In search of the best AI bug finder? An AI bug finder is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it turns a rough idea into a polished result in seconds. When choosing one, weigh output quality, pricing, export formats, and how well it fits the tools you already use. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI bug finder slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
Software diversity
Software diversity is a research field about the comprehension and engineering of diversity in the context of software. == Areas == The different areas of software diversity are discussed in surveys on diversity for fault-tolerance or for security. The main areas are: design diversity, n-version programming, data diversity for fault tolerance randomization software variability == Techniques == === Code transformations === It is possible to amplify software diversity through automated transformation processes that create synthetic diversity. A "multicompiler" is compiler embedding a diversification engine. A multi-variant execution environment (MVEE) is responsible for selecting the variant to execute and compare the output. Fred Cohen was among the very early promoters of such an approach. He proposed a series of rewriting and code reordering transformations that aim at producing massive quantities of different versions of operating systems functions. These ideas have been developed over the years and have led to the construction of integrated obfuscation schemes to protect key functions in large software systems. Another approach to increase software diversity of protection consists in adding randomness in certain core processes, such as memory loading. Randomness implies that all versions of the same program run differently from each other, which in turn creates a diversity of program behaviors. This idea was initially proposed and experimented by Stephanie Forrest and her colleagues. Recent work on automatic software diversity explores different forms of program transformations that slightly vary the behavior of programs. The goal is to evolve one program into a population of diverse programs that all provide similar services to users, but with a different code. This diversity of code enhances the protection of users against one single attack that could crash all programs at the same time. Transformation operators include: code layout randomization: reorder functions in code globals layout randomization: reorder and pad globals stack variable randomization: reorder variables in each stack frame heap layout randomization === Natural software diversity === It is known that some functionalities are available in multiple interchangeable implementations. This natural diversity can be exploited, for example it has been shown valuable to increase security in cloud systems.
Randomized rounding
In computer science and operations research, randomized rounding is a widely used approach for designing and analyzing approximation algorithms. Many combinatorial optimization problems are computationally intractable to solve exactly (to optimality). For such problems, randomized rounding can be used to design fast (polynomial time) approximation algorithms—that is, algorithms that are guaranteed to return an approximately optimal solution given any input. The basic idea of randomized rounding is to convert an optimal solution of a relaxation of the problem into an approximately-optimal solution to the original problem. The resulting algorithm is usually analyzed using the probabilistic method. == Overview == The basic approach has three steps: Formulate the problem to be solved as an integer linear program (ILP). Compute an optimal fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} to the linear programming relaxation (LP) of the ILP. Round the fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} of the LP to an integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of the ILP. (Although the approach is most commonly applied with linear programs, other kinds of relaxations are sometimes used. For example, see Goemans' and Williamson's semidefinite programming-based Max-Cut approximation algorithm.) In the first step, the challenge is to choose a suitable integer linear program. Familiarity with linear programming, in particular modelling using linear programs and integer linear programs, is required. For many problems, there is a natural integer linear program that works well, such as in the Set Cover example below. (The integer