Algorithmic accountability refers to the allocation of responsibility for the consequences of real-world actions influenced by algorithms used in decision-making processes. Ideally, algorithms should be designed to eliminate bias from their decision-making outcomes. This means they ought to evaluate only relevant characteristics of the input data, avoiding distinctions based on attributes that are generally inappropriate in social contexts, such as an individual's ethnicity in legal judgments. However, adherence to this principle is not always guaranteed, and there are instances where individuals may be adversely affected by algorithmic decisions. Responsibility for any harm resulting from a machine's decision may lie with the algorithm itself or with the individuals who designed it, particularly if the decision resulted from bias or flawed data analysis inherent in the algorithm's design. == Algorithm usage == Algorithms are widely utilized across various sectors of society that incorporate computational techniques in their control systems. These applications span numerous industries, including but not limited to medical, transportation, and payment services. In these contexts, algorithms perform functions such as: Approving or denying credit card applications; Approving or denying immigrant visas; Determining which taxpayers will be audited on their income taxes; Managing systems that control self-driving cars on a highway; Scoring individuals as potential criminals for use in legal proceedings; Search engines that match and rank database and internet search results; Recommendation systems that filter which news, entertainment, or purchase items are featured in a feed; Market-making algorithms that match sellers and buyers, such as in transportation (ride-hailing) or financial platforms. However, the implementation of these algorithms can be complex and opaque. Generally, algorithms function as "black boxes," meaning that the specific processes an input undergoes during execution are often not transparent, with users typically only seeing the resulting output. This lack of transparency raises concerns about potential biases within the algorithms, as the parameters influencing decision-making may not be well understood. The outputs generated can lead to perceptions of bias, especially if individuals in similar circumstances receive different results. According to Nicholas Diakopoulos: But these algorithms can make mistakes. They have biases. Yet they sit in opaque black boxes, their inner workings, their inner “thoughts” hidden behind layers of complexity. We need to get inside that black box, to understand how they may be exerting power on us, and to understand where they might be making unjust mistakes == Wisconsin Supreme Court case == Algorithms are prevalent across various fields and significantly influence decisions that affect the population at large. Their underlying structures and parameters often remain unknown to those impacted by their outcomes. A notable case illustrating this issue is a recent ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court concerning "risk assessment" algorithms used in criminal justice. The court determined that scores generated by such algorithms, which analyze multiple parameters from individuals, should not be used as a determining factor for arresting an accused individual. Furthermore, the court mandated that all reports submitted to judges must include information regarding the accuracy of the algorithm used to compute these scores. This ruling is regarded as a noteworthy development in how society should manage software that makes consequential decisions, highlighting the importance of reliability, particularly in complex settings like the legal system. The use of algorithms in these contexts necessitates a high degree of impartiality in processing input data. However, experts note that there is still considerable work to be done to ensure the accuracy of algorithmic results. Questions about the transparency of data processing continue to arise, which raises issues regarding the appropriateness of the algorithms and the intentions of their designers. == Controversies == A notable instance of potential algorithmic bias is highlighted in an article by The Washington Post regarding the ride-hailing service Uber. An analysis of collected data revealed that estimated waiting times for users varied based on the neighborhoods in which they resided. Key factors influencing these discrepancies included the predominant ethnicity and average income of the area. Specifically, neighborhoods with a majority white population and higher economic status tended to have shorter waiting times, while those with more diverse ethnic compositions and lower average incomes experienced longer waits. It’s important to clarify that this observation reflects a correlation identified in the data, rather than a definitive cause-and-effect relationship. No value judgments are made regarding the behavior of the Uber app in these cases. In TechCrunch website, Hemant Taneja wrote: Concern about “black box” algorithms that govern our lives has been spreading. New York University’s Information Law Institute hosted a conference on algorithmic accountability, noting: “Scholars, stakeholders, and policymakers question the adequacy of existing mechanisms governing algorithmic