Loab

Loab ( LOBE) is a fictional character that artist and writer Steph Maj Swanson claimed to have discovered with a text-to-image AI model in April 2022. In a viral Twitter thread, Swanson described the images of Loab as an unexpectedly emergent property of the software, saying they discovered them when asking the model to produce something "as different from the prompt as possible". == History == The Sweden-based artist Steph Maj Swanson said that they first generated these images in April 2022 by using the algorithmic technique of "negative prompt weights" accessing latent space. The initial prompt - 'Brando::-1', requesting the opposite of actor Marlon Brando - generated a "skyline logo" with the cryptic lettering "DIGITA PNTICS". Attempting to generate the opposite of this image using the prompt "DIGITA PNTICS skyline logo::-1" yielded what Swanson described as "off-putting images, all of the same devastated-looking older woman with defined triangles of rosacea(?) on her cheeks". Swanson nicknamed the character "Loab", after one of the generated images resembled an album cover that included the printed word "loab". Swanson says that using the image as a prompt for further images produced increasingly violent and gory results. Swanson speculated that something about the image could be "adjacent to extremely gory and macabre imagery in the distribution of the AI's world knowledge". Swanson says that when they combined images of Loab with other pictures, the subsequent results consistently return an image including Loab, regardless of how much distortion they added to the prompts to try and remove her visage. Swanson speculated that the latent space region of the AI map that Loab is located in, in addition to being near gruesome imagery, must be isolated enough that any combinations with other images could only use Loab from her area and no related images due to its isolation. After enough crossbreeding of images and dilution attempts, Swanson was able to eventually generate images without Loab, but found that crossbreeding those diluted images would also eventually lead to a version of Loab to reappear in the resulting images. Swanson has said that "for various reasons" they declined to disclose the software used to create the images. Loab has been referred to as the "first AI-generated cryptid" and as such has gone viral. Despite hyping up the cryptid nature of the discovery in their wording, Swanson admitted that "Loab isn't really haunted, of course", but noted that the mythos that has sprung up around the AI-generated character has gone beyond their initial involvement. Swanson speculated that people sharing pictures and memes of Loab would lead future AIs to use those images as a part of their latent space maps, making her an innate part of the internet landscape, with Swanson adding "If we want to get rid of her, it's already too late." == Response == There has been discussion of whether the Loab series of images are "a legitimate quirk of AI art software, or a cleverly disguised creepypasta." Smithsonian magazine has written that "Loab sparked some lengthy ethical conversations around visual aesthetics, art and technology," and some have criticized the labeling of a woman with rosacea as a horror image, considering this to be "stigmatizing disability". Swanson responded that if the AI map is combining Loab with violent imagery, then that is a "social bias" in the data being used for the image modeling software. The Atlantic writer Stephen Marche described Loab as a "form of expression that has never existed before" whose authorship is unclear and that exists as an "emanation of the collective imagistic heritage, the unconscious visual mind". Laurens Verhagen in de Volkskrant commented that rather than showing that there are "dark horror creatures hidden deep within AI", the existence of Loab instead implies that our current "understanding of AI is limited". Mhairi Aitken at the Alan Turing Institute stated that rather than a "creepy" emergent property, output results like Loab were representative of the "limitations of AI image-generator models" and was more concerned about the urban legends that are born from such "boring" innocuous things and how easily "other people take these things seriously". Carly Cassella for ScienceAlert described Loab as a "modern day tronie" (a style of Dutch painting) that is not representative of an actual person, but just a concept or idea, similar but distinct from works like the Girl With A Pearl Earring. Wired's Joel Warner argued that Loab was only the beginning and that, with AI text generators such as ChatGPT becoming more commonplace, a "linguistic version of Loab" would emerge in that space as well and begin creating ideas through "intentional prompts" or otherwise that will be as disturbing as The 120 Days of Sodom.

