Mark A. Heimann is an American chess grandmaster and machine learning researcher. == Chess career == Heimann began playing chess at the age of 5 after his father bought him and his twin brother Alexander a chess set. He then won several national grade-level championships as well as the Pennsylvania and Ohio state championships in middle school and high school. In October 2007, he was ranked as the national #2 under-14 player, only behind future grandmaster Marc Tyler Arnold. In the February 2008 national rankings, he moved up to being the top-ranked under-14 player. In December 2012, he played for Washington University St. Louis' "A" team in the Pan-American Intercollegiate Chess Championships, where he was the second-most successful player, recording 4 wins, 1 draw, and 1 loss. The university's team also won the Division II championship title. In three tournaments between September and December 2022, Heimann earned three international master title norms, earning the international master title at the age of 29. In November 2024, he scored a GM norm at the U.S. Masters Chess Championship. He finished the event in joint-6th place. The following week, at the Saint Louis Masters tournament, he earned his final grandmaster norm and crossed 2500 in live rating, achieving the Grandmaster title. It was formally awarded to him in April 2025. == Research career == He obtained a bachelor's degree from Washington University in St. Louis in the School of Arts and Sciences and got his PhD from the University of Michigan. He is a machine learning researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. == Personal life == Outside of chess and research, he also plays several instruments and is a competitive powerlifter.
Connectionist expert system
Connectionist expert systems are artificial neural network (ANN) based expert systems where the ANN generates inferencing rules e.g., fuzzy-multi layer perceptron where linguistic and natural form of inputs are used. Apart from that, rough set theory may be used for encoding knowledge in the weights better and also genetic algorithms may be used to optimize the search solutions better. Symbolic reasoning methods may also be incorporated (see hybrid intelligent system). (Also see expert system, neural network, clinical decision support system.)
Emotion recognition
Emotion recognition is the process of identifying human emotion. People vary widely in their accuracy at recognizing the emotions of others. Use of technology to help people with emotion recognition is a relatively nascent research area. Generally, the technology works best if it uses multiple modalities in context. To date, the most work has been conducted on automating the recognition of facial expressions from video, spoken expressions from audio, written expressions from text, and physiology as measured by wearables. == Human == Humans show a great deal of variability in their abilities to recognize emotion. A key point to keep in mind when learning about automated emotion recognition is that there are several sources of "ground truth", or truth about what the real emotion is. Suppose we are trying to recognize the emotions of Alex. One source is "what would most people say that Alex is feeling?" In this case, the 'truth' may not correspond to what Alex feels, but may correspond to what most people would say it looks like Alex feels. For example, Alex may actually feel sad, but he puts on a big smile and then most people say he looks happy. If an automated method achieves the same results as a group of observers it may be considered accurate, even if it does not actually measure what Alex truly feels. Another source of 'truth' is to ask Alex what he truly feels. This works if Alex has a good sense of his internal state, and wants to tell you what it is, and is capable of putting it accurately into words or a number. However, some people are alexithymic and do not have a good sense of their internal feelings, or they are not able to communicate them accurately with words and numbers. In general, getting to the truth of what emotion is actually present can take some work, can vary depending on the criteria that are selected, and will usually involve maintaining some level of uncertainty. == Automatic == Decades of scientific research have been conducted developing and evaluating methods for automated emotion recognition. There is now an extensive literature proposing and evaluating hundreds of different kinds of methods, leveraging techniques from multiple areas, such as signal processing, machine learning, computer vision, and speech processing. Different methodologies and techniques may be employed to interpret emotion such as Bayesian networks. , Gaussian Mixture models and Hidden Markov Models and deep neural networks. === Approaches === The accuracy of emotion recognition is usually improved when it combines the analysis of human expressions from multimodal forms such as texts, physiology, audio, or video. Different emotion types are detected through the integration of information from facial expressions, body movement and gestures, and speech. The technology is said to contribute in the emergence of the so-called emotional or emotive Internet. The existing approaches in emotion recognition to classify certain emotion types can be generally classified into three main categories: knowledge-based techniques, statistical methods, and hybrid approaches. ==== Knowledge-based techniques ==== Knowledge-based techniques (sometimes referred to as lexicon-based techniques), utilize domain knowledge and the semantic and syntactic characteristics of text and potentially spoken language in order to detect certain emotion types. In this approach, it is common to use knowledge-based resources during the emotion classification process such as WordNet, SenticNet, ConceptNet, and EmotiNet, to name a few. One of the advantages of this approach is the accessibility and economy brought about by the large availability of such knowledge-based resources. A limitation of this technique on the other hand, is its inability to handle concept