decision-making and grapple with new challenges presented by the rise of algorithmic power in terms of transparency, fairness, and equal treatment.” Yale Law School’s Information Society Project is studying this, too. “Algorithmic modeling may be biased or limited, and the uses of algorithms are still opaque in many critical sectors,” the group concluded. == Possible solutions == Discussions among experts have sought viable solutions to understand the operations of algorithms, often referred to as "black boxes." It is generally proposed that companies responsible for developing and implementing these algorithms should ensure their reliability by disclosing the internal processes of their systems. Hemant Taneja, writing for TechCrunch, emphasizes that major technology companies, such as Google, Amazon, and Uber, must actively incorporate algorithmic accountability into their operations. He suggests that these companies should transparently monitor their own systems to avoid stringent regulatory measures. One potential approach is the introduction of regulations in the tech sector to enforce oversight of algorithmic processes. However, such regulations could significantly impact software developers and the industry as a whole. It may be more beneficial for companies to voluntarily disclose the details of their algorithms and decision-making parameters, which could enhance the trustworthiness of their solutions. Another avenue discussed is the possibility of self-regulation by the companies that create these algorithms, allowing them to take proactive steps in ensuring accountability and transparency in their operations. In TechCrunch website, Hemant Taneja wrote: There’s another benefit — perhaps a huge one — to software-defined regulation. It will also show us a path to a more efficient government. The world’s legal logic and regulations can be coded into software and smart sensors can offer real-time monitoring of everything from air and water quality, traffic flows and queues at the DMV. Regulators define the rules, technologist create the software to implement them and then AI and ML help refine iterations of policies going forward. This should lead to much more efficient, effective governments at the local, national and global levels.
Keka HR
Keka HR is a software company that provides cloud-based human resource management and payroll automation software. Keka HR specializes in providing business services in the field of HR technology, payroll automation, recruiting, leave, attendance and performance management. The company was founded by Vijay Yalamanchili on July 21, 2014. The company is headquartered in Hyderabad, with operations in Singapore and the United States. == History == Keka HR was established in 2014 in Hyderabad, Telangana, India. In 2015, the company entered the Indian HR market and received the HYSEA Startup Award. By 2019, Keka HR had surpassed $1 million in annual recurring revenue (ARR). During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the company reported a sevenfold increase in sales. By 2021, the company had raised $1.6 million through Recur Club. In 2022, Keka HR secured $57 million in Series A funding from West Bridge Capital. The company's headquarters are located in Gachibowli, Hyderabad, with offices in Singapore and Seattle, Washington.
History of natural language processing
The history of natural language processing describes the advances of natural language processing. There is some overlap with the history of machine translation, the history of speech recognition, and the history of artificial intelligence. == Early history == The history of machine translation dates back to the seventeenth century, when philosophers such as Leibniz and Descartes put forward proposals for codes which would relate words between languages. All of these proposals remained theoretical, and none resulted in the development of an actual machine. The first patents for "translating machines" were applied for in the mid-1930s. One proposal, by Georges Artsrouni, was simply an automatic bilingual dictionary using paper tape. The other proposal, by Peter Troyanskii, a Russian, was more detailed. Troyanskii’s proposal included both the bilingual dictionary and a method for dealing with grammatical roles between languages, based on Esperanto. == Logical period == In 1950, Alan Turing published his famous article "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" which proposed what is now called the Turing test as a criterion of intelligence. This criterion depends on the ability of a computer program to impersonate a human in a real-time written conversation with a human judge, sufficiently well that the judge is unable to distinguish reliably — on the basis of the conversational content alone — between the program and a real human. In 1957, Noam Chomsky’s Syntactic Structures revolutionized Linguistics with 'universal grammar', a rule-based system of syntactic structures. The Georgetown experiment in 1954 involved fully automatic translation of more than sixty Russian sentences into English. The authors claimed that within three or five years, machine translation would be a solved problem. However, real progress was much slower, and after the ALPAC report in 1966, which found that ten years long research had failed to fulfill the expectations, funding for machine translation was