Knowledge integration is the process of synthesizing multiple knowledge models (or representations) into a common model (representation). Compared to information integration, which involves merging information having different schemas and representation models, knowledge integration focuses more on synthesizing the understanding of a given subject from different perspectives. For example, multiple interpretations are possible of a set of student grades, typically each from a certain perspective. An overall, integrated view and understanding of this information can be achieved if these interpretations can be put under a common model, say, a student performance index. The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE), from the University of California at Berkeley has been developed along the lines of knowledge integration theory. Knowledge integration has also been studied as the process of incorporating new information into a body of existing knowledge with an interdisciplinary approach. This process involves determining how the new information and the existing knowledge interact, how existing knowledge should be modified to accommodate the new information, and how the new information should be modified in light of the existing knowledge. A learning agent that actively investigates the consequences of new information can detect and exploit a variety of learning opportunities; e.g., to resolve knowledge conflicts and to fill knowledge gaps. By exploiting these learning opportunities the learning agent is able to learn beyond the explicit content of the new information. The machine learning program KI, developed by Murray and Porter at the University of Texas at Austin, was created to study the use of automated and semi-automated knowledge integration to assist knowledge engineers constructing a large knowledge base. A possible technique which can be used is semantic matching. More recently, a technique useful to minimize the effort in mapping validation and visualization has been presented which is based on Minimal Mappings. Minimal mappings are high quality mappings such that i) all the other mappings can be computed from them in time linear in the size of the input graphs, and ii) none of them can be dropped without losing property i). The University of Waterloo operates a Bachelor of Knowledge Integration undergraduate degree program as an academic major or minor. The program started in 2008.
Ericom Connect
Ericom Connect is a remote access/application publishing solution produced by Ericom Software that provides secure, centrally managed access to physical or hosted desktops and applications running on Microsoft Windows and Linux systems. == Product overview == Ericom Connect is desktop virtualization and application virtualization software that allows users to run applications remotely, without installing them on the local computer or device. The software is noted for its scalability, ease of deployment, and compatibility with any type of infrastructure, cloud or physical. Ericom Connect uses AccessPad (native client for desktops), AccessToGo (native client for mobile), or AccessNow, one of the first HTML5 RDP solutions to support clientless access to Windows desktops and applications from any device with an HTML5-compatible browser, including Macintosh computers, mobile devices, and Google Chromebooks. Other notable features include performance monitoring, built-in real-time analytics & BI, support for two-factor authentication (using RSA SecurID), multi-tenancy and multi-datacenter support via a single unified web interface, and a “Launch Simulation” feature that allows users to visualize and simulate actual step-by-step user processes directly from within the administration console. In addition to scalability, by distributing configurations, logs, etc., across multiple servers there is no single point of failure, as can be the case if all configuration information is stored on one server. == History == Ericom Connect was introduced in 2015. Ericom Connect is a successor to Ericom PowerTerm Web Connect. PowerTerm Web Connect used an architecture similar to what was then current with Citrix and VMWare, relying on a centralized SQL server, a connection broker, image management for different hypervisors, and a variety of clients. Ericom Connect uses a new grid architecture that provides more scalability, reliability, and flexibility than before.