nuances and complex linguistic rules. Knowledge-based techniques can be mainly classified into two categories: dictionary-based and corpus-based approaches. Dictionary-based approaches find opinion or emotion seed words in a dictionary and search for their synonyms and antonyms to expand the initial list of opinions or emotions. Corpus-based approaches on the other hand, start with a seed list of opinion or emotion words, and expand the database by finding other words with context-specific characteristics in a large corpus. While corpus-based approaches take into account context, their performance still vary in different domains since a word in one domain can have a different orientation in another domain. ==== Statistical methods ==== Statistical methods commonly involve the use of different supervised machine learning algorithms in which a large set of annotated data is fed into the algorithms for the system to learn and predict the appropriate emotion types. Machine learning algorithms generally provide more reasonable classification accuracy compared to other approaches, but one of the challenges in achieving good results in the classification process, is the need to have a sufficiently large training set. Some of the most commonly used machine learning algorithms include Support Vector Machines (SVM), Naive Bayes, and Maximum Entropy. Deep learning, which is under the unsupervised family of machine learning, is also widely employed in emotion recognition. Well-known deep learning algorithms include different architectures of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) such as Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Long Short-term Memory (LSTM), and Extreme Learning Machine (ELM). The popularity of deep learning approaches in the domain of emotion recognition may be mainly attributed to its success in related applications such as in computer vision, speech recognition, and Natural Language Processing (NLP). ==== Hybrid approaches ==== Hybrid approaches in emotion recognition are essentially a combination of knowledge-based techniques and statistical methods, which exploit complementary characteristics from both techniques. Some of the works that have applied an ensemble of knowledge-driven linguistic elements and statistical methods include sentic computing and iFeel, both of which have adopted the concept-level knowledge-based resource SenticNet. The role of such knowledge-based resources in the implementation of hybrid approaches is highly important in the emotion classification process. Since hybrid techniques gain from the benefits offered by both knowledge-based and statistical approaches, they tend to have better classification performance as opposed to employing knowledge-based or statistical methods independently. A downside of using hybrid techniques however, is the computational complexity during the classification process. === Datasets === Data is an integral part of the existing approaches in emotion recognition and in most cases it is a challenge to obtain annotated data that is necessary to train machine learning algorithms. For the task of classifying different emotion types from multimodal sources in the form of texts, audio, videos or physiological signals, the following datasets are available: HUMAINE: provides natural clips with emotion words and context labels in multiple modalities Belfast database: provides clips with a wide range of emotions from TV programs and interview recordings SEMAINE: provides audiovisual recordings between a person and a virtual agent and contains emotion annotations such as angry, happy, fear, disgust, sadness, contempt, and amusement IEMOCAP: provides recordings of dyadic sessions between actors and contains emotion annotations such as happiness, anger, sadness, frustration, and neutral state eNTERFACE: provides audiovisual recordings of subjects from seven nationalities and contains emotion annotations such as happiness, anger, sadness, surprise, disgust, and fear DEAP: provides electroencephalography (EEG), electrocardiography (ECG), and face video recordings, as well as emotion annotations in terms of valence, arousal, and dominance of people watching film clips DREAMER: provides electroencephalography (EEG) and electrocardiography (ECG) recordings, as well as emotion annotations in terms of valence, dominance of people watching film clips MELD: is a multiparty conversational dataset where each utterance is labeled with emotion and sentiment. MELD provides conversations in video format and hence suitable for multimodal emotion recognition and sentiment analysis. MELD is useful for multimodal sentiment analysis and emotion recognition, dialogue systems and emotion recognition in conversations. MuSe: provides audiovisual recordings of natural interactions between a person and an object. It has discrete and continuous emotion annotations in terms of valence, arousal and trustworthiness as well as speech topics useful for multimodal sentiment analysis and emotion recognition. UIT-VSMEC: is a standard Vietnamese Social Media Emotion Corpus (UIT-VSMEC) with about 6,927 human-annotated sentences with six emotion labels, contributing to emotion recognition research in Vietnamese
Golden record (informatics)
In informatics, a golden record is the valid version of a data element (record) in a single source of truth system. It may refer to a database, specific table or data field, or any unit of information used. A golden copy is a consolidated data set, and is supposed to provide a single source of truth and a "well-defined version of all the data entities in an organizational ecosystem". Other names sometimes used include master source or master version. The term has been used in conjunction with data quality, master data management, and similar topics. (Different technical solutions exist, see master data management). == Master data == In master data management (MDM), the golden copy refers to the master data (master version) of the reference data which works as an authoritative source for the "truth" for all applications in a given IT landscape.