dramatically reduced. Little further research in machine translation was conducted until the late 1980s, when the first statistical machine translation systems were developed. Some notably successful NLP systems developed in the 1960s were SHRDLU, a natural language system working in restricted "blocks worlds" with restricted vocabularies. In 1969 Roger Schank introduced the conceptual dependency theory for natural language understanding. This model, partially influenced by the work of Sydney Lamb, was extensively used by Schank's students at Yale University, such as Robert Wilensky, Wendy Lehnert, and Janet Kolodner. In 1970, William A. Woods introduced the augmented transition network (ATN) to represent natural language input. Instead of phrase structure rules ATNs used an equivalent set of finite-state automata that were called recursively. ATNs and their more general format called "generalized ATNs" continued to be used for a number of years. During the 1970s many programmers began to write 'conceptual ontologies', which structured real-world information into computer-understandable data. Examples are MARGIE (Schank, 1975), SAM (Cullingford, 1978), PAM (Wilensky, 1978), TaleSpin (Meehan, 1976), QUALM (Lehnert, 1977), Politics (Carbonell, 1979), and Plot Units (Lehnert 1981). During this time, many chatterbots were written including PARRY, Racter, and Jabberwacky. == Statistical period == Up to the 1980s, most NLP systems were based on complex sets of hand-written rules. Starting in the late 1980s, however, there was a revolution in NLP with the introduction of machine learning algorithms for language processing. This was due both to the steady increase in computational power resulting from Moore's law and the gradual lessening of the dominance of Chomskyan theories of linguistics (e.g. transformational grammar), whose theoretical underpinnings discouraged the sort of corpus linguistics that underlies the machine-learning approach to language processing. Some of the earliest-used machine learning algorithms, such as decision trees, produced systems of hard if-then rules similar to existing hand-written rules. Increasingly, however, research has focused on statistical models, which make soft, probabilistic decisions based on attaching real-valued weights to the features making up the input data. The cache language models upon which many speech recognition systems now rely are examples of such statistical models. Such models are generally more robust when given unfamiliar input, especially input that contains errors (as is very common for real-world data), and produce more reliable results when integrated into a larger system comprising multiple subtasks. === Datasets === The emergence of statistical approaches was aided by both increase in computing power and the availability of large datasets. At that time, large multilingual corpora were starting to emerge. Notably, some were produced by the Parliament of Canada and the European Union as a result of laws calling for the translation of all governmental proceedings into all official languages of the corresponding systems of government. Many of the notable early successes occurred in the field of machine translation. In 1993, the IBM alignment models were used for statistical machine translation. Compared to previous machine translation systems, which were symbolic systems manually coded by computational linguists, these systems were statistical, which allowed them to automatically learn from large textual corpora. Though these systems do not work well in situations where only small corpora is available, so data-efficient methods continue to be an area of research and development. In 2001, a one-billion-word large text corpus, scraped from the Internet, referred to as "very very large" at the time, was used for word disambiguation. To take advantage of large, unlabelled datasets, algorithms were developed for unsupervised and self-supervised learning. Generally, this task is much more difficult than supervised learning, and typically produces less accurate results for a given amount of input data. However, there is an enormous amount of non-annotated data available (including, among other things, the entire content of the World Wide Web), which can often make up for the inferior results. == Neural period == Neural language models were developed in 1990s. In 1990, the Elman network, using a recurrent neural network, encoded each word in a training set as a vector, called a word embedding, and the whole vocabulary as a vector database, allowing it to perform such tasks as sequence-predictions that are beyond the power of a simple multilayer perceptron. A shortcoming of the static embeddings was that they didn't differentiate between multiple meanings of homonyms. Yoshua Bengio developed the first neural probabilistic language model in 2000. Novel algorithms, availability of larger datasets and higher processing power made possible training of larger and larger language models. Attention mechanism was introduced by Bahdanau et al. in 2014. This work laid the foundations for the famous "Attention Is All You Need" paper that introduced the Transformer architecture in 2017. The concept of large language model (LLM) emerged in late 2010s. LLM is a language model trained with self-supervised learning on vast amount of text. Earliest public LLMs had hundreds of millions of parameters, but this number quickly rose to billion and even trillions. In recent years, advancements in deep learning and large language models have significantly enhanced the capabilities of natural language processing, leading to widespread applications in areas such as healthcare, customer service, and content generation. == Software ==
History of machine translation
Machine translation is a sub-field of computational linguistics that investigates the use of software to translate text or speech from one natural language to another. In the 1950s, machine translation became a reality in research, although references to the subject can be found as early as the 17th century. The Georgetown experiment, which involved successful fully automatic translation of more than sixty Russian sentences into English in 1954, was one of the earliest recorded projects. Researchers of the Georgetown experiment asserted their belief that machine translation would be a solved problem within a few years. In the Soviet Union, similar experiments were performed shortly after. Consequently, the success of the experiment ushered in an era of significant funding for machine translation research in the United States. The achieved progress was much slower than expected; in 1966, the ALPAC report found that ten years of research had not fulfilled the expectations of the Georgetown experiment and resulted in dramatically reduced funding. Interest grew in statistical models for machine translation, which became more common and also less expensive in the 1980s as available computational power increased. Although there exists no autonomous system of "fully automatic high quality translation of unrestricted text," there are many programs now available that are capable of providing useful output within strict constraints. Several of these programs are available online, such as Google Translate and the SYSTRAN system that powers AltaVista's BabelFish (which was replaced by Microsoft Bing translator in May 2012). == The beginning == The origins of machine translation can be traced back to the work of Al-Kindi, a 9th-century Arabic cryptographer who developed techniques for systemic language translation, including cryptanalysis, frequency analysis, and probability and statistics, which are used in modern machine translation. The idea of machine translation later appeared in the 17th century. In 1629, René Descartes proposed a universal language, with equivalent ideas in different tongues sharing one symbol. In the mid-1930s the first patents for "translating machines" were applied for by Georges Artsrouni, for an automatic bilingual dictionary using punched tape. Russian Peter Troyanskii submitted a more detailed proposal that included both the bilingual dictionary and a method for dealing with grammatical roles between languages, based on the grammatical system of Esperanto. This system was separated into three stages: stage one consisted of a native-speaking editor in the source language to organize the words into their logical forms and to exercise the syntactic functions; stage two required the machine to "translate" these forms into the target language; and stage three required a native-speaking editor in the target language to normalize this output. Troyanskii's proposal remained unknown until the late 1950s, by which time computers were well-known and utilized. == The early years == The first set of proposals for computer based machine translation was presented in 1949 by Warren Weaver, a researcher at the Rockefeller Foundation, "Translation memorandum". These proposals were based on information theory, successes in code breaking during the Second World War, and theories about the universal principles underlying natural language. A few years after Weaver submitted his proposals, research began in earnest at many universities in the United States. On 7 January 1954 the Georgetown–IBM experiment was held in New York at the head office of IBM. This was the first public demonstration of a machine translation system. The demonstration was widely reported in the newspapers and garnered public interest. The system itself, however, was no more than a "toy" system. It had only 250 words and translated 49 carefully selected Russian sentences into English – mainly in the field of chemistry. Nevertheless, it encouraged the idea that machine translation was imminent and stimulated the financing of the research, not only in the US but worldwide. Early systems used large bilingual dictionaries and hand-coded rules for fixing the word order in the final output which was eventually considered too restrictive in linguistic developments at the time. For example, generative linguistics and transformational grammar were exploited to improve the quality of translations. During this period operational systems were installed. The United States Air Force used a system produced by IBM and Washington University in St. Louis, while the Atomic Energy Commission and Euratom, in Italy, used a system developed at Georgetown University. While the quality of the output was poor it met many of the customers' needs, particularly in terms of speed. At the end of the 1950s, Yehoshua Bar-Hillel was asked by the US government to look into machine translation, to assess the possibility of fully automatic high-quality translation by