QANDA

QANDA (stands for 'Q and A') is an AI-based learning platform developed by Mathpresso Inc., a South Korea-based education technology company. Its best known feature is a solution search, which uses optical character recognition technology to scan problems and provide step-by-step solutions and learning content. As of March 2024, QANDA solved over 6.3 billion questions. QANDA has 90 million total registered users and has reached 8 million monthly active users (MAU) in 50 countries. 90% of the cumulative users are from overseas such as Vietnam and Indonesia. In January 2024, its MathGPT, a math-specific small large language model set a new world record, surpassed Microsoft's 'ToRA 13B', the previous record holder in benchmarks assessing mathematical performance such as 'MATH' (high school math) and 'GSM8K' (grade school math). 'MathGPT' was co-developed with Upstage and KT. In March 2024, Mathpresso launched 'Cramify' (formerly known as Prep.Pie), an AI-powered study material generator designed to create personalized exam prep materials for U.S. college students. It uses generative AI to create customized study materials uploaded by students. Its features include a range of tools including study summarizer and question solver. == History == Co-founder Jongheun ‘Ray’ Lee first came up with the idea of QANDA during his freshman year in college. While he was tutoring to earn money, Lee realized that the quality of education a student receives is greatly based on their location. Lee saw his K-12 students were regularly asking similar questions and realized that these questions were from a pre-selected number of textbooks currently being used in schools. He decided to team up with his high school friend, Yongjae ‘Jake’ Lee to build a platform whereby, one uses a mobile app to scan and submit questions, and students can ask and receive detailed responses. Lee's school friends, Wonguk Jung and Hojae Jeong, joined the team. In June 2015, Mathpresso, Inc. was founded in Seoul, South Korea. In January 2016, Mathpresso's first product QANDA was launched. It supported a Q&A feature between students and tutors. In October 2017, QANDA introduced an AI-based search capability that permitted users to search for answers in seconds. In April 2020, Jake Yongjae Lee(CEO & co-founder) and Ray Jongheun Lee (co-founder) were selected as Forbes 30 under 30 Asia. In June 2021, QANDA raised $50 million in series C funding. Jake Yongjae Lee was recognized as an Innovator Under 35 by MIT Technology Review. In November 2021, QANDA secured a strategic investment from Google. Since its inception, it has received backing in Series C funding from investors namely Google, Yellowdog, GGV Capital, Goodwater Capital, KDB, and SKS Private Equity with participation from SoftBank Ventures Asia, Legend Capital, Mirae Asset Venture Investment, and Smilegate Investment. In September 2023, Mathpresso has raised $8 million (10 billion KRW) from Korea's telecom giant, KT. The total cumulative investment is about 130 million US dollars. The partnership aims to accelerate the development of an education-specific Large Language Model. The company intends to incorporate the LLM model to fortify its AI tutor, which later will be integrated into the existing services: QANDA App, B2B & B2G Saas, and 1:1 online tutoring (QANDA Tutor). == Features == QANDA features OCR-based solution search, one-on-one Q&A tutoring, a study timer. In 2021, QANDA launched additional features, including the premium subscription model that offers unlimited “byte-sized” micro-video lectures and the community feature that enhances collaborative learning. In 2021, QANDA launched QANDA Tutor, a tablet-based 1:1 tutoring service and QANDA Study, a 1:N online school in Vietnam. In 2022, QANDA launched an exam prep feature that offers past exam materials from school via online. This feature is currently available in South Korea. In August 2023, QANDA launched a beta version of an LLM-powered AI Tutor. == Awards and recognition == Best Hidden Gems of 2017 by Google Playstore 2018 AWS AI Startup Challenge Award National representative for the Google AI for Social Good APAC, 2018 Best Self-Improvement Apps of 2018 by Google Playstore GSV Edtech 150 — the Most Transformational Growth Companies in Digital Learning Speaker at the Google App Summit, 2021 Selected as a prospect unicorn company by Korea Technology Finance Corporation in 2023 Winner of G20-DIA Global Pitching in 2023 2021, 2022, 2023 East Asia EdTech 150 by HolonIQ

Information gain (decision tree)

In the context of decision trees in information theory and machine learning, information gain refers to the conditional expected value of the Kullback–Leibler divergence of the univariate probability distribution of one variable from the conditional distribution of this variable given the other one. (In broader contexts, information gain can also be used as a synonym for either Kullback–Leibler divergence or mutual information, but the focus of this article is on the more narrow meaning below.) Explicitly, the information gain of a random variable X {\displaystyle X} obtained from an observation of a random variable A {\displaystyle A} taking value a {\displaystyle a} is defined as: I G ( X , a ) = D KL ( P X ∣ a ∥ P X ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {IG}}(X,a)=D_{\text{KL}}{\bigl (}P_{X\mid a}\parallel P_{X}{\bigr )}} In other words, it is the Kullback–Leibler divergence of P X ( x ) {\displaystyle P_{X}(x)} (the prior distribution for X {\displaystyle X} ) from P X ∣ a ( x ) {\displaystyle P_{X\mid a}(x)} (the posterior distribution for X {\displaystyle X} given A = a {\displaystyle A=a} ). The expected value of the information gain is the mutual information I ( X ; A ) {\displaystyle I(X;A)} : E A ⁡ [ I G ( X , A ) ] = I ( X ; A ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} _{A}[{\mathit {IG}}(X,A)]=I(X;A)} i.e. the