linear program should have a small integrality gap; indeed randomized rounding is often used to prove bounds on integrality gaps.) In the second step, the optimal fractional solution can typically be computed in polynomial time using any standard linear programming algorithm. In the third step, the fractional solution must be converted into an integer solution (and thus a solution to the original problem). This is called rounding the fractional solution. The resulting integer solution should (provably) have cost not much larger than the cost of the fractional solution. This will ensure that the cost of the integer solution is not much larger than the cost of the optimal integer solution. The main technique used to do the third step (rounding) is to use randomization, and then to use probabilistic arguments to bound the increase in cost due to the rounding (following the probabilistic method from combinatorics). Therein, probabilistic arguments are used to show the existence of discrete structures with desired properties. In this context, one uses such arguments to show the following: Given any fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} of the LP, with positive probability the randomized rounding process produces an integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} that approximates x {\displaystyle x} according to some desired criterion. Finally, to make the third step computationally efficient, one either shows that x ′ {\displaystyle x'} approximates x {\displaystyle x} with high probability (so that the step can remain randomized) or one derandomizes the rounding step, typically using the method of conditional probabilities. The latter method converts the randomized rounding process into an efficient deterministic process that is guaranteed to reach a good outcome. == Example: the set cover problem == The following example illustrates how randomized rounding can be used to design an approximation algorithm for the set cover problem. Fix any instance ⟨ c , S ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle c,{\mathcal {S}}\rangle } of set cover over a universe U {\displaystyle {\mathcal {U}}} . === Computing the fractional solution === For step 1, let IP be the standard integer linear program for set cover for this instance. For step 2, let LP be the linear programming relaxation of IP, and compute an optimal solution x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} to LP using any standard linear programming algorithm. This takes time polynomial in the input size. The feasible solutions to LP are the vectors x {\displaystyle x} that assign each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} a non-negative weight x s {\displaystyle x_{s}} , such that, for each element e ∈ U {\displaystyle e\in {\mathcal {U}}} , x ′ {\displaystyle x'} covers e {\displaystyle e} —the total weight assigned to the sets containing e {\displaystyle e} is at least 1, that is, ∑ s ∋ e x s ≥ 1. {\displaystyle \sum _{s\ni e}x_{s}\geq 1.} The optimal solution x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a feasible solution whose cost ∑ s ∈ S c ( S ) x s ∗ {\displaystyle \sum _{s\in {\mathcal {S}}}c(S)x_{s}^{}} is as small as possible. Note that any set cover C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} for S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} gives a feasible solution x {\displaystyle x} (where x s = 1 {\displaystyle x_{s}=1} for s ∈ C {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {C}}} , x s = 0 {\displaystyle x_{s}=0} otherwise). The cost of this C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} equals the cost of x {\displaystyle x} , that is, ∑ s ∈ C c ( s ) = ∑ s ∈ S c ( s ) x s . {\displaystyle \sum _{s\in {\mathcal {C}}}c(s)=\sum _{s\in {\mathcal {S}}}c(s)x_{s}.} In other words, the linear program LP is a relaxation of the given set-cover problem. Since x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} has minimum cost among feasible solutions to the LP, the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a lower bound on the cost of the optimal set cover. === Randomized rounding step === In step 3, we must convert the minimum-cost fractional set cover x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} into a feasible integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} (corresponding to a true set cover). The rounding step should produce an x ′ {\displaystyle x'} that, with positive probability, has cost within a small factor of