LemonStand

LemonStand was a Canadian e-commerce company headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, that developed cloud-based computer software for online retailers. LemonStand was shut down on June 5, 2019. == History == LemonStand Version 1 was launched on July 28, 2001. It is written in the PHP programming language. Version 1 was released as an on-premises proprietary licensed software, and the commercial license was not free. However, there was a free trial license available. June 2012, LemonStand raised seed funding from the BDC Venture Capital, and a group of angel investors. December 20, 2013, a cloud-based SaaS version of the LemonStand eCommerce platform was released publicly. May 9, 2014, LemonStand and Payfirma, a payments processing company, partnered to provide integrated services for online retailers. May 3, 2016, LemonStand raised funding from BDC Venture Capital and Silicon Valley–based angel investors. March 5, 2019, LemonStand announced their intention to shut down on June 5, 2019. LemonStand was quietly acquired by Mailchimp at the end of February. == Pricing == LemonStand offered three levels of service plans. LemonStand did not charge any transaction fees.

Semantic analytics

Semantic analytics, also termed semantic relatedness, is the use of ontologies to analyze content in web resources. This field of research combines text analytics and Semantic Web technologies like RDF. Semantic analytics measures the relatedness of different ontological concepts. Some academic research groups that have active project in this area include Kno.e.sis Center at Wright State University among others. == History == An important milestone in the beginning of semantic analytics occurred in 1996, although the historical progression of these algorithms is largely subjective. In his seminal study publication, Philip Resnik established that computers have the capacity to emulate human judgement. Spanning the publications of multiple journals, improvements to the accuracy of general semantic analytic computations all claimed to revolutionize the field. However, the lack of a standard terminology throughout the late 1990s was the cause of much miscommunication. This prompted Budanitsky & Hirst to standardize the subject in 2006 with a summary that also set a framework for modern spelling and grammar analysis. In the early days of semantic analytics, obtaining a large enough reliable knowledge bases was difficult. In 2006, Strube & Ponzetto demonstrated that Wikipedia could be used in semantic analytic calculations. The usage of a large knowledge base like Wikipedia allows for an increase in both the accuracy and applicability of semantic analytics. == Methods == Given the subjective nature of the field, different methods used in semantic analytics depend on the domain of application. No singular methods is considered correct, however one of the most generally effective and applicable method is explicit semantic analysis (ESA). ESA was developed by Evgeniy Gabrilovich and Shaul Markovitch in the late 2000s. It uses machine learning techniques to create a semantic interpreter, which extracts text fragments from articles into a sorted list. The fragments are sorted by how related they are to the surrounding text. Latent semantic analysis (LSA) is another common method that does not use ontologies, only considering the text in the input space. == Applications == Entity linking Ontology building / knowledge base population Search and query tasks Natural language processing Spoken dialog systems (e.g., Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant, Microsoft's Cortana) Artificial intelligence Knowledge management The application of semantic analysis methods generally streamlines organizational processes of any knowledge management system. Academic libraries often use a domain-specific application to create a more efficient organizational system. By classifying scientific publications using semantics and Wikipedia, researchers are helping people find resources faster. Search engines like Semantic Scholar provide organized access to millions of articles.