BRS/Search
BRS/Search is a full-text database and information retrieval system. BRS/Search uses a fully inverted indexing system to store, locate, and retrieve unstructured data. It was the search engine that in 1977 powered Bibliographic Retrieval Services (BRS) commercial operations with 20 databases (including the first national commercial availability of MEDLINE); it has changed ownership several times during its development and is currently sold as Livelink ECM Discovery Server by Open Text Corporation. == Early development == Development on what was to become BRS began as Biomedical Communications Network (BCN) at the State University of New York at Albany (SUNY). BCN, which went online in 1968, provided on-line access to nine databases, including MEDLINE and BIOSIS Previews, to large universities and medical schools primarily in the Northeast of the USA. State funding for the project was withdrawn in 1975, and Bibliographic Retrieval Services (BRS) was formed as a non-profit concern the following year. It was incorporated in May 1976 as a for-profit corporation with Ron Quake as president, Jan Egeland as vice president in charge of marketing and training, and Lloyd Palmer as vice president of systems. == BRS commercial operations == In December 1976, the First BRS User Meeting was held in Syracuse, New York, and by January 1977 BRS started commercial operations with 20 databases (including the first national commercial availability of MEDLINE) and 9 million records, using modified IBM STAIRS (STorage And Information Retrieval System) software, Telenet for telecommunications, and timesharing mainframe computers of Carrier Corporation. In October 1980 BRS was sold by Egeland and Quake to Indian Head, Inc., a subsidiary of the Dutch company Thyssen-Bornemisza Group. == 1989–1993 == In 1989 Robert Maxwell acquired BRS and the BRS/Search software; he announced the planned incorporation of the ORBIT Search Service and BRS Information Technologies and renamed the whole group Maxwell Online, Inc. At that time BRS Information Technologies was serving the medical and academic library marketplace with over 150 databases. Maxwell later bought the publishing company Macmillan and put Maxwell Online under Macmillan. In the same year BRS/LINK (hypertext connection of databases; first application delivering full text) was announced. The initial BRS/LINK application "relates the citation in a bibliographic database to its full-text article in a second database," and "eliminates the need to re-execute a search strategy in the second database in order to find the corresponding full-text article." Initially BRS/LINK supported linking only selected bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, Health Planning and Administration, and MEDLINE References on AIDS to the full-text Comprehensive Core Medical Library. At the time of Robert Maxwell’s death in 1991, Macmillan brought in Andrew Gregory to represent the company during the 2 years that Maxwell’s affairs were being settled and to prepare Maxwell Online to be able to sell the components. Maxwell Online shortly thereafter underwent yet another name change, this time to InfoPro Technologies. == Dataware Technologies ownership of BRS/SEARCH == Early in 1994, InfoPro Technologies, a subsidiary of MHC Inc. (holding company for Macmillan Inc.), the former Maxwell Online service, sold off all its subsidiaries. ORBIT Search Services went to the French-owned Questel, the dial-up BRS Search Services to CD Plus Technologies (later to become OVID), and BRS Software Products (including BRS/SEARCH) to Dataware Technologies. Almost up to the end of InfoPro Technologies, BRS Software had been the fastest growing segment of the company. At the 14th BRS North American Users Group Conference in 1999, Dave Schubmehl of Dataware Technologies presented a paper in which he stated "The purpose of this presentation is to update BRS users on upcoming releases of BRS/Search, NetAnswer, and other Dataware products. BRS/Search 7.0 will include features specifically requested by customers, as well as other enhancements. Earlier this year, Dataware acquired Sovereign Hill Software, makers of InQuery. In light of that acquisition, and Dataware's other development projects, we'll look at Dataware's plans for all products, including BRS/Search and NetAnswer." == Open Text acquisition of BRS/Search == In 2001 BRS/Search was acquired by Open Text and became LiveLink ECM Discovery Server. It is now referred to as Open Text Discovery Server. Open Text still supports both BRS/Search and NetAnswer. The core BRS/Search technology in the Open Text portfolio was augmented with other capabilities through various acquisitions. For example, Dataware's acquisition of Sovereign-Hill brought InQuery, “a probabilistic information retrieval system using an inference network”, which was developed by the University of Massachusetts Amherst Center for Intelligent Information Retrieval] out of the UMass CIIR and into the marketplace. A product re-branding table shows the range of products, their old names and their new names. InQuery is a concept search engine that uses noun phrases, parts of speech and other co-occurrence relationships in overlapping passages of text rather than single term inverted indexes of single words in documents. Open Text's portfolio has grown to include Hummingbird Content Management, and has