reduction in the entropy of X {\displaystyle X} achieved by learning the state of the random variable A {\displaystyle A} . In machine learning, this concept can be used to define a preferred sequence of attributes to investigate to most rapidly narrow down the state of X. Such a sequence (which depends on the outcome of the investigation of previous attributes at each stage) is called a decision tree, and when applied in the area of machine learning is known as decision tree learning. Usually an attribute with high mutual information should be preferred to other attributes. == General definition == In general terms, the expected information gain is the reduction in information entropy Η from a prior state to a state that takes some information as given: I G ( T , a ) = H ( T ) − H ( T | a ) , {\displaystyle IG(T,a)=\mathrm {H} {(T)}-\mathrm {H} {(T|a)},} where H ( T | a ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} {(T|a)}} is the conditional entropy of T {\displaystyle T} given the value of attribute a {\displaystyle a} . This is intuitively plausible when interpreting entropy Η as a measure of uncertainty of a random variable T {\displaystyle T} : by learning (or assuming) a {\displaystyle a} about T {\displaystyle T} , our uncertainty about T {\displaystyle T} is reduced (i.e. I G ( T , a ) {\displaystyle IG(T,a)} is positive), unless of course T {\displaystyle T} is independent of a {\displaystyle a} , in which case H ( T | a ) = H ( T ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} (T|a)=\mathrm {H} (T)} , meaning I G ( T , a ) = 0 {\displaystyle IG(T,a)=0} . == Formal definition == Let T denote a set of training examples, each of the form ( x , y ) = ( x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , . . . , x k , y ) {\displaystyle ({\textbf {x}},y)=(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},...,x_{k},y)} where x a ∈ v a l s ( a ) {\displaystyle x_{a}\in \mathrm {vals} (a)} is the value of the a th {\displaystyle a^{\text{th}}} attribute or feature of example x {\displaystyle {\textbf {x}}} and y is the corresponding class label. The information gain for an attribute a is defined in terms of Shannon entropy H ( − ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} (-)} as follows. For a value v taken by attribute a, let S a ( v ) = { x ∈ T | x a = v } {\displaystyle S_{a}{(v)}=\{{\textbf {x}}\in T|x_{a}=v\}} be defined as the set of training inputs of T for which attribute a is equal to v. Then the information gain of T for attribute a is the difference between the a priori Shannon entropy H ( T ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} (T)} of the training set and the conditional entropy H ( T | a ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} {(T|a)}} . H ( T | a ) = ∑ v ∈ v a l s ( a ) | S a ( v ) | | T | ⋅ H ( S a ( v ) ) . {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} (T|a)=\sum _{v\in \mathrm {vals} (a)}{{\frac {|S_{a}{(v)}|}{|T|}}\cdot \mathrm {H} \left(S_{a}{\left(v\right)}\right)}.} I G ( T , a ) = H ( T ) − H ( T | a ) {\displaystyle IG(T,a)=\mathrm {H} (T)-\mathrm {H} (T|a)} The mutual information is equal to the total entropy for an attribute if for each of the attribute values a unique classification can be made for the result attribute. In this case, the relative entropies subtracted from the total entropy are 0. In particular, the values v ∈ v a l s ( a ) {\displaystyle v\in vals(a)} defines a partition of the training set data T into mutually exclusive and all-inclusive subsets, inducing a categorical probability distribution P a ( v ) {\textstyle P_{a}{(v)}} on the values v ∈ v a l s ( a ) {\textstyle v\in vals(a)} of attribute a. The distribution is given P a ( v ) := | S a ( v ) | | T | {\textstyle P_{a}{(v)}:={\frac {|S_{a}{(v)}|}{|T|}}} . In this representation, the information gain of T given a can be defined as the difference between the unconditional Shannon entropy of T and the expected entropy of T conditioned on a, where the expectation value is taken with respect to the induced distribution on the values of a. I G ( T , a ) = H ( T ) − ∑ v ∈ v a l s ( a ) P a ( v ) H ( S a ( v ) ) = H ( T ) − E P a [ H ( S a ( v ) ) ] = H ( T ) − H ( T | a ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{2}IG(T,a)&=\mathrm {H} (T)-\sum _{v\in \mathrm {vals} (a)}{P_{a}{(v)}\mathrm {H} \left(S_{a}{(v)}\right)}\\&=\mathrm {H} (T)-\mathbb {E} _{P_{a}}{\left[\mathrm {H} {(S_{a}{(v)})}\right]}\\&=\mathrm {H} (T)-\mathrm {H} {(T|a)}.\end{alignedat}}} == Example == In engineering applications, information is analogous to signal, and entropy is analogous to noise. It determines how a decision tree chooses to split data. The leftmost figure below is very impure and has high entropy corresponding to higher disorder and lower information value. As we go to the right, the entropy decreases, and the information value increases. Now, it is clear that information gain is the measure of how much information a feature provides about a class. Let's visualize information gain in a decision tree as shown in the right: The node t is the parent node, and the sub-nodes tL and tR are child nodes. In this case, the parent node t has a collection of cancer and non-cancer samples denoted as C and NC respectively. We can use information gain to determine how good the splitting of nodes is in a decision tree. In terms of entropy, information gain is defined as: To understand this idea, let's start by an example in which we create a simple dataset and want to see if gene mutations could be related to patients with cancer. Given four different gene mutations, as well as seven samples, the training set for a decision can be created as follows: In this dataset, a 1 means the sample has the mutation (True), while a 0 means the sample does not (False). A sample with C denotes that it has been confirmed to be cancerous, while NC means it is non-cancerous. Using