FAIR data

FAIR data is data which meets the 2016 FAIR principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR). The FAIR principles emphasize machine-actionability (i.e., the capacity of computational systems to find, access, interoperate, and reuse data with none or minimal human intervention) because humans increasingly rely on computational support to deal with data as a result of the increase in the volume, complexity, and rate of production of data. The abbreviation FAIR/O data is sometimes used to indicate that the dataset or database in question complies with the FAIR principles and also carries an explicit data‑capable open license. == FAIR principles published by GO FAIR == Findable The first step in (re)using data is to find them. Metadata and data should be easy to find for both humans and computers. Machine-readable metadata are essential for automatic discovery of datasets and services, so this is an essential component of the FAIRification process. F1. (Meta)data are assigned a globally unique and persistent identifier F2. Data are described with rich metadata (defined by R1 below) F3. Metadata clearly and explicitly include the identifier of the data they describe F4. (Meta)data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource Accessible Once the user finds the required data, they need to know how they can be accessed, possibly including authentication and authorisation. A1. (Meta)data are retrievable by their identifier using a standardised communications protocol A1.1 The protocol is open, free, and universally implementable A1.2 The protocol allows for an authentication and authorisation procedure, where necessary A2. Metadata are accessible, even when the data are no longer available Interoperable The data usually need to be integrated with other data. In addition, the data need to interoperate with applications or workflows for analysis, storage, and processing. I1. (Meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation I2. (Meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles I3. (Meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data Reusable The ultimate goal of FAIR is to optimise the reuse of data. To achieve this, metadata and data should be well-described so that they can be replicated and/or combined in different settings. R1. (Meta)data are richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes R1.1. (Meta)data are released with a clear and accessible data usage license R1.2. (Meta)data are associated with detailed provenance R1.3. (Meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards The principles refer to three types of entities: data (or any digital object), metadata (information about that digital object), and infrastructure. For instance, principle F4 defines that both metadata and data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource (the infrastructure component). === Acceptance and implementation === Before FAIR, a 2007 OECD report was the most influential paper discussing similar ideas related to data accessibility. In January 2014, the Lorentz Centre at Leiden University hosted a workshop entitled "Jointly designing a data FAIRPORT" where the participants first formulated the FAIR principles. After further discussions, they were published in the March 2016 issue of Scientific Data. At the 2016 G20 Hangzhou summit, the G20 leaders issued a statement endorsing the application of FAIR principles to research. Also in 2016, a group of Australian organisations developed a Statement on FAIR Access to Australia's Research Outputs, which aimed to extend the principles to research outputs more generally. In 2017, Germany, Netherlands and France agreed to establish an international office to support the FAIR initiative, the GO FAIR International Support and Coordination Office. Other international organisations active in the research data ecosystem, such as CODATA or Research Data Alliance (RDA) also support FAIR implementations by their communities. FAIR principles implementation assessment is being explored by FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group of RDA, CODATA's strategic Decadal Programme "Data for Planet: Making data work for cross-domain challenges" mentions FAIR data principles as a fundamental enabler of data driven science. The Association of European Research Libraries recommends the use of FAIR principles. A 2017 paper by advocates of FAIR data reported that awareness of the FAIR concept was increasing among various researchers and institutes, but also, understanding of the concept was becoming confused as different people apply their own differing perspectives to it. Guides on implementing FAIR data practices state that the cost of a data management plan in compliance with FAIR data practices should be 5% of the total research budget. In 2019 the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA) released the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance as a complementary guide. The CARE principles extend principles outlined in FAIR data to include Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics to ensure data guidelines address historical contexts and power differentials. The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance were drafted at the International Data Week and Research Data Alliance Plenary co-hosted event, "Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles for the Governance of Indigenous Data Workshop", held 8 November 2018, in Gaborone, Botswana. The lack of information on how to implement the guidelines have led to inconsistent interpretations of them. In January 2020, representatives of nine groups of universities around the world produced the Sorbonne declaration on research data rights, which included a commitment to FAIR data, and called on governments to provide support to enable it. In 2021, researchers identified the FAIR principles as a conceptual component of data catalog software tools, with the other components being metadata management, business context and data responsibility roles. In April 2022, Matthias Scheffler and colleagues argued in Nature that FAIR principles are "a must" so that data mining and artificial intelligence can extract useful scientific information from the data. There have been moves in the geosciences to establish FAIR data by use of decimal georeferencing However, making data (and research outcomes) FAIR is a challenging task, and it is challenging to assess the FAIRness. In 2020, the FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group published a set of guidelines for assessing "FAIRness".