always included BASIS. == 2003 == BRS/Search North America User's Group (BRSNAUG) website with a June 8, 2003 date listed the following features for BRS/Search. The BRSNAUG also disincorporated in 2003. Cross-references to BRS/Search on the World Wide Web point to Open Text Livelink. Engine features include: Rapid query response time. Numerical data handling and elementary statistical processing (sum, avg, min, max) Search results weighting and relevancy ranking Left- and right-truncation and expansion of search terms Superior data compression – loaded databases typically use only about 1.5 times the input stream size in disk space Large capacity databases – up to 100 million documents, each with up to 65,000 paragraphs Fine control of indexing and searching – right down to the word, sentence, and paragraph level Fine control over data security. Document access can be controlled at the database, document, and paragraph level International language support for all 7/8 bit characters sets and customizable language tables Flexible and customizable stop word lists ANSI-compatible thesauri Hypertext links within and between documents and databases (R6.x) Support for natural language parsing of queries Automatic document summarization tools Client/Server development Programming interfaces for World-Wide Web (HTTP, HTML) access to databases
Drush
Drush (DRUpal SHell) is a computer software shell-based application used to control, manipulate, and administer Drupal websites. == Details == Drush was originally developed by Arto Bendiken for Drupal 4.7. In May 2007, it was partly rewritten and redesigned for Drupal 5 by Franz Heinzmann. Drush is maintained by Moshe Weitzman with the support of Owen Barton, greg.1.anderson, jonhattan, Mark Sonnabaum, Jonathan Hedstrom and Christopher Gervais.
Pseudonymization
Pseudonymization is a data management and de-identification procedure by which personally identifiable information fields within a data record are replaced by one or more artificial identifiers, or pseudonyms. A single pseudonym for each replaced field or collection of replaced fields makes the data record less identifiable while remaining suitable for data analysis and data processing. Pseudonymization (or pseudonymisation, the spelling under European guidelines) is one way to comply with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) demands for secure data storage of personal information. Pseudonymized data can be restored to its original state with the addition of information which allows individuals to be re-identified. In contrast, anonymization is intended to prevent re-identification of individuals within the dataset. Clause 18, Module Four, footnote 2 of the Adoption by the European Commission of the Implementing Decisions (EU) 2021/914 "requires rendering the data anonymous in such a way that the individual is no longer identifiable by anyone ... and that this process is irreversible." == Impact of Schrems II ruling == The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on 9 December 2021 highlighted pseudonymization as the top technical supplementary measure for Schrems II compliance. Less than two weeks later, the EU Commission highlighted pseudonymization as an essential element of the equivalency decision for South Korea, which is the status that was lost by the United States under the Schrems II ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The importance of GDPR-compliant pseudonymization increased dramatically in June 2021 when the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Commission highlighted GDPR-compliant pseudonymization as the state-of-the-art technical supplementary measure for the ongoing lawful use of EU personal data when using third country (i.e., non-EU) cloud processors or remote service providers under the "Schrems II" ruling by the CJEU. Under the GDPR and final EDPB Schrems II Guidance, the term pseudonymization requires a new protected "state" of data, producing a protected outcome that: Protects direct, indirect, and quasi-identifiers, together with characteristics and behaviors; Protects at the record and data set level versus only the field level so that the protection travels wherever the data goes, including when it is in use; and Protects against unauthorized re-identification via the mosaic effect by generating high entropy (uncertainty) levels by dynamically assigning different tokens at different times for various purposes. The combination of these protections is necessary to prevent the re-identification of data subjects without the use of additional information kept separately, as required under GDPR Article 4(5) and as further underscored by paragraph 85(4) of the final EDPB Schrems II guidance: Article 4(5) "Definitions" of the GDPR defines pseudonymization as "the processing of personal data in such a manner that the personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information, provided that such additional information is kept separately and is subject to technical and organisational measures to ensure that the personal data are not attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person." "Use Case 2: Transfer of pseudonymised Data Paragraph 85(4)" of the final EDPB Schrems II Guidance requires that “the controller has established by means of a thorough analysis of the data in question – taking into account any information that the public authorities of the recipient country may be expected to possess and use – that the pseudonymised personal data cannot be attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person even if cross-referenced with such information." GDPR-compliant pseudonymization requires that data is "anonymous" in the strictest EU sense of the word – globally anonymous – but for the additional information held separately and made available under controlled conditions as authorized by the data controller for permitted re-identification of individual data subjects. Clause 18, Module Four, footnote 2 of the Adoption by the European Commission of the Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/914 "requires rendering the data anonymous in such a way that the individual is no longer identifiable by anyone, in line with recital 26 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and that this process is irreversible." Before the Schrems II ruling, pseudonymization was a technique used by security experts or government officials to hide personally identifiable information to maintain data structure and privacy of information. Some common examples of sensitive information include postal code, location of individuals, names of individuals, race and gender, etc. After the Schrems II ruling, GDPR-compliant pseudonymization must satisfy the above-noted elements as an "outcome" versus merely a technique. == Data fields == The choice of which data fields are to be pseudonymized is partly subjective. Less selective fields, such as birth date or postal code are often also included because they are usually available from other sources and therefore make a record easier to identify. Pseudonymizing these less identifying fields removes most of their analytic value and is therefore normally accompanied by the introduction of new derived and less identifying forms, such as year of birth or a larger postal code region. Data fields that are less identifying, such as date of attendance, are usually not pseudonymized. This is because too much statistical utility is lost in doing so, not because the data cannot be identified. For example, given prior knowledge of a few attendance dates it is easy to identify someone's data in a pseudonymized dataset by selecting only those people with that pattern of dates. This is an example of an inference attack. The weakness of pre-GDPR pseudonymized data to inference attacks is commonly overlooked. A famous example is the AOL search data scandal. The AOL example of unauthorized re-identification did not require access to separately kept "additional information" that was under the control of the data controller as is now required for GDPR-compliant pseudonymization, outlined below under the section "New Definition for Pseudonymization Under GDPR". Protecting statistically useful pseudonymized data from re-identification requires: a sound information security base controlling the risk that the analysts, researchers or other data workers cause a privacy breach The pseudonym allows tracking back of data to its origins, which distinguishes pseudonymization from anonymization, where all person-related data that could allow backtracking has been purged. Pseudonymization is an issue in, for example, patient-related data that has to be passed on securely between clinical centers. The application of pseudonymization to e-health intends to preserve the patient's privacy and data confidentiality. It allows primary use of medical records by authorized health care providers and privacy preserving secondary use by researchers. In the US, HIPAA provides guidelines on how health care data must be handled and data de-identification or pseudonymization is one way to simplify HIPAA compliance. However, plain pseudonymization for privacy preservation often reaches its limits when genetic data are involved (see also genetic privacy). Due to the identifying nature of genetic data, depersonalization is often not sufficient to hide the corresponding person. Potential solutions are the combination of pseudonymization with fragmentation and encryption. An example of application of pseudonymization procedure is creation of datasets for de-identification research by replacing identifying words with words from the same category (e.g. replacing a name with a random name from the names dictionary), however, in this case it is in general not possible to track data back to its origins. == New definition under GDPR == Effective as of May 25, 2018, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) defines pseudonymization for the very first time at the EU level in Article 4(5). Under Article 4(5) definitional requirements, data is pseudonymized if it cannot be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of separately kept "additional information". Pseudonymized data embodies the state of the art in Data Protection by Design and by Default because it requires protection of both direct and indirect identifiers (not just direct). GDPR Data Protection by Design and by Default principles as embodied in pseudonymization require protection of both direct and indirect identifiers so that personal data is not cross-referenceable (or re-identifiable) via the "mosaic effect" without access to "additional information" that is kept separately by the controller. Because access to separately kept "additional information" is required