this data, a decision tree can be created with information gain used to determine the candidate splits for each node. For the next step, the entropy at parent node t of the above simple decision tree is computed as:H(t) = −[pC,t log2(pC,t) + pNC,t log2(pNC,t)] where, probability of selecting a class ‘C’ sample at node t, pC,t = n(t, C) / n(t), probability of selecting a class ‘NC’ sample at node t, pNC,t = n(t, NC) / n(t), n(t), n(t, C), and n(t, NC) are the number of total samples, ‘C’ samples and ‘NC’ samples at node t respectively.Using this with the example training set, the process for finding information gain beginning with H ( t ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} {(t)}} for Mutation 1 is as follows: pC, t = 4/7 pNC, t = 3/7 H ( t ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} {(t)}} = −(4/7 × log2(4/7) + 3/7 × log2(3/7)) = 0.985 Note: H ( t ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} {(t)}} will be the same for all mutations at the root. The relatively high value of entropy H ( t ) = 0.985 {\displaystyle \mathrm {H} {(t)}=0.985} (1 is the optimal value) suggests that the root node is highly impure and the constituents of the input at the root node would look like the leftmost figure in the above Entropy Diagram. However, such a set of data is good for learning the attributes of the mutations used to split the node. At a certain node, when the homogeneity of the constituents of the input occurs (as shown in the rightmost figure in the above Entropy Diagram), the dataset would no longer be good for learning. Moving on, the entropy at left and right child nodes of the above decision tree is computed using the formulae:H(tL) = −[pC,L log2(pC,L) + pNC,L log2(pNC,L)]H(tR) = −[pC,R log2(pC,R) + pNC,R log2(pNC,R)]where, probability of selecting a class ‘C’ sample at the left child node, pC,L = n(tL, C) / n(tL), probability of selecting a class ‘NC’ sample at the left child node, pNC,L = n(tL, NC) / n(tL), probability of selecting a class ‘C’ sample at the right child node, pC,R = n(tR, C) / n(tR), prob

Probabilistic latent semantic analysis

Probabilistic latent semantic analysis (PLSA), also known as probabilistic latent semantic indexing (PLSI, especially in information retrieval circles) is a statistical technique for the analysis of two-mode and co-occurrence data. In effect, one can derive a low-dimensional representation of the observed variables in terms of their affinity to certain hidden variables, just as in latent semantic analysis, from which PLSA evolved. Compared to standard latent semantic analysis which stems from linear algebra and downsizes the occurrence tables (usually via a singular value decomposition), probabilistic latent semantic analysis is based on a mixture decomposition derived from a latent class model. == Model == Considering observations in the form of co-occurrences ( w , d ) {\displaystyle (w,d)} of words and documents, PLSA models the probability of each co-occurrence as a mixture of conditionally independent multinomial distributions: P ( w , d ) = ∑ c P ( d ) P ( c | d ) P ( w | c ) = P ( d ) ∑ c P ( c | d ) P ( w | c ) {\displaystyle P(w,d)=\sum _{c}P(d)P(c|d)P(w|c)=P(d)\sum _{c}P(c|d)P(w|c)} with c {\displaystyle c} being the words' topic. Note that the number of topics is a hyperparameter that must be chosen in advance and is not estimated from the data. The first formulation is the symmetric formulation, where w {\displaystyle w} and d {\displaystyle d} are both generated from the latent class c {\displaystyle c} in similar ways (using the conditional probabilities P ( d | c ) {\displaystyle P(d|c)} and P ( w | c ) {\displaystyle P(w|c)} ), whereas the second formulation is the asymmetric formulation, where, for each document d {\displaystyle d} , a latent class is chosen conditionally to the document according to P ( c | d ) {\displaystyle P(c|d)} , and a word is then generated from that class according to P ( w | c ) {\displaystyle P(w|c)} . Although we have used words and documents in this example, the co-occurrence of any couple of discrete variables may be modelled in exactly the same way. So, the number of parameters is equal to c d + w c {\displaystyle cd+wc} . The number of parameters grows linearly with the number of documents. In addition, although PLSA is a generative model of the documents in the collection it is estimated on, it is not a generative model of new documents. Their parameters are learned using the EM algorithm. == Application == PLSA may be used in a discriminative setting, via Fisher kernels. PLSA has applications in information retrieval and filtering, natural language processing, machine learning from text, bioinformatics, and related areas. It is reported that the aspect model used in the probabilistic latent semantic analysis has severe overfitting problems. == Extensions == Hierarchical extensions: Asymmetric: MASHA ("Multinomial ASymmetric Hierarchical Analysis") Symmetric: HPLSA ("Hierarchical Probabilistic Latent Semantic Analysis") Generative models: The following models have been developed to address an often-criticized shortcoming of PLSA, namely that it is not a proper generative model for new documents. Latent Dirichlet allocation – adds a Dirichlet prior on the per-document topic distribution Higher-order data: Although this is rarely discussed in the scientific literature, PLSA extends naturally to higher order data (three modes and higher), i.e. it can model co-occurrences over three or more variables. In the symmetric formulation above, this is done simply by adding conditional probability distributions for these additional variables. This is the probabilistic analogue to non-negative tensor factorisation. == History == This is an example of a latent class model (see references therein), and it is related to non-negative matrix factorization. The present terminology was coined in 1999 by Thomas Hofmann.