the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} .Then (since the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a lower bound on the cost of the optimal set cover), the cost of x ′ {\displaystyle x'} will be within a small factor of the optimal cost. As a starting point, consider the most natural rounding scheme: For each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} in turn, take x s ′ = 1 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=1} with probability min ( 1 , x s ∗ ) {\displaystyle \min(1,x_{s}^{})} , otherwise take x s ′ = 0 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=0} . With this rounding scheme, the expected cost of the chosen sets is at most ∑ s c ( s ) x s ∗ {\displaystyle \sum _{s}c(s)x_{s}^{}} , the cost of the fractional cover. This is good. Unfortunately the coverage is not good. When the variables x s ∗ {\displaystyle x_{s}^{}} are small, the probability that an element e {\displaystyle e} is not covered is about ∏ s ∋ e 1 − x s ∗ ≈ ∏ s ∋ e exp ( − x s ∗ ) = exp ( − ∑ s ∋ e x s ∗ ) ≈ exp ( − 1 ) . {\displaystyle \prod _{s\ni e}1-x_{s}^{}\approx \prod _{s\ni e}\exp(-x_{s}^{})=\exp {\Big (}-\sum _{s\ni e}x_{s}^{}{\Big )}\approx \exp(-1).} So only a constant fraction of the elements will be covered in expectation. To make x ′ {\displaystyle x'} cover every element with high probability, the standard rounding scheme first scales up the rounding probabilities by an appropriate factor λ > 1 {\displaystyle \lambda >1} . Here is the standard rounding scheme: Fix a parameter λ ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \lambda \geq 1} . For each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} in turn, take x s ′ = 1 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=1} with probability min ( λ x s ∗ , 1 ) {\displaystyle \min(\lambda x_{s}^{},1)} , otherwise take x s ′ = 0 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=0} . Scaling the probabilities up by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } increases the expected cost by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } , but makes coverage of all elements likely. The idea is to choose λ {\displaystyle \lambda } as small as possible so that all elements are provably covered with non-zero probability. Here is a detailed analysis. ==== Lemma (approximation guarantee for rounding scheme) ==== Fix λ = ln ( 2 | U | ) {\displaystyle \lambda =\ln(2|{\mathcal {U}}|)} . With positive probability, the rounding scheme returns a set cover x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of cost at most 2 ln ( 2 | U | ) c ⋅ x ∗ {\displaystyle 2\ln(2|{\mathcal {U}}|)c\cdot x^{}} (and thus of cost O ( log | U | ) {\displaystyle O(\log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} times the cost of the optimal set cover). (Note: with care the O ( log | U | ) {\displaystyle O(\log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} can be reduced to ln ( | U | ) + O ( log log | U | ) {\displaystyle \ln(|{\mathcal {U}}|)+O(\log \log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} .) ==== Proof ==== The output x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of the random rounding scheme has the desired properties as long as none of the following "bad" events occur: the cost c ⋅ x ′ {\displaystyle c\cdot x'} of x ′ {\displaystyle x'} exceeds 2 λ c ⋅ x ∗ {\displaystyle 2\lambda c\cdot x^{}} , or for some element e {\displaystyle e} , x ′ {\displaystyle x'} fails to cover e {\displaystyle e} . The expectation of each x s ′ {\displaystyle x'_{s}} is at most λ x s ∗ {\displaystyle \lambda x_{s
Information scientist
The term information scientist developed in the latter part of the twentieth century by Wm. Hovey Smith to describe an individual, usually with a relevant subject degree (such as one in Information and Computer Science - CIS) or high level of subject knowledge, providing focused information to scientific and technical research staff in industry. It is a role quite distinct from and complementary to that of a librarian. Developments in end-user searching, together with some convergence between the roles of librarian and information scientist, have led to a diminution in its use in this context, and the term information officer or information professional (information specialist) are also now used. The term was, and is, also used for an individual carrying out research in information science. Brian C. Vickery mentions that the Institute of Information Scientists (IIS) was established in London during 1958 and lists the criteria put forward by this institute "Criteria for Information Science" (appendix 1) as well as his own "Areas of study in information science" (appendix 2). The IIS merged with the Library Association in 2002 to form the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP). == Notable Information Scientists == See also Award of Merit - Association for Information Science and Technology Marcia Bates David Blair (information technologist) Samuel C. Bradford Michael Buckland John M. Carroll Blaise Cronin Emilia Currás Brenda Dervin Eugene Garfield Paul B. Kantor Frederick Wilfrid Lancaster Calvin Mooers Tefko Saracevic Linda C. Smith Robert Saxton Taylor Brian Campbell Vickery Thomas D. Wilson == Additional reading == Ellis, David and Merete Haugan. (1997) "Modelling the information seeking patterns of engineers and research scientists in an industrial environment" (Journal of Documentation, Volume 53(4): pp. 384–403) Poole, Alex H. (2024). "'There's a big difference between going through life with the wind at your back, and going through life leaning into the wind': Feminism in Post-World War II Information Science". Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 61: 300–313. doi:10.1002/pra2.1029. Vickery, Brian Campbell (1988) "Essays presented to B. C. Vickery" (Journal of Documentation, Volume 44, pp. 199–283). Vickery, B. & Vickery, A. (1987) Information Science in theory and practice (London: Bowker-Saur, pp. 361–369)
Higuchi dimension
In fractal geometry, the Higuchi dimension (or Higuchi fractal dimension (HFD)) is an approximate value for the box-counting dimension of the graph of a real-valued function or time series. This value is obtained via an algorithmic approximation so one also talks about the Higuchi method. It has many applications in science and engineering and has been applied to subjects like characterizing primary waves in seismograms, clinical neurophysiology and analyzing changes in the electroencephalogram in Alzheimer's disease. == Formulation of the method == The original formulation of the method is due to T. Higuchi. Given a time series X : { 1 , … , N } → R {\displaystyle X:\{1,\dots ,N\}\to \mathbb {R} } consisting of N {\displaystyle N} data points and a parameter k m a x ≥ 2 {\displaystyle k_{\mathrm {max} }\geq 2} the Higuchi Fractal dimension (HFD) of X {\displaystyle X} is calculated in the following way: For each k ∈ { 1 , … , k m a x } {\displaystyle k\in \{1,\dots ,k_{\mathrm {max} }}\} and m ∈ { 1 , … , k } {\displaystyle m\in \{1,\dots ,k}\} define the length L m ( k ) {\displaystyle L_{m}(k)} by L m ( k ) = N − 1 ⌊ N − m k ⌋ k 2 ∑ i = 1 ⌊ N − m k ⌋ | X N ( m + i k ) − X N ( m + ( i − 1 ) k ) | . {\displaystyle L_{m}(k)={\frac {N-1}{\lfloor {\frac {N-m}{k}}\rfloor k^{2}}}\sum _{i=1}^{\lfloor {\frac {N-m}{k}}\rfloor }|X_{N}(m+ik)-X_{N}(m+(i-1)k)|.} The length L ( k ) {\displaystyle L(k)} is defined by the average value of the k {\displaystyle k} lengths L 1 ( k ) , … , L k ( k ) {\displaystyle L_{1}(k),\dots ,L_{k}(k)} , L ( k ) = 1 k ∑ m = 1 k L m ( k ) . {\displaystyle L(k)={\frac {1}{k}}\sum _{m=1}^{k}L_{m}(k).} The slope of the best-fitting linear function through the data points { ( log 1 k , log L ( k ) ) } {\displaystyle \left\{\left(\log {\frac {1}{k}},\log L(k)\right)\right\}} is defined to be the Higuchi fractal dimension of the time-series X {\displaystyle X} . == Application to functions == For a real-valued function f : [ 0 , 1 ] → R {\displaystyle f:[0,1]\to \mathbb {R} } one can partition the unit interval [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} into N {\displaystyle N} equidistantly intervals [ t j , t j + 1 ) {\displaystyle [t_{j},t_{j+1})} and apply the Higuchi algorithm to the times series X ( j ) = f ( t j ) {\displaystyle X(j)=f(t_{j})} . This results into the Higuchi fractal dimension of the function f {\displaystyle f} . It was shown that in this case the Higuchi method yields an approximation for the box-counting dimension of the graph of f {\displaystyle f} as it follows a geometrical approach (see Liehr & Massopust 2020). == Robustness and stability == Applications to fractional Brownian functions and the Weierstrass function reveal that the Higuchi fractal dimension can be close to the box-dimension. On the other hand, the method can be unstable in the case where the data X ( 1 ) , … , X ( N ) {\displaystyle X(1),\dots ,X(N)} are periodic or if subsets of it lie on a horizontal line (see Liehr & Massopust 2020).
Textual entailment
In natural language processing, textual entailment (TE), also known as natural language inference (NLI), is a directional relation between text fragments. The relation holds whenever the truth of one text fragment follows from another text. == Definition == In the TE framework, the entailing and entailed texts are termed text (t) and hypothesis (h), respectively. Textual entailment is not the same as pure logical entailment – it has a more relaxed definition: "t entails h" (t ⇒ h) if, typically, a human reading t would infer that h is most likely true. (Alternatively: t ⇒ h if and only if, typically, a human reading t would be justified in inferring the proposition expressed by h from the proposition expressed by t.) The relation is directional because even if "t entails h", the reverse "h entails t" is much less certain. Determining whether this relationship holds is an informal task, one which sometimes overlaps with the formal tasks of formal semantics (satisfying a strict condition will usually imply satisfaction of a less strict conditioned); additionally, textual entailment partially subsumes word entailment. == Examples == Textual entailment can be illustrated with examples of three different relations: An example of a positive TE (text entails hypothesis) is: text: If you help the needy, God will reward you. hypothesis: Giving money to a poor man has good consequences. An example of a negative TE (text contradicts hypothesis) is: text: If you help the needy, God will reward you. hypothesis: Giving money to a poor man has no consequences. An example of a non-TE (text does not entail nor contradict) is: text: If you help the needy, God will reward you. hypothesis: Giving money to a poor man will make you a better person. == Ambiguity of natural language == A characteristic of natural language is that there are many different ways to state what one wants to say: several meanings can be contained in a single text and the same meaning can be expressed by different texts. This variability of semantic expression can be seen as the dual problem of language ambiguity. Together, they result in a many-to-many mapping between language expressions and meanings. The task of paraphrasing involves recognizing when two texts have the same meaning and creating a similar or shorter text that conveys almost the same information. Textual entailment is similar but weakens the relationship to be unidirectional. Mathematical solutions to establish textual entailment can be based on the directional property of this relation, by making a comparison between some directional similarities of the texts involved. == Approaches == Textual entailment measures natural language understanding as it asks for a semantic interpretation of the text, and due to its generality remains an active area of research. Many approaches and refinements of approaches have been considered, such as word embedding, logical models, graphical models, rule systems, contextual focusing, and machine learning. Practical or large-scale solutions avoid these complex methods and instead use only surface syntax or lexical relationships, but are correspondingly less accurate. As of 2005, state-of-the-art systems are far from human performance; a study found humans to agree on the dataset 95.25% of the time. Algorithms from 2016 had not yet achieved 90%. == Applications == Many natural language processing applications, like question answering, information extraction, summarization, multi-document summarization, and evaluation of machine translation systems, need to recognize that a particular target meaning can be inferred from different text variants. Typically entailment is used as part of a larger system, for example in a prediction system to filter out trivial or obvious predictions. Textual entailment also has applications in adversarial stylometry, which has the objective of removing textual style without changing the overall meaning of communication. == Datasets == Some of available English NLI datasets include: SNLI MultiNLI SciTail SICK MedNLI QA-NLI In addition, there are several non-English NLI datasets, as follows: XNLI DACCORD, RTE3-FR, SICK-FR for French FarsTail for Farsi OCNLI for Chinese SICK-NL for Dutch IndoNLI for Indonesian
EdgeRank
EdgeRank is the name commonly given to the algorithm that Facebook uses to determine what articles should be displayed in a user's News Feed. As of 2011, Facebook has stopped using the EdgeRank system and uses a machine learning algorithm that, as of 2013, takes more than 100,000 factors into account. EdgeRank was developed and implemented by Serkan Piantino. == Formula and factors == In 2010, a simplified version of the EdgeRank algorithm was presented as: ∑ e d g e s e u e w e d e {\displaystyle \sum _{\mathrm {edges\,} e}u_{e}w_{e}d_{e}} where: u e {\displaystyle u_{e}} is user affinity. w e {\displaystyle w_{e}} is how the content is weighted. d e {\displaystyle d_{e}} is a time-based decay parameter. User Affinity: The User Affinity part of the algorithm in Facebook's EdgeRank looks at the relationship and proximity of the user and the content (post/status update). Content Weight: What action was taken by the user on the content. Time-Based Decay Parameter: New or old. Newer posts tend to hold a higher place than older posts. Some of the methods that Facebook uses to adjust the parameters are proprietary and not available to the public. A study has shown that it is possible to hypothesize a disadvantage of the "like" reaction and advantages of other interactions (e.g., the "haha" reaction or "comments") in content algorithmic ranking on Facebook. The "like" button can decrease the organic reach as a "brake effect of viral reach". The "haha" reaction, "comments" and the "love" reaction could achieve the highest increase in total organic reach. == Impact == EdgeRank and its successors have a broad impact on what users actually see out of what they ostensibly follow: for instance, the selection can produce a filter bubble (if users are exposed to updates which confirm their opinions etc.) or alter people's mood (if users are shown a disproportionate amount of positive or negative updates). As a result, for Facebook pages, the typical engagement rate is less than 1% (or less than 0.1% for the bigger ones), and organic reach 10% or less for most non-profits. As a consequence, for pages, it may be nearly impossible to reach any significant audience without paying to promote their content.