machines. Bar-Hillel described the problem of semantic ambiguity or double-meaning, as illustrated in the following sentence: Little John was looking for his toy box. Finally he found it. The box was in the pen. The word pen may have two meanings: the first meaning, something used to write in ink with; the second meaning, a container of some kind. To a human, the meaning is obvious, but Bar-Hillel claimed that without a "universal encyclopedia" a machine would never be able to deal with this problem. At the time, this type of semantic ambiguity could only be solved by writing source texts for machine translation in a controlled language that uses a vocabulary in which each word has exactly one meaning. == The 1960s, the ALPAC report and the seventies == Research in the 1960s in both the Soviet Union and the United States concentrated mainly on the Russian–English language pair. The objects of translation were chiefly scientific and technical documents, such as articles from scientific journals. The rough translations produced were sufficient to get a basic understanding of the articles. If an article discussed a subject deemed to be confidential, it was sent to a human translator for a complete translation; if not, it was discarded. A great blow came to machine-translation research in 1966 with the publication of the ALPAC report. The report was commissioned by the US government and delivered by ALPAC, the Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee, a group of seven scientists convened by the US government in 1964. The US government was concerned that there was a lack of progress being made despite significant expenditure. The report concluded that machine translation was more expensive, less accurate and slower than human translation, and that despite the expenditures, machine translation was not likely to reach the quality of a human translator in the near future. The report recommended, however, that tools be developed to aid translators – automatic dictionaries, for example – and that some research in computational linguistics should continue to be supported. The publication of the report had a profound impact on research into machine translation in the United States, and to a lesser extent the Soviet Union and United Kingdom. Research, at least in the US, was almost completely abandoned for over a decade. In Canada, France and Germany, however, research continued. In the US the main exceptions were the founders of SYSTRAN (Peter Toma) and Logos (Bernard Scott), who established their companies in 1968 and 1970 respectively and served the US Department of Defense. In 1970, the SYSTRAN system was installed for the United States Air Force, and subsequently by the Commission of the European Communities in 1976. The METEO System, developed at the Université de Montréal, was installed in Canada in 1977 to translate weather forecasts from English to French, and was translating close to 80,000 words per day or 30 million words per year until it was replaced by a competitor's system on 30 September 2001. While research in the 1960s concentrated on limited language pairs and input, demand in the 1970s was for low-cost systems that could translate a range of technical and commercial documents. This demand was spurred by the increase of globalisation and the demand for translation in Canada, Europe, and Japan. == The 1980s and early 1990s == By the 1980s, both the diversity and the number of installed systems for machine translation had increased. A number of systems relying on mainframe technology were in use, such as SYSTRAN, Logos, Ariane-G5, and Metal. As a result of the improved availability of microcomputers, there was a market for lower-end machine translation systems. Many companies took advantage of this in Europe, Japan, and the USA. Systems were also brought onto the market in China, Eastern Europe, Korea, and the Soviet Union. During the 1980s there was a lot of activity in MT in Japan especially. With the fifth-generation co
PatchMatch
PatchMatch is an algorithm used to quickly find correspondences (or matches) between small square regions (or patches) of an image. It has various applications in image editing, such as reshuffling or removing objects from images or altering their aspect ratios without cropping or noticeably stretching them. PatchMatch was first presented in a 2011 paper by researchers at Princeton University. == Algorithm == The goal of the algorithm is to find the patch correspondence by defining a nearest-neighbor field (NNF) as a function f : R 2 → R 2 {\displaystyle f:\mathbb {R} ^{2}\to \mathbb {R} ^{2}} of offsets, which is over all possible matches of patch (location of patch centers) in image A, for some distance function of two patches D {\displaystyle D} . So, for a given patch coordinate a {\displaystyle a} in image A {\displaystyle A} and its corresponding nearest neighbor b {\displaystyle b} in image B {\displaystyle B} , f ( a ) {\displaystyle f(a)} is simply b − a {\displaystyle b-a} . However, if we search for every point in image B {\displaystyle B} , the work will be too hard to complete. So the following algorithm is done in a randomized approach in order to accelerate the calculation speed. The algorithm has three main components. Initially, the nearest-neighbor field is filled with either random offsets or some prior information. Next, an iterative