Chromosome (evolutionary algorithm)

A chromosome or genotype in evolutionary algorithms (EA) is a set of parameters which define a proposed solution of the problem that the evolutionary algorithm is trying to solve. The set of all solutions, also called individuals according to the biological model, is known as the population. The genome of an individual consists of one, more rarely of several, chromosomes and corresponds to the genetic representation of the task to be solved. A chromosome is composed of a set of genes, where a gene consists of one or more semantically connected parameters, which are often also called decision variables. They determine one or more phenotypic characteristics of the individual or at least have an influence on them. In the basic form of genetic algorithms, the chromosome is represented as a binary string, while in later variants and in EAs in general, a wide variety of other data structures are used. == Chromosome design == When creating the genetic representation of a task, it is determined which decision variables and other degrees of freedom of the task should be improved by the EA and possible additional heuristics and how the genotype-phenotype mapping should look like. The design of a chromosome translates these considerations into concrete data structures for which an EA then has to be selected, configured, extended, or, in the worst case, created. Finding a suitable representation of the problem domain for a chromosome is an important consideration, as a good representation will make the search easier by limiting the search space; similarly, a poorer representation will allow a larger search space. In this context, suitable mutation and crossover operators must also be found or newly defined to fit the chosen chromosome design. An important requirement for these operators is that they not only allow all points in the search space to be reached in principle, but also make this as easy as possible. The following requirements must be met by a well-suited chromosome: It must allow the accessibility of all admissible points in the search space. Design of the chromosome in such a way that it covers only the search space and no additional areas. so that there is no redundancy or only as little redundancy as possible. Observance of strong causality: small changes in the chromosome should only lead to small changes in the phenotype. This is also called locality of the relationship between search and problem space. Designing the chromosome in such a way that it excludes prohibited regions in the search space completely or as much as possible. While the first requirement is indispensable, depending on the application and the EA used, one usually only has to be satisfied with fulfilling the remaining requirements as far as possible. The evolutionary search is supported and possibly considerably accelerated by a fulfillment as complete as possible. == Examples of chromosomes == === Chromosomes for binary codings === In their classical form, GAs use bit strings and map the decision variables to be optimized onto them. An example for one Boolean and three integer decision variables with the value ranges 0 ≤ D 1 ≤ 60 {\displaystyle 0\leq D_{1}\leq 60} , 28 ≤ D 2 ≤ 30 {\displaystyle 28\leq D_{2}\leq 30} and − 12 ≤ D 3 ≤ 14 {\displaystyle -12\leq D_{3}\leq 14} may illustrate this: Note that the negative number here is given in two's complement. This straight forward representation uses five bits to represent the three values of D 2 {\displaystyle D_{2}} , although two bits would suffice. This is a significant redundancy. An improved alternative, where 28 is to be added for the genotype-phenotype mapping, could look like this: with D 2 = 28 + D 2 ′ = 29 {\displaystyle D_{2}=28+D'_{2}=29} . === Chromosomes with real-valued or integer genes === For the processing of tasks with real-valued or mixed-integer decision variables, EAs such as the evolution strategy or the real-coded GAs are suited. In the case of mixed-integer values, rounding is often used, but this represents some violation of the redundancy requirement. If the necessary precisions of the real values can be reasonably narrowed down, this violation can be remedied by using integer-coded GAs. For this purpose, the valid digits of real values are mapped to integers by multiplication with a suitable factor. For example, 12.380 becomes the integer 12380 by multiplying by 1000. This must of course be taken into account in genotype-phenotype mapping for evaluation and result presentation. A common form is a chromosome consisting of a list or an array of integer or real values. === Chromosomes for permutations === Combinatorial problems are mainly concerned with finding an optimal sequence of a set of elementary items. As an example, consider the problem of the traveling salesman who wants to visit a given number of cities exactly once on the shortest possible tour. The simplest and most obvious mapping onto a chromosome is to number the cities consecutively, to interpret a resulting sequence as permutation and to store it directly in a chromosome, where one gene corresponds to the ordinal number of a city. Then, however, the variation operators may only change the gene order and not remove or duplicate any genes. The chromosome thus contains the path of a possible tour to the cities. As an example the sequence 3 , 5 , 7 , 1 , 4 , 2 , 9 , 6 , 8 {\displaystyle 3,5,7,1,4,2,9,6,8} of nine cities may serve, to which the following chromosome corresponds: In addition to this encoding frequently called path representation, there are several other ways of representing a permutation, for example the ordinal representation or the matrix representation. === Chromosomes for co-evolution === When a genetic representation contains, in addition to the decision variables, additional information that influences evolution and/or the mapping of the genotype to the phenotype and is itself subject to evolution, this is referred to as co-evolution. A typical example is the evolution strategy (ES), which includes one or more mutation step sizes as strategy parameters in each chromosome. Another example is an additional gene to control a selection heuristic for resource allocation in a scheduling tasks. This approach is based on the assumption that good solutions are based on an appropriate selection of strategy parameters or on control gene(s) that influences genotype-phenotype mapping. The success of the ES gives evidence to this assumption. === Chromosomes for complex representations === The chromosomes presented above are well suited for processing tasks of continuous, mixed-integer, pure-integer or combinatorial optimization. For a combination of these optimization areas, on the other hand, it becomes increasingly difficult to map them to simple strings of values, depending on the task. The following extension of the gene concept is proposed by the EA GLEAM (General Learning Evolutionary Algorithm and Method) for this purpose: A gene is considered to be the description of an element or elementary trait of the phenotype, which may have multiple parameters. For this purpose, gene types are defined that contain as many parameters of the appropriate data type as are required to describe the particular element of the phenotype. A chromosome now consists of genes as data objects of the gene types, whereby, depending on the application, each gene type occurs exactly once as a gene or can be contained in the chromosome any number of times. The latter leads to chromosomes of dynamic length, as they are required for some problems. The gene type definitions also contain information on the permissible value ranges of the gene parameters, which are observed during chromosome generation and by corresponding mutations, so they cannot lead to lethal mutations. For tasks with a combinatorial part, there are suitable genetic operators that can move or reposition genes as a whole, i.e. with their parameters. A scheduling task is used as an illustration, in which workflows are to be scheduled that require different numbers of heterogeneous resources. A workflow specifies which work steps can be processed in parallel and which have to be executed one after the other. In this context, heterogeneous resources mean different processing times at different costs in addition to different processing capabilities. Each scheduling operation therefore requires one or more parameters that determine the resource selection, where the value ranges of the parameters depend on the number of alternative resources available for each work step. A suitable chromosome provides one gene type per work step and in this case one corresponding gene, which has one parameter for each required resource. The order of genes determines the order of scheduling operations and, therefore, the precedence in case of allocation conflicts. The exemplary gene type definition of work step 15 with two resources, for which there are four and seven alternatives respectively

Open-source software security

Open-source software security is the measure of assurance or guarantee in the freedom from danger and risk inherent to an open-source software system. == Implementation debate == === Benefits === Proprietary software forces the user to accept the level of security that the software vendor is willing to deliver and to accept the rate that patches and updates are released. It is assumed that any compiler that is used creates code that can be trusted, but it has been demonstrated by Ken Thompson that a compiler can be subverted using a compiler backdoor to create faulty executables that are unwittingly produced by a well-intentioned developer. With access to the source code for the compiler, the developer has at least the ability to discover if there is any mal-intention. Kerckhoffs' principle is based on the idea that an enemy can steal a secure military system and not be able to compromise the information. His ideas were the basis for many modern security practices, and followed that security through obscurity is a bad practice. === Drawbacks === Simply making source code available does not guarantee review. An example of this occurring is when Marcus Ranum, an expert on security system design and implementation, released his first public firewall toolkit. At one time, there were over 2,000 sites using his toolkit, but only 10 people gave him any feedback or patches. Having a large amount of eyes reviewing code can "lull a user into a false sense of security". Having many users look at source code does not guarantee that security flaws will be found and fixed. == Metrics and models == There are a variety of models and metrics to measure the security of a system. These are a few methods that can be used to measure the security of software systems. === Number of days between vulnerabilities === It is argued that a system is most vulnerable after a potential vulnerability is discovered, but before a patch is created. By measuring the number of days between the vulnerability and when the vulnerability is fixed, a basis can be determined on the security of the system. There are a few caveats to such an approach: not every vulnerability is equally bad, and fixing a lot of bugs quickly might not be better than only finding a few and taking a little bit longer to fix them, taking into account the operating system, or the effectiveness of the fix. === Poisson process === The Poisson process can be used to measure the rates at which different people find security flaws between open and closed source software. The process can be broken down by the number of volunteers Nv and paid reviewers Np. The rates at which volunteers find a flaw is measured by λv and the rate that paid reviewers find a flaw is measured by λp. The expected time that a volunteer group is expected to find a flaw is 1/(Nv λv) and the expected time that a paid group is expected to find a flaw is 1/(Np λp). === Morningstar model === By comparing a large variety of open source and closed source projects a star system could be used to analyze the security of the project similar to how Morningstar, Inc. rates mutual funds. With a large enough data set, statistics could be used to measure the overall effectiveness of one group over the other. An example of such as system is as follows: 1 Star: Many security vulnerabilities. 2 Stars: Reliability issues. 3 Stars: Follows best security practices. 4 Stars: Documented secure development process. 5 Stars: Passed independent security review. === Coverity scan === Coverity in collaboration with Stanford University has established a new baseline for open-source quality and security. The development is being completed through a contract with the Department of Homeland Security. They are utilizing innovations in automated defect detection to identify critical types of bugs found in software. The level of quality and security is measured in rungs. Rungs do not have a definitive meaning, and can change as Coverity releases new tools. Rungs are based on the progress of fixing issues found by the Coverity Analysis results and the degree of collaboration with Coverity. They start with Rung 0 and currently go up to Rung 2. Rung 0 The project has been analyzed by Coverity's Scan infrastructure, but no representatives from the open-source software have come forward for the results. Rung 1 At rung 1, there is collaboration between Coverity and the development team. The software is analyzed with a subset of the scanning features to prevent the development team from being overwhelmed. Rung 2 There are 11 projects that have been analyzed and upgraded to the status of Rung 2 by reaching zero defects in the first year of the scan. These projects include: AMANDA, ntp, OpenPAM, OpenVPN, Overdose, Perl, PHP, Postfix, Python, Samba, and Tcl.

Amazon Rekognition

Amazon Rekognition is a cloud-based software as a service (SaaS) computer vision platform that was launched in 2016. It has been sold to, and used by, a number of United States government agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Orlando, Florida police, as well as private entities. == Capabilities == Rekognition provides a number of computer vision capabilities, which can be divided into two categories: Algorithms that are pre-trained on data collected by Amazon or its partners, and algorithms that a user can train on a custom dataset. As of July 2019, Rekognition provides the following computer vision capabilities. === Pre-trained algorithms === Celebrity recognition in images Facial attribute detection in images, including gender, age range, emotions (e.g. happy, calm, disgusted), whether the face has a beard or mustache, whether the face has eyeglasses or sunglasses, whether the eyes are open, whether the mouth is open, whether the person is smiling, and the location of several markers such as the pupils and jaw line. People Pathing enables tracking of people through a video. An advertised use-case of this capability is to track sports players for post-game analysis. Text detection and classification in images Unsafe visual content detection === Algorithms that a user can train on a custom dataset === SearchFaces enables users to import a database of images with pre-labeled faces, to train a machine learning model on this database, and to expose the model as a cloud service with an API. Then, the user can post new images to the API and receive information about the faces in the image. The API can be used to expose a number of capabilities, including identifying faces of known people, comparing faces, and finding similar faces in a database. Face-based user verification == History and use == === 2017 === In late 2017, the Washington County, Oregon Sheriff's Office began using Rekognition to identify suspects' faces. Rekognition was marketed as a general-purpose computer vision tool, and an engineer working for Washington County decided to use the tool for facial analysis of suspects. Rekognition was offered to the department for free, and Washington County became the first US law enforcement agency known to use Rekognition. In 2018, the agency logged over 1,000 facial searches. The county, according to the Washington Post, by 2019 was paying about $7 a month for all of its searches. The relationship was unknown to the public until May 2018. In 2018, Rekognition was also used to help identify celebrities during a royal wedding telecast. === 2018 === In April 2018, it was reported that FamilySearch was using Rekognition to enable their users to "see which of their ancestors they most resemble based on family photographs". In early 2018, the FBI also began using it as a pilot program for analyzing video surveillance. In May 2018, it was reported by the ACLU that Orlando, Florida was running a pilot using Rekognition for facial analysis in law enforcement, with that pilot ending in July 2019. After the report, on June 22, 2018, Gizmodo reported that Amazon workers had written a letter to CEO Jeff Bezos requesting he cease selling Rekognition to US law enforcement, particularly ICE and Homeland Security. A letter was also sent to Bezos by the ACLU. On June 26, 2018, it was reported that the Orlando police force had ceased using Rekognition after their trial contract expired, reserving the right to use it in the future. The Orlando Police Department said that they had "never gotten to the point to test images" due to old infrastructure and low bandwidth. In July 2018, the ACLU released a test showing that Rekognition had falsely matched 28 members of Congress with mugshot photos, particularly Congresspeople of color. 25 House members afterwards sent a letter to Bezos, expressing concern about Rekognition. Amazon responded saying the Rekognition test had generated 80 percent confidence, while it recommended law enforcement only use matches rated at 99 percent confidence. The Washington Post states that Oregon instead has officers pick a "best of five" result, instead of adhering to the recommendation. In September 2018, it was reported that Mapillary was using Rekognition to read the text on parking signs (e.g. no stopping, no parking, or specific parking hours) in cities. In October 2018, it was reported that Amazon had earlier that year pitched Rekognition to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Amazon defended government use of Rekognition. On December 1, 2018, it was reported that 8 Democratic lawmakers had said in a letter that Amazon had "failed to provide sufficient answers" about Rekognition, writing that they had "serious concerns that this type of product has significant accuracy issues, places disproportionate burdens on communities of color, and could stifle Americans' willingness to exercise their First Amendment rights in public." === 2019 === In January 2019, MIT researchers published a peer-reviewed study asserting that Rekognition had more difficulty in identifying dark-skinned females than competitors such as IBM and Microsoft. In the study, Rekognition misidentified darker-skinned women as men 31% of the time, but made no mistakes for light-skinned men. Amazon called the report "misinterpreted results" of the research with an improper "default confidence threshold." In January 2019, Amazon's shareholders "urged Amazon to stop selling Rekognition software to law enforcement agencies." Amazon in response defended its use of Rekognition, but supported new federal oversight and guidelines to "make sure facial recognition technology cannot be used to discriminate." In February 2019, it was reported that Amazon was collaborating with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on developing standardized tests to improve accuracy and remove bias with facial recognition. In March 2019, an open letter regarding Rekognition was sent by a group of prominent AI researchers to Amazon, criticizing its sale to law enforcement with around 50 signatures. In April 2019, Amazon was told by the Securities and Exchange Commission that they had to vote on two shareholder proposals seeking to limit Rekognition. Amazon argued that the proposals were an "insignificant public policy issue for the Company" not related to Amazon's ordinary business, but their appeal was denied. The vote was set for May. The first proposal was tabled by shareholders. On May 24, 2019, 2.4% of shareholders voted to stop selling Rekognition to government agencies, while a second proposal calling for a study into Rekognition and civil rights had 27.5% support. In August 2019, the ACLU again used Rekognition on members of government, with 26 of 120 lawmakers in California flagged as matches to mugshots. Amazon stated the ACLU was "misusing" the software in the tests, by not dismissing results that did not meet Amazon's recommended accuracy threshold of 99%. By August 2019, there had been protests against ICE's use of Rekognition to surveil immigrants. In March 2019, Amazon announced a Rekognition update that would improve emotional detection, and in August 2019, "fear" was added to emotions that Rekognition could detect. === 2020 === In June 2020, Amazon announced it was implementing a one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition, in response to the George Floyd protests. === 2024 === The Department of Justice disclosed that the FBI is initiating the use of Amazon Rekognition. The DOJ's AI inventory revealed the FBI's "Project Tyr" aims to customize Rekognition to identify nudity, weapons, explosives, and other information from lawfully acquired media. === 2025 === In late 2025, the New York Times reported that scientist, Dr. Jürgen Matthäus, retired from as the head of research at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., used Amazon Rekognition to identify the shooter in the Holocaust photograph known as The Last Jew in Vinnitsa "with more than 99 percent certainty" — as Jakobus Onnen (1906–1943), a teacher from Tichelwarf near Weener in East Frisia who had been a member of the SS since 1934 and was later killed in action near Zhitomir in 1943. The photographer and victim remain unidentified. == Controversy regarding facial analysis == === Racial and gender bias === In 2018, MIT researchers Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru published a study called Gender Shades. In this study, a set of images was collected, and faces in the images were labeled with face position, gender, and skin tone information. The images were run through SaaS facial recognition platforms from Face++, IBM, and Microsoft. In all three of these platforms, the classifiers performed best on male faces (with error rates on female faces being 8.1% to 20.6% higher than error rates on male faces), and they performed worst on dark female faces (with error rates ranging from 20.8% to 30.4%). The authors hypothesized that this discr