved a refined lower bound that gives the second order It states that for every consistent algorithm on the set P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1])} — that is, an algorithm for which, for every ( ν 1 , … , ν K ) ∈ P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) K {\displaystyle (\nu _{1},\dots ,\nu _{K})\in {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1])^{K}} , the regret R T {\displaystyle R_{T}} is subpolynomial (i.e. R T = o T → + ∞ ( T α ) {\displaystyle R_{T}=o_{T\to +\infty }(T^{\alpha })} for all α > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha >0} ) — we have: R T ≥ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ ) ) ln ⁡ T − Ω T → + ∞ ( ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T ) . {\displaystyle R_{T}\geq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{})}}\right)\ln T-\Omega _{T\to +\infty }(\ln \ln T).} This bound is asymptotic (as T → + ∞ {\displaystyle T\to +\infty } ) and gives a first-order lower bound of order ln ⁡ T {\displaystyle \ln T} with the optimal constant in front of it and the second order in − Ω ( ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T ) {\displaystyle -\Omega (\ln \ln T)} . === Regret bound for IMED === If the distribution of every arm a {\displaystyle a} is ( − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle (-\infty ,1]} ( i.e. ν a ∈ P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) ) {\displaystyle \nu _{a}\in {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1]))} then the regret of the algorithm IMED verify R T ≤ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ ) ) ln ⁡ T + O ( 1 ) {\displaystyle R_{T}\leq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{})}}\right)\ln T+O(1)} If all the distribution ν a {\displaystyle \nu _{a}} are bounded then it exists a constant C > 0 {\displaystyle C>0} such that for T {\displaystyle T} large enough the regret of IMED is upper bounded by R T ≤ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ ) ) ln ⁡ T − C ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T {\displaystyle R_{T}\leq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{})}}\right)\ln T-C\ln \ln T} == Computation time == The algorithm only requiere to compute the K i n f {\displaystyle K_{inf}} for suboptimal arms who are pulled O ( ln ⁡ T ) {\displaystyle O(\ln T)} times, which make it a lot faster than KL-UCB. A faster version of IMED was developed in 2023 to make it even faster, using a Taylor development of the K i n f {\displaystyle K_{inf}} in the first order .