Thompson sampling
Thompson sampling, named after William R. Thompson, is a heuristic for choosing actions that address the exploration–exploitation dilemma in the multi-armed bandit problem. It consists of choosing the action that maximizes the expected reward with respect to a randomly drawn belief. == Description == Consider a set of contexts X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} , a set of actions A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} , and rewards in R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } . The aim of the player is to play actions under the various contexts, such as to maximize the cumulative rewards. Specifically, in each round, the player obtains a context x ∈ X {\displaystyle x\in {\mathcal {X}}} , plays an action a ∈ A {\displaystyle a\in {\mathcal {A}}} and receives a reward r ∈ R {\displaystyle r\in \mathbb {R} } following a distribution that depends on the context and the issued action. The elements of Thompson sampling are as follows: a likelihood function P ( r | θ , a , x ) {\displaystyle P(r|\theta ,a,x)} ; a set Θ {\displaystyle \Theta } of parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } of the distribution of r {\displaystyle r} ; a prior distribution P ( θ ) {\displaystyle P(\theta )} on these parameters; past observations triplets D = { ( x ; a ; r ) } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}=\{(x;a;r)\}} ; a posterior distribution P ( θ | D ) ∝ P ( D | θ ) P ( θ ) {\displaystyle P(\theta |{\mathcal {D}})\propto P({\mathcal {D}}|\theta )P(\theta )} , where P ( D | θ ) {\displaystyle P({\mathcal {D}}|\theta )} is the likelihood function. Thompson sampling consists of playing the action a ∗ ∈ A {\displaystyle a^{\ast }\in {\mathcal {A}}} according to the probability that it maximizes the expected reward; action a ∗ {\displaystyle a^{\ast }} is chosen with probability ∫ I [ E ( r | a ∗ , x , θ ) = max a ′ E ( r | a ′ , x , θ ) ] P ( θ | D ) d θ , {\displaystyle \int \mathbb {I} \left[\mathbb {E} (r|a^{\ast },x,\theta )=\max _{a'}\mathbb {E} (r|a',x,\theta )\right]P(\theta |{\mathcal {D}})d\theta ,} where I {\displaystyle \mathbb {I} } is the indicator function. In practice, the rule is implemented by sampling. In each round, parameters θ ∗ {\displaystyle \theta ^{\ast }} are sampled from the posterior P ( θ | D ) {\displaystyle P(\theta |{\mathcal {D}})} , and an action a ∗ {\displaystyle a^{\ast }} chosen that maximizes E [ r | θ ∗ , a ∗ , x ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} [r|\theta ^{\ast },a^{\ast },x]} , i.e. the expected reward given the sampled parameters, the action, and the current context. Conceptually, this means that the player instantiates their beliefs randomly in each round according to the posterior distribution, and then acts optimally according to them. In most practical applications, it is computationally onerous to maintain and sample from a posterior distribution over models. As such, Thompson sampling is often used in conjunction with approximate sampling techniques. == History == Thompson sampling was originally described by Thompson in 1933. It was subsequently rediscovered numerous times independently in the context of multi-armed bandit problems. A first proof of convergence for the bandit case has been shown in 1997. The first application to Markov decision processes was in 2000. A related approach (see Bayesian control rule) was published in 2010. In 2010 it was also shown that Thompson sampling is instantaneously self-correcting. Asymptotic convergence results for contextual bandits were published in 2011. Thompson Sampling has been widely used in many online learning problems including A/B testing in website design and online advertising, and accelerated learning in decentralized decision making. A Double Thompson Sampling (D-TS) algorithm has been proposed for dueling bandits, a variant of traditional MAB, where feedback comes in the form of pairwise comparison. == Relationship to other approaches == === Probability matching === Probability matching is a decision strategy in which predictions of class membership are proportional to the class base rates. Thus, if in the training set positive examples are observed 60% of the time, and negative examples are observed 40% of the time, the observer using a probability-matching strategy will predict (for unlabeled examples) a class label of "positive" on 60% of instances, and a class label of "negative" on 40% of instances. === Bayesian control rule === A generalization of Thompson sampling to arbitrary dynamical environments and causal structures, known as Bayesian control rule, has been shown to be the optimal solution to the adaptive coding problem with actions and observations. In this formulation, an agent is conceptualized as a mixture over a set of behaviours. As the agent interacts with its environment, it learns the causal properties and adopts the behaviour that minimizes the relative entropy to the behaviour with the best prediction of the environment's behaviour. If these behaviours have been chosen according to the maximum expected utility principle, then the asymptotic behaviour of the Bayesian control rule matches the asymptotic behaviour of the perfectly rational agent. The setup is as follows. Let a 1 , a 2 , … , a T {\displaystyle a_{1},a_{2},\ldots ,a_{T}} be the actions issued by an agent up to time T {\displaystyle T} , and let o 1 , o 2 , … , o T {\displaystyle o_{1},o_{2},\ldots ,o_{T}} be the observations gathered by the agent up to time T {\displaystyle T} . Then, the agent issues the action a T + 1 {\displaystyle a_{T+1}} with probability: P ( a T + 1 | a ^ 1 : T , o 1 : T ) , {\displaystyle P(a_{T+1}|{\hat {a}}_{1:T},o_{1:T}),} where the "hat"-notation a ^ t {\displaystyle {\hat {a}}_{t}} denotes the fact that a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} is a causal intervention (see Causality), and not an ordinary observation. If the agent holds beliefs θ ∈ Θ {\displaystyle \theta \in \Theta } over its behaviors, then the Bayesian control rule becomes P ( a T + 1 | a ^ 1 : T , o 1 : T ) = ∫ Θ P ( a T + 1 | θ , a ^ 1 : T , o 1 : T ) P ( θ | a ^ 1 : T , o 1 : T ) d θ {\displaystyle P(a_{T+1}|{\hat {a}}_{1:T},o_{1:T})=\int _{\Theta }P(a_{T+1}|\theta ,{\hat {a}}_{1:T},o_{1:T})P(\theta |{\hat {a}}_{1:T},o_{1:T})\,d\theta } , where P ( θ | a ^ 1 : T , o 1 : T ) {\displaystyle P(\theta |{\hat {a}}_{1:T},o_{1:T})} is the posterior distribution over the parameter θ {\displaystyle \theta } given actions a 1 : T {\displaystyle a_{1:T}} and observations o 1 : T {\displaystyle o_{1:T}} . In practice, the Bayesian control amounts to sampling, at each time step, a parameter θ ∗ {\displaystyle \theta ^{\ast }} from the posterior distribution P ( θ | a ^ 1 : T , o 1 : T ) {\displaystyle P(\theta |{\hat {a}}_{1:T},o_{1:T})} , where the posterior distribution is computed using Bayes' rule by only considering the (causal) likelihoods of the observations o 1 , o 2 , … , o T {\displaystyle o_{1},o_{2},\ldots ,o_{T}} and ignoring the (causal) likelihoods of the actions a 1 , a 2 , … , a T {\displaystyle a_{1},a_{2},\ldots ,a_{T}} , and then by sampling the action a T + 1 ∗ {\displaystyle a_{T+1}^{\ast }} from the action distribution P ( a T + 1 | θ ∗ , a ^ 1 : T , o 1 : T ) {\displaystyle P(a_{T+1}|\theta ^{\ast },{\hat {a}}_{1:T},o_{1:T})} . === Upper-confidence-bound (UCB) algorithms === Thompson sampling and upper-confidence bound algorithms share a fundamental property that underlies many of their theoretical guarantees. Roughly speaking, both algorithms allocate exploratory effort to actions that might be optimal and are in this sense "optimistic". Leveraging this property, one can translate regret bounds established for UCB algorithms to Bayesian regret bounds for Thompson sampling or unify regret analysis across both these algorithms and many classes of problems.
Agent2Agent
Agent2Agent (A2A) is an open protocol that defines how artificial intelligence agents communicate with each other across different systems. It is intended to allow agents built by different vendors or frameworks to discover one another, exchange messages, and coordinate tasks. == History == The Agent2Agent protocol was announced by Google in April 2025 as an open standard for agent interoperability. In June 2025, Google transferred the protocol, its specification, and related software development kits to the Linux Foundation. The Linux Foundation established the Agent2Agent project to provide vendor-neutral governance. == Design == The A2A protocol supports communication between autonomous software agents operating across different platforms and organizations. It enables agents to discover one another and exchange structured messages without requiring shared internal state or proprietary integrations. A2A uses metadata documents, known as Agent Cards, to describe an agent's capabilities and how it can be accessed. These documents are exchanged using widely adopted web technologies such as HTTP and JSON-based messaging formats. A2A includes support for authentication and authorization to control which agents may participate in workflows. The protocol supports established security technologies including Transport Layer Security (TLS), JSON Web Tokens (JWTs), and OpenID Connect. A2A is often discussed alongside the Model Context Protocol (MCP). MCP focuses on connecting agents to tools and data sources, while A2A focuses on communication between agents themselves. == Adoption == At the time the Linux Foundation adopted the protocol, more than 100 technology companies had announced support for the Agent2Agent project. Microsoft stated that it planned to support the protocol in its AI platforms. == Reception == Technology press coverage has described A2A as an attempt to reduce fragmentation in AI agent ecosystems by providing a shared communication layer. TechRepublic characterized the protocol as part of a broader industry effort to reduce vendor lock-in for enterprise AI systems.
Orion's Arm
The Orion's Arm Universe Project (OA) is a multi-authored online hard science fiction world-building project, first established in 2000 by M. Alan Kazlev, Donna Malcolm Hirsekorn, Bernd Helfert and Anders Sandberg and further co-authored by many people since. Anyone can contribute articles, stories, artwork, or music to the website. The first published Orion's Arm book, a collection of five novellas set within the OA universe, called Against a Diamond Sky, was released in September 2009. == Canon == The fictional setting of Orion's Arm takes place about 10,000 years in the future, where an interstellar civilization spread across thousands of light-years, with inhabited planets and space habitats. Its inhabitants range from humans to extensively modified human beings, including superhumans with advanced augmentations and internal AI systems, while most people exist as softwares. Engineered wormholes are used for interstellar travel and transport, although not for time travel. The setting also includes several alien civilizations and evidence of more advanced alien societies in the past. At its highest levels, directed human evolution has produced vast godlike beings linked across interstellar distances, capable of understanding and creating technologies beyond ordinary minds. == Reception == Orion's Arm has been reviewed in the role-playing magazine Knights of the Dinner Table, as well as on Boing Boing by transhumanist science fiction author Cory Doctorow. References to the Encyclopaedia Galactica have been made in a book on overcoming Librarian stereotypes. The Orion's Arm website has also been recommended in a children's teaching guide.
Automated negotiation
Automated negotiation is a form of interaction in systems that are composed of multiple autonomous agents, in which the aim is to reach agreements through an iterative process of making offers. Automated negotiation can be employed for many tasks human negotiators regularly engage in, such as bargaining and joint decision making. The main topics in automated negotiation revolve around the design of protocols and negotiating strategies. == History == Through digitization, the beginning of the 21st century has seen a growing interest in the automation of negotiation and e-negotiation systems, for example in the setting of e-commerce. This interest is fueled by the promise of automated agents being able to negotiate on behalf of human negotiators, and to find better outcomes than human negotiators. == Examples == Examples of automated negotiation include: Online dispute resolution, in which disagreements between parties are settled. Sponsored search auction, where bids are placed on advertisement keywords. Content negotiation, in which user agents negotiate over HTTP about how to best represent a web resource. Negotiation support systems, in which negotiation decision-making activities are supported by an information system.
Speech-generating device
Speech-generating devices (SGDs), also known as voice output communication aids, are electronic augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems used to supplement or replace speech or writing for individuals with severe speech impairments, enabling them to verbally communicate. SGDs are important for people who have limited means of interacting verbally, as they allow individuals to become active participants in communication interactions. They are particularly helpful for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) but recently have been used for children with predicted speech deficiencies. There are several input and display methods for users of varying abilities to make use of SGDs. Some SGDs have multiple pages of symbols to accommodate a large number of utterances, and thus only a portion of the symbols available are visible at any one time, with the communicator navigating the various pages. Speech-generating devices can produce electronic voice output by using digitized recordings of natural speech or through speech synthesis—which may carry less emotional information but can permit the user to speak novel messages. The content, organization, and updating of the vocabulary on an SGD is influenced by a number of factors, such as the user's needs and the contexts that the device will be used in. The development of techniques to improve the available vocabulary and rate of speech production is an active research area. Vocabulary items should be of high interest to the user, be frequently applicable, have a range of meanings, and be pragmatic in functionality. There are multiple methods of accessing messages on devices: directly or indirectly, or using specialized access devices—although the specific access method will depend on the skills and abilities of the user. SGD output is typically much slower than speech, although rate enhancement strategies can increase the user's rate of output, resulting in enhanced efficiency of communication. The first known SGD was prototyped in the mid-1970s, and rapid progress in hardware and software development has meant that SGD capabilities can now be integrated into devices like smartphones. Notable users of SGDs include Stephen Hawking, Roger Ebert, Tony Proudfoot, and Pete Frates (founder of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge). Speech-generating systems may be dedicated devices developed solely for AAC, or non-dedicated devices such as computers running additional software to allow them to function as AAC devices. == History == SGDs have their roots in early electronic communication aids. The first such aid was a sip-and-puff typewriter controller named the patient-operated selector mechanism (Naman) prototyped by Reg Maling in the United Kingdom in 1960. POSSUM scanned through a set of symbols on an illuminated display. Researchers at Delft University in the Netherlands created the lightspot-operated typewriter (LOT) in 1970, which made use of small movements of the head to point a small spot of light at a matrix of characters, each equipped with a photoelectric cell. Although it was commercially unsuccessful, the LOT was well received by its users. In 1966, Barry Romich, a freshman engineering student at Case Western Reserve University, and Ed Prentke, an engineer at Highland View Hospital in Cleveland, Ohio, formed a partnership, creating the Prentke Romich Company. In 1969, the company produced its first communication device, a typing system based on a discarded Teletype machine. In 1979, Mark Dahmke developed software for a vocal communication aid program using the Computalker CT-1 analog speech synthesizer with a microcomputer. The software utilized phonemes to generate speech, assisting individuals with communication impairments in constructing words and sentences. Dahmke's work contributed to the advancement of assistive technology for people with disabilities. Notably, he designed the "Vocabulary Management System" for Bill Rush, a student with cerebral palsy. This early speech synthesis technology facilitated improved communication for Rush and was featured in a 1980 issue of LIFE Magazine. Dahmke's contributions have influenced the development of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) technologies. During the 1970s and early 1980s, several other companies emerged that have since become prominent manufacturers of SGDs. Toby Churchill founded Toby Churchill Ltd in 1973, after losing his speech following encephalitis. In the US, Dynavox (then known as Sentient Systems Technology) grew out of a student project at Carnegie-Mellon University, created in 1982 to help a young woman with cerebral palsy to communicate. Beginning in the 1980s, improvements in technology led to a greatly increased number, variety, and performance of commercially available communication devices, and a reduction in their size and price. Alternative methods of access such as Target Scanning (also known as eye pointing) calibrate the movement of a user's eyes to direct an SGD to produce the desired speech. Scanning, in which alternatives are presented to the user sequentially, became available on communication devices. Speech output possibilities included both digitized and synthesized speech. Rapid progress in hardware and software development continued, including projects funded by the European Community. The first commercially available dynamic screen speech-generating devices were developed in the 1990s. Software was developed that allowed the computer-based production of communication boards. High-tech devices have continued to become smaller and lighter, while increasing accessibility and capability; communication devices can be accessed using eye-tracking systems, perform as a computer for word-processing and Internet use, and as an environmental control device for independent access to other equipment such as TV, radio and telephones. Stephen Hawking came to be associated with the unique voice of his particular synthesis equipment. Hawking was unable to speak due to a combination of disabilities caused by ALS, and an emergency tracheotomy. In the past 20 or so years SGD have gained popularity amongst young children with speech deficiencies, such as autism, Down syndrome, and predicted brain damage due to surgery. Starting in the early 2000s, specialists saw the benefit of using SGDs not only for adults but for children, as well. Neuro-linguists found that SGDs were just as effective in helping children who were at risk for temporary language deficits after undergoing brain surgery as it is for patients with ALS. In particular, digitized SGDs have been used as communication aids for pediatric patients during the recovery process. == Access methods == There are many methods of accessing messages on devices: directly, indirectly, and with specialized access devices. Direct access methods involve physical contact with the system, by using a keyboard or a touch screen. Users accessing SGDs indirectly and through specialized devices must manipulate an object in order to access the system, such as maneuvering a joystick, head mouse, optical head pointer, light pointer, infrared pointer, or switch access scanner. The specific access method will depend on the skills and abilities of the user. With direct selection a body part, pointer, adapted mouse, joystick, or eye tracking could be used, whereas switch access scanning is often used for indirect selection. Unlike direct selection (e.g., typing on a keyboard, touching a screen), users of Target Scanning can only make selections when the scanning indicator (or cursor) of the electronic device is on the desired choice. Those who are unable to point typically calibrate their eyes to use eye gaze as a way to point and blocking as a way to select desired words and phrases. The speed and pattern of scanning, as well as the way items are selected, are individualized to the physical, visual and cognitive capabilities of the user. == Message construction == Augmentative and alternative communication is typically much slower than speech, with users generally producing 8–10 words per minute. Rate enhancement strategies can increase the user's rate of output to around 12–15 words per minute, and as a result enhance the efficiency of communication. In any given SGD there may be a large number of vocal expressions that facilitate efficient and effective communication, including greetings, expressing desires, and asking questions. Some SGDs have multiple pages of symbols to accommodate a large number of vocal expressions, and thus only a portion of the symbols available are visible at any one time, with the communicator navigating the various pages. Speech-generating devices generally display a set of selections either using a dynamically changing screen, or a fixed display. There are two main options for increasing the rate of communication for an SGD: encoding, and prediction. Encoding permits a user to produce a word, sentence or phrase using only on