update process is applied to the NNF, in which good patch offsets are propagated to adjacent pixels, followed by random search in the neighborhood of the best offset found so far. Independent of these three components, the algorithm also uses a coarse-to-fine approach by building an image pyramid to obtain the better result. === Initialization === When initializing with random offsets, we use independent uniform samples across the full range of image B {\displaystyle B} . This algorithm avoids using an initial guess from the previous level of the pyramid because in this way the algorithm can avoid being trapped in local minima. === Iteration === After initialization, the algorithm attempted to perform iterative process of improving the N N F {\displaystyle NNF} . The iterations examine the offsets in scan order (from left to right, top to bottom), and each undergoes propagation followed by random search. === Propagation === We attempt to improve f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} using the known offsets of f ( x − 1 , y ) {\displaystyle f(x-1,y)} and f ( x , y − 1 ) {\displaystyle f(x,y-1)} , assuming that the patch offsets are likely to be the same. That is, the algorithm will take new value for f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} to be arg min ( x , y ) D ( f ( x , y ) ) , D ( f ( x − 1 , y ) ) , D ( f ( x , y − 1 ) ) {\displaystyle \arg \min \limits _{(x,y)}{D(f(x,y)),D(f(x-1,y)),D(f(x,y-1))}} . So if f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} has a correct mapping and is in a coherent region R {\displaystyle R} , then all of R {\displaystyle R} below and to the right of f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} will be filled with the correct mapping. Alternatively, on even iterations, the algorithm search for different direction, fill the new value to be arg min ( x , y ) { D ( f ( x , y ) ) , D ( f ( x + 1 , y ) ) , D ( f ( x , y + 1 ) ) } {\displaystyle \arg \min \limits _{(x,y)}\{D(f(x,y)),D(f(x+1,y)),D(f(x,y+1))\}} . === Random search === Let v 0 = f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle v_{0}=f(x,y)} , we attempt to improve f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} by testing a sequence of candidate offsets at an exponentially decreasing distance from v 0 {\displaystyle v_{0}} u i = v 0 + w α i R i {\displaystyle u_{i}=v_{0}+w\alpha ^{i}R_{i}} where R i {\displaystyle R_{i}} is a uniform random in [ − 1 , 1 ] × [ − 1 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [-1,1]\times [-1,1]} , w {\displaystyle w} is a large window search radius which will be set to maximum picture size, and α {\displaystyle \alpha } is a fixed ratio often assigned as 1/2. This part of the algorithm allows the f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} to jump out of local minimum through random process. === Halting criterion === The often used halting criterion is set the iteration times to be about 4~5. Even with low iteration, the algorithm works well.
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].
GasBuddy
GasBuddy is a technology company headquartered in Dallas, United States, that offers mobile applications and websites for tracking crowd-sourced locations and prices of gas stations and convenience stores in the United States and Canada. Their platforms offer information sourced from users, gas station operators, and partner companies. They also provide business-to-business services to gas stations and convenience store owners. == History == GasBuddy was founded in Minneapolis in 2000 by Dustin Coupal, Jason Toews as a community website for sharing gas prices. In 2004, they filed as a for-profit corporation in Minnesota under the name GasBuddy Organization Inc. In 2009, GasBuddy launched OpenStore, a platform that allows convenience stores to build and manage their own mobile apps. In 2010, the company launched its own mobile apps that allowed users to input gas prices from their smartphones. In 2013, Oil Price Information Service (OPIS), a subsidiary of UCG, acquired GasBuddy. OPIS is a provider of petroleum pricing and news for businesses. In 2016, IHS acquired OPIS, separating from GasBuddy, which remained with UCG as a subsidiary company. Initially only available in the United States and Canada, GasBuddy launched in Australia in March 2016. Also in that year, GasBuddy released a completely redesigned app, its first major redesign since its release in 2010. GasBuddy also unveiled a new logo and launched GasBuddy Business Pages. GasBuddy shut down the Australian version of their app in 2022. In 2017, GasBuddy launched a gas savings program titled "Pay with GasBuddy" intended to let consumers save at gas stations in the United States. In the same year, GasBuddy was involved in a lawsuit with Reveal Mobile, a location-based marketing company, over the sale of user location data. It was revealed that GasBuddy sold information on more than 4.5 million users to Reveal each month for $9.50 per 1000 users. According to CNET, that information included "users' latitude, longitude, IP address, and time stamps on the data collected," which sparked concern in the media and between its users. In 2021, the GasBuddy app rose to the most popular app on both Android and iPhone platforms in the wake of the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack PDI acquired GasBuddy in 2021.