Artificial intuition

Artificial intuition is a theoretical capacity of an artificial software to function similarly to human consciousness, specifically in the capacity of human consciousness known as intuition. == Comparison of human and the theoretically artificial == Intuition is the function of the mind, the experience of which, is described as knowledge based on "a hunch", resulting (as the word itself does) from "contemplation" or "insight". Psychologist Jean Piaget showed that intuitive functioning within the normally developing human child at the Intuitive Thought Substage of the preoperational stage occurred at from four to seven years of age. In Carl Jung's concept of synchronicity, the concept of "intuitive intelligence" is described as something like a capacity that transcends ordinary-level functioning to a point where information is understood with a greater depth than is available in more simple rationally-thinking entities. Artificial intuition is theoretically (or otherwise) a sophisticated function of an artifice that is able to interpret data with depth and locate hidden factors functioning in Gestalt psychology, and that intuition in the artificial mind would, in the context described here, be a bottom-up process upon a macroscopic scale identifying something like the archetypal (see τύπος). To create artificial intuition supposes the possibility of the re-creation of a higher functioning of the human mind, with capabilities such as what might be found in semantic memory and learning. The transferral of the functioning of a biological system to synthetic functioning is based upon modeling of functioning from knowledge of cognition and the brain, for instance as applications of models of artificial neural networks from the research done within the discipline of computational neuroscience. == Application software contributing to its development == The notion of a process of a data-interpretative synthesis has already been found in a computational-linguistic software application that has been created for use in an internal security context. The software integrates computed data based specifically on objectives incorporating a paradigm described as "religious intuitive" (hermeneutic), functional to a degree that represents advances upon the performance of generic lexical data mining.

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 .

Colloquis

Colloquis, previously known as ActiveBuddy and Conversagent, was a company that created conversation-based interactive agents originally distributed via instant messaging platforms. The company had offices in New York, New York, and Sunnyvale, California. == History == Founded in 2000, the company was the brainchild of Robert Hoffer, Timothy Kay, and Peter Levitan. The idea for interactive agents (also known as Internet bots) came from the team's vision to add functionality to increasingly popular instant messaging services. The original implementation took shape as a word-based adventure game but quickly grew to include a wide range of database applications, including access to news, weather, stock information, movie times, Yellow Pages listings, and detailed sports data, as well as a variety of tools (calculators, translator, etc.). These various applications were bundled into one entity and launched as SmarterChild in 2001. SmarterChild acted as a showcase for the quick data access and possibilities for fun conversation that the company planned to turn into customized, niche-specific products. The rapid success of SmarterChild led to targeted promotional products for Radiohead, Austin Powers, The Sporting News, and others. ActiveBuddy sought to strengthen its hold on the interactive agent market for the future by filing for, and receiving, a controversial patent on their creation in 2002. The company also released the BuddyScript SDK, a free developer kit that allow programmers to design and launch their own interactive agents using ActiveBuddy's proprietary scripting language, in 2002. Ultimately, however, the decline in ad spending in 2001 and 2002 led to a shift in corporate strategy towards business focused Automated Service Agents, building products for clients including Cingular, Comcast and Cox Communications. The company subsequently changed its name from ActiveBuddy to Conversagent in 2003, and then again to Colloquis in 2006. Colloquis was purchased by Microsoft in October 2006.

Uncertain database

An uncertain database is a kind of database studied in database theory. The goal of uncertain databases is to manage information on which there is some uncertainty. Uncertain databases make it possible to explicitly represent and manage uncertainty on the data, usually in a succinct way. == Formal definition == At the basis of uncertain databases is the notion of possible world. Specifically, a possible world of an uncertain database is a (certain) database which is one of the possible realizations of the uncertain database. A given uncertain database typically has more than one, and potentially infinitely many, possible worlds. A formalism to represent uncertain databases then explains how to succinctly represent a set of possible worlds into one uncertain database. == Types of uncertain databases == Uncertain database models differ in how they represent and quantify these possible worlds: Incomplete databases are a compact representation of the set of possible worlds – the use of NULL in SQL, arguably the most commonplace instantiation of uncertain databases, is an example of incomplete database model. Probabilistic databases are a compact representation of a probability distribution over the set of possible worlds. Fuzzy databases are a compact representation of a fuzzy set of the possible worlds. Though mostly studied in the relational setting, uncertain database models can also be defined in other relational models such as graph databases or XML databases. === Incomplete database === The most common database model is the relational model. Multiple incomplete database models have been defined over the relational model, that form extensions to the relational algebra. These have been called Imieliński–Lipski algebras: Relations with NULL values, also called Codd tables c-tables v-tables === Example === The following table is a relation of an incomplete database, described in the formalism of NULL values: There are infinitely many possible worlds for this incomplete database, obtained by replacing the "NULL" values with concrete values. For instance, the following relation is a possible world: