Digital audio cassette formats introduced to the professional audio and consumer markets: Digital Audio Tape (or DAT) is the most well-known, and had some success as an audio storage format among professionals and "prosumers" before the prices of hard drive and solid-state flash memory-based digital recording devices dropped in the late 1990s. Hard-drive recording has mostly made DAT obsolete, as hard disk recorders offer more editing versatility than tape, and easier importation into digital audio workstations (DAWs) and non-linear video editing (NLE) systems. Digital Compact Cassette was intended as a digital replacement for the mass-market analog cassette tape, but received very little attention or adaptation. Its failure is generally attributed to higher production costs than audio CDs, durability and indifferent reception by consumers. Digital video cassettes include: Betacam IMX (Sony) D-VHS (JVC) D1 (Sony) D2 (Sony) D3 D5 HD Digital-S D9 (JVC) Digital Betacam (Sony) Digital8 (Sony) DV HDV ProHD (JVC) MiniDV MicroMV == Analog cassettes used as digital data storage == Historically, the compact audio cassette which was originally designed for analog storage of music was used as an alternative to disk drives in the late 1970s and early 1980s to provide data storage for home computers. There is a number of unique and incompatible cassette tape data storage formats that all use the same analog compact audio cassette tape media. The ADAT system uses Super VHS tapes to record 8 synchronized digital audiotracks at once. There have also been several audio recording systems that used VHS video recorders as storage devices and video tape transports, generally by encoding the digital data to be recorded into an analog composite video signal (which resembles static) and then recording this to magnetic tape. These systems were often used as "mixdown" recorders, to record the finished mix from a multi-track recorder in preparation for the manufacture of a vinyl record, cassette tape, or CD. An example was the Dbx Model 700. Another example is the Sony PCM adaptor series. Several companies sold VHS backup solutions in the 1980s and 1990s where data was converted to a video image which was then saved onto a VHS tape. the Corvus "Mirror" ( U.S. patent 4380047A ) the Metrum Model 64 on S-VHS tape, the Danmere Backer tape backup system, the Alpha Microsystems Videotrax the Legacy Storage Systems International VAST (Variable Array Storage) the ArVid the Video Backup System Amiga, The S2 VLBI system at three NASA Deep Space Network complexes and over 20 other radio telescopes stores digital data on SVHS tapes.
AI safety
AI safety is an interdisciplinary field focused on preventing accidents, misuse, or other harmful consequences arising from artificial intelligence systems. It encompasses AI alignment (which aims to ensure AI systems behave as intended), monitoring AI systems for risks, and enhancing their robustness. The field is particularly concerned with existential risks posed by advanced AI models. Beyond technical research, AI safety involves developing norms and policies that promote safety, including advocacy for regulations at different levels of government. The field gained significant popularity in 2023, with rapid progress in generative AI and public concerns voiced by researchers and CEOs about potential dangers. During the 2023 AI Safety Summit, the United States and the United Kingdom both established their own AI Safety Institute. However, researchers have expressed concern that AI safety measures are not keeping pace with the rapid development of AI capabilities. == Motivations == Scholars discuss current risks from critical systems failures, bias, and AI-enabled surveillance, as well as emerging risks like technological unemployment, digital manipulation, weaponization, AI-enabled cyberattacks and bioterrorism. They also discuss speculative risks from losing control of future artificial general intelligence (AGI) agents, or from AI enabling perpetually stable dictatorships. === Existential safety === Some have criticized concerns about AGI, such as Andrew Ng who compared them in 2015 to "worrying about overpopulation on Mars when we have not even set foot on the planet yet". Stuart J. Russell on the other side urges caution, arguing that "it is better to anticipate human ingenuity than to underestimate it". AI researchers have widely differing opinions about the severity and primary sources of risk posed by AI technology – though surveys suggest that experts take high consequence risks seriously. In two surveys of AI researchers, the median respondent was optimistic about AI overall, but placed a 5% probability on an "extremely bad (e.g. human extinction)" outcome of advanced AI. In a 2022 survey of the natural language processing community, 37% agreed or weakly agreed that it is plausible that AI decisions could lead to a catastrophe that is "at least as bad as an all-out nuclear war". == History == Risks from AI began to be seriously discussed at the start of the computer age: Moreover, if we move in the direction of making machines which learn and whose behavior is modified by experience, we must face the fact that every degree of independence we give the machine is a degree of possible defiance of our wishes. In 1988 Blay Whitby published a book outlining the need for AI to be developed along ethical and socially responsible lines. From 2008 to 2009, the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) commissioned a study to explore and address potential long-term societal influences of AI research and development. The panel was generally skeptical of the radical views expressed by science-fiction authors but agreed that "additional research would be valuable on methods for understanding and verifying the range of behaviors of complex computational systems to minimize unexpected outcomes". In 2011, Roman Yampolskiy introduced the term "AI safety engineering" at the Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence conference, listing prior failures of AI systems and arguing that "the frequency and seriousness of such events will steadily increase as AIs become more capable". In 2014, philosopher Nick Bostrom published the book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. He has the opinion that the rise of AGI has the potential to create various societal issues, ranging from the displacement of the workforce by AI, manipulation of political and military structures, to even the possibility of human extinction. His argument that future advanced systems may pose a threat to human existence prompted Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Stephen Hawking to voice similar concerns. In 2015, dozens of artificial intelligence experts signed an open letter on artificial intelligence calling for research on the societal impacts of AI and outlining concrete directions. To date, the letter has been signed by over 8000 people including Yann LeCun, Shane Legg, Yoshua Bengio, and Stuart Russell. In the same year, a group of academics led by professor Stuart J. Russell founded the Center for Human-Compatible AI at the University of California Berkeley and the Future of Life Institute awarded $6.5 million in grants for research aimed at "ensuring artificial intelligence (AI) remains safe, ethical and beneficial". In 2016, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Carnegie Mellon University announced The Public Workshop on Safety and Control for Artificial Intelligence, which was one of a sequence of four White House workshops aimed at investigating "the advantages and drawbacks" of AI. In the same year, Concrete Problems in AI Safety – one of the first and most influential technical AI Safety agendas – was published. In 2017, the Future of Life Institute sponsored the Asilomar Conference on Beneficial AI, where more than 100 thought leaders formulated principles for beneficial AI including "Race Avoidance: Teams developing AI systems should actively cooperate to avoid corner-cutting on safety standards". In 2018, the DeepMind Safety team outlined AI safety problems in specification, robustness, and assurance. The following year, researchers organized a workshop at ICLR that focused on these problem areas. In 2021, Unsolved Problems in ML Safety was published, outlining research directions in robustness, monitoring, alignment, and systemic safety. In 2023, Rishi Sunak said he wants the United Kingdom to be the "geographical home of global AI safety regulation" and to host the first global summit on AI safety. The AI safety summit took place in November 2023, and focused on the risks of misuse and loss of control associated with frontier AI models. During the summit the intention to create the International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI was announced. In 2024, The US and UK forged a new partnership on the science of AI safety. The MoU was signed on 1 April 2024 by US commerce secretary Gina Raimondo and UK technology secretary Michelle Donelan to jointly develop advanced AI model testing, following commitments announced at an AI Safety Summit in Bletchley Park in November. In 2025, an international team of 96 experts chaired by Yoshua Bengio published the first International AI Safety Report. The report, commissioned by 30 nations and the United Nations, represents the first global scientific review of potential risks associated with advanced artificial intelligence. It details potential threats stemming from misuse, malfunction, and societal disruption, with the objective of informing policy through evidence-based findings, without providing specific recommendations. == Research focus == AI safety research areas include robustness, monitoring, and alignment. === Robustness === ==== Adversarial robustness ==== AI systems are often vulnerable to adversarial examples or "inputs to machine learning (ML) models that an attacker has intentionally designed to cause the model to make a mistake". For example, in 2013, Szegedy et al. discovered that adding specific imperceptible perturbations to an image could cause it to be misclassified with high confidence. This continues to be an issue with neural networks, though in recent work the perturbations are generally large enough to be perceptible. The image on the right is predicted to be an ostrich after the perturbation is applied. (Left) is a correctly predicted sample, (center) perturbation applied magnified by 10x, (right) adversarial example. Adversarial robustness is often associated with security. Researchers demonstrated that an audio signal could be imperceptibly modified so that speech-to-text systems transcribe it to any message the attacker chooses. Network intrusion and malware detection systems also must be adversarially robust since attackers may design their attacks to fool detectors. Models that represent objectives (reward models) must also be adversarially robust. For example, a reward model might estimate how helpful a text response is and a language model might be trained to maximize this score. Researchers have shown that if a language model is trained for long enough, it will leverage the vulnerabilities of the reward model to achieve a better score and perform worse on the intended task. This issue can be addressed by improving the adversarial robustness of the reward model. More generally, any AI system used to evaluate another AI system must be adversarially robust. This could include monitoring tools, since they could also potentially be tampered with to produce a higher reward. Large language models (LLMs) can be vulnerable to prom
Visual Peer Review
== Development and history == Visual Peer Review was first described in a 2017 classroom study by Friedman and Rosen, which examined how students evaluate peer-produced data visualizations using structured rubrics. Developed within the broader fields of data visualization, information visualization, and educational technology, the system emphasized clear labeling, visual integrity, and reduction of chartjunk. Students assigned rubric scores and provided written explanations, aligning the activity with established principles of peer review. Follow-up research expanded both the methodological and analytic dimensions of the framework. Friedman and colleagues applied natural language processing (NLP) to peer-review text to analyze part-of-speech patterns, sentence complexity, and comment length. These analyses offered insight into how students expressed critique and engaged with core design principles. Later studies incorporated advanced statistical modeling to evaluate system-level behavior, including peer review networks and reviewer typologies. Between 2021 and 2024, the framework underwent iterative refinement through a series of studies that explored interface design, behavioral nudges, reviewer engagement, and social network dynamics. The system was influenced by earlier work in computer-supported peer review—particularly My Reviewers, a rubric-based writing assessment platform developed by Joe Moxley at the University of South Florida. While Moxley's platform focused on text-based feedback, Visual Peer Review adapted its core structure to support critique of DataVis and visual analytics. To guide structured analysis and feedback, Friedman and Rosen also drew on the “what, why, and how” framework introduced by Liu and Stasko (2010), which emphasizes understanding a visualization's purpose, task alignment, and encoding strategy. == Framework and components == Visual Peer Review is designed to support critique, reflection, and learning in courses focusing on data visualization, visual analytics, and related fields in educational technology. The system consists of interconnected component. Core components include: Visual Artifacts: Students generate original visualizations using software such as R (e.g., ggplot2), Tableau, Python, or Adobe Illustrator. These artifacts may include statistical graphics, dashboards, or design-oriented infographics. Rubric-Based Assessment: Peer reviewers evaluate submitted visualizations using structured rubrics grounded in visualization theory and design heuristics. Rubric dimensions typically include: Use of labeling and axis scales Minimalization of chartjunk and clutter (following Tufte's principles) Optimization of the data–ink ratio Preservation of visual integrity through accurate representation (lie factor) Written Peer Comments: In addition to scoring, reviewers provide narrative feedback explaining their reasoning. These comments aim to improve design literacy, strengthen visual reasoning, and support the learning process common to peer review across educational contexts. Instructor Analytics Dashboard: Instructors access an analytics dashboard that displays peer-review activity across the course. Metrics include comment length, rubric coverage, participation patterns, and potential indicators of disengagement. These features position the framework within the domain of learning analytics, where visualized data helps instructors monitor student progress and identify support needs. == Ongoing development == Current work focuses on enhancing rubric structure, integrating principles from human–computer interaction, DataVis and expanding learning-analytics capabilities. Ongoing studies investigate how interface design, reviewer behavior, and classroom context influence the quality of feedback and overall engagement. Continuing development positions Visual Peer Review at the intersection of data visualization education, peer assessment, and educational technology.
AI: When a Robot Writes a Play
AI: When a Robot Writes a Play (in Czech: AI: Když robot píše hru) is a 2021 experimental theatre play, where 90% of its script was automatically generated by artificial intelligence (the GPT-2 language model). The play is in Czech language, but an English version of the script also exists. == Creation == The play is the first result of the THEaiTRE research project, aiming to commemorate the centenary of the R.U.R. play by Karel Čapek by investigating to what extent artificial intelligence could be used to create theatre play scripts. The script of the play was created using the THEaiTRobot tool, based on the GPT-2 language model. First, the play dramaturge, David Košťák, described the initial setting of each scene in a few sentences, and wrote the first line for each character. Next, THEaiTRobot suggested a continuation of the script, which the dramaturge could use, reject, or use part of it and let the tool generate a new continuation. Another option was to manually insert another line or a scenic remark. The script was generated in English and was automatically translated to Czech by the state-of-the-art CUBBITT machine translation tool. The resulting script was then further post-edited by the dramaturge. The resulting script was made freely available for non-commercial use both in English and in Czech, with marked manually inserted texts and manual edits. The analysis shows that 90% of the English script is automatically generated, with 10% manually written or manually post-edited. In the Czech script, a larger amount of edits were made, but the analysis claims that these additional edits are corrections of errors of the automated translation and stylistic corrections which do not change the meaning of the lines as represented by the English script, but rather bring the Czech script closer to the English one. == Characters == The play contains 9 characters. The Robot appears in all the scenes, while each of the other characters appears in only one scene. Robot – The lead character, a male humanoid robot. Master – An old man, the creator of the Robot. Boy – A schoolboy. Masseuse – A sex worker in a brothel. Stranger – An engineer. Man. Psychologist. Administrator – A female clerk at an employment agency. Actress – A film actress and a model in a robot-like costume. == Plot == The play is composed of 8 scenes. It tells the story of a humanoid robot, who encounters 8 other characters and engages into various typically human situations and activities, related to death, love, sex, violence, etc. The individual scenes are not tightly linked, but there are some linking points, such as the central character of the robot or some repeated and developing themes, such as the robot's search for love. The scenes often contain some absurd turns and it is often hard to find sense in them. It is therefore a very complicated piece interpretationally, requiring the director and the actors to invest a lot of effort and creativity in finding a meaningful interpretation which would not deviate from the script. In the interpretation by Švanda theatre, who premiered the play and who also participated on the creation of the script, the scenes typically contain non-verbally expressed content which can add a lot to the meaning of the scene compared to what is contained in the actual script (as the script only contains the lines said by the characters). === Scene 1: Death === The play opens by the Robot parting with his dying Master. The Master gives the Robot several last lessons and talks with him about death, soul, and love. === Scene 2: Sense of Humour === In the second scene, the Robot meets a sad and angry Boy, who complains that he wants to go to school, that his girlfriend is crazy, that he wants to buy a car, etc. The Robot tries to help the Boy by giving him advice, but the Boy's reactions are quite negative and irritated. The Boy then repeatedly asks the Robot to tell him a joke; the Robot keeps refusing, but ultimately tells the following joke: When you are dead. When your children are dead. When your grandchildren are dead, I will be still alive. === Scene 3: Nightclub === The Robot wants to feel pleasure, so he goes to a "night club" (a brothel), where he meets a "Masseuse" (a prostitute). The Robot is initially "a bit cold", but eventually manages to enjoy the experience and falls in love with the Masseuse. In the Švanda theatre performance, the Robot and the Masseuse seem to have a sort of virtual sex without touching each other, reminiscent of the sex scene in Demolition Man. === Scene 4: Fear of the Dark === It is the night. The Robot is standing under a lamp, unable to move away from the light as he finds that he is afraid of the dark. He meets a Stranger, an engineer who tells him that robots don't have feelings and that people cannot be trusted, and keeps hurting him. In the Švanda theatre performance, the Man repeatedly zaps the Robot with some kind of electric pulse. === Scene 5: Killer Robot === A Man approaches the Robot and repeatedly asks him to kill him. Instead, the Robot sticks a finger into the Man's anus, which leads to an argument between the Man and the Robot. === Scene 6: Burn Out === The Robot meets a Psychologist, who keeps asking him lots of questions regarding his life, burnout feeling, love, relationships, and emotions. They also talk about the Robot using a device called emotion machine which helps him to get rid of stress. === Scene 7: Search for Job === The Robot comes to an employment agency. He meets an Administrator and asks her to help him find a job. He expresses the wish to become an actor, and talks about his experience as a clown. He reveals his name to be Troy McClure, which is a character from The Simpsons who is an actor. In the Švanda theatre performance, the Administrator starts to seduce the Robot once his name is revealed, which he keeps ignoring; the Administrator then becomes irritated. === Scene 8: Love at First Sight === The Robot meets a human Actress in a robotic costume and falls in love with her immediately. The Actress is first reluctant, but the Robot manages to seduce her and she also falls in love with him. The Robot tells her about a binary world, in which he lives and where he will also take her. Ultimately, the Actress agrees, and the whole play concludes by the Robot and the Actress promising each to other to always be together. In the Švanda theatre performance, the Robot does not have a physical body in this scene, we can only hear his voice and see a pulsating light (based on the line in the script where the Robot says: "I have no body. So I don't need to wear clothes. You can't see me, you only hear me."), and the Actress eventually also agrees to lose her physical body so that she can be with the Robot forever. == Theatrical performances == The play premiered on 26 February 2021 in Švanda Theatre in Prague, Czech Republic, directed by Daniel Hrbek. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the play was not played in front of a live audience, but it was broadcast online, in Czech language with English subtitles. The play was followed by a panel discussion by the project members and experts on artificial intelligence. The premiere was viewed by 13,498 spectators worldwide. A short trailer of the premiere is available on YouTube. In 2021, after the opening of the theatres in the Czech Republic to spectators, the play can be viewed at Švanda Theatre. The performance takes approximately 60 minutes, and is followed by a discussion of the creators with the audience. The derniere is planned for 4 February 2023. == Reception == The play received a number of reviews, both in its country of origin as well as internationally. It is praised as first of its kind, although some reviewers note the similarity to previous works, such as the musical Beyond the Fence, the play Lifestyle of the Richard and Family, or the short movie Sunspring; however, these works used less advanced technology, and either were very short (Sunspring) or necessitated a larger amount of human interventions. The reviewers note that the script is far from perfect, with many inconsistencies and nonsensical parts, and conclude that the technology is definitely not yet ready to replace human authors; however, some find some parts of the script frighteningly human-like. The amount of human intervention is a somewhat controversial topic, with some reviewers finding the human influence too large (especially in interpreting the script and putting the play on scene), while others feel that a greater amount of human intervention would have been favorable as this could greatly improve the quality of the play. The reviews also frequently comment on the amount of sex, violence and strong language in the play; this can be attributed to the method used for creating the script, where the GPT-2 language model reflects topics and language common in the human-written articles on the internet that were used to train the model. Furthermore, some r
Holographic algorithm
In computer science, a holographic algorithm is an algorithm that uses a holographic reduction. A holographic reduction is a constant-time reduction that maps solution fragments many-to-many such that the sum of the solution fragments remains unchanged. These concepts were introduced by Leslie Valiant, who called them holographic because "their effect can be viewed as that of producing interference patterns among the solution fragments". The algorithms are unrelated to laser holography, except metaphorically. Their power comes from the mutual cancellation of many contributions to a sum, analogous to the interference patterns in a hologram. Holographic algorithms have been used to find polynomial-time solutions to problems without such previously known solutions for special cases of satisfiability, vertex cover, and other graph problems. They have received notable coverage due to speculation that they are relevant to the P versus NP problem and their impact on computational complexity theory. Although some of the general problems are #P-hard problems, the special cases solved are not themselves #P-hard, and thus do not prove FP = #P. Holographic algorithms have some similarities with quantum computation, but are completely classical. == Holant problems == Holographic algorithms exist in the context of Holant problems, which generalize counting constraint satisfaction problems (#CSP). A #CSP instance is a hypergraph G=(V,E) called the constraint graph. Each hyperedge represents a variable and each vertex v {\displaystyle v} is assigned a constraint f v . {\displaystyle f_{v}.} A vertex is connected to an hyperedge if the constraint on the vertex involves the variable on the hyperedge. The counting problem is to compute ∑ σ : E → { 0 , 1 } ∏ v ∈ V f v ( σ | E ( v ) ) , ( 1 ) {\displaystyle \sum _{\sigma :E\to \{0,1\}}\prod _{v\in V}f_{v}(\sigma |_{E(v)}),~~~~~~~~~~(1)} which is a sum over all variable assignments, the product of every constraint, where the inputs to the constraint f v {\displaystyle f_{v}} are the variables on the incident hyperedges of v {\displaystyle v} . A Holant problem is like a #CSP except the input must be a graph, not a hypergraph. Restricting the class of input graphs in this way is indeed a generalization. Given a #CSP instance, replace each hyperedge e of size s with a vertex v of degree s with edges incident to the vertices contained in e. The constraint on v is the equality function of arity s. This identifies all of the variables on the edges incident to v, which is the same effect as the single variable on the hyperedge e. In the context of Holant problems, the expression in (1) is called the Holant after a related exponential sum introduced by Valiant. == Holographic reduction == A standard technique in complexity theory is a many-one reduction, where an instance of one problem is reduced to an instance of another (hopefully simpler) problem. However, holographic reductions between two computational problems preserve the sum of solutions without necessarily preserving correspondences between solutions. For instance, the total number of solutions in both sets can be preserved, even though individual problems do not have matching solutions. The sum can also be weighted, rather than simply counting the number of solutions, using linear basis vectors. === General example === It is convenient to consider holographic reductions on bipartite graphs. A general graph can always be transformed it into a bipartite graph while preserving the Holant value. This is done by replacing each edge in the graph by a path of length 2, which is also known as the 2-stretch of the graph. To keep the same Holant value, each new vertex is assigned the binary equality constraint. Consider a bipartite graph G=(U,V,E) where the constraint assigned to every vertex u ∈ U {\displaystyle u\in U} is f u {\displaystyle f_{u}} and the constraint assigned to every vertex v ∈ V {\displaystyle v\in V} is f v {\displaystyle f_{v}} . Denote this counting problem by Holant ( G , f u , f v ) . {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u},f_{v}).} If the vertices in U are viewed as one large vertex of degree |E|, then the constraint of this vertex is the tensor product of f u {\displaystyle f_{u}} with itself |U| times, which is denoted by f u ⊗ | U | . {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}.} Likewise, if the vertices in V are viewed as one large vertex of degree |E|, then the constraint of this vertex is f v ⊗ | V | . {\displaystyle f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}.} Let the constraint f u {\displaystyle f_{u}} be represented by its weighted truth table as a row vector and the constraint f v {\displaystyle f_{v}} be represented by its weighted truth table as a column vector. Then the Holant of this constraint graph is simply f u ⊗ | U | f v ⊗ | V | . {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}.} Now for any complex 2-by-2 invertible matrix T (the columns of which are the linear basis vectors mentioned above), there is a holographic reduction between Holant ( G , f u , f v ) {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u},f_{v})} and Holant ( G , f u T ⊗ ( deg u ) , ( T − 1 ) ⊗ ( deg v ) f v ) . {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u}T^{\otimes (\deg u)},(T^{-1})^{\otimes (\deg v)}f_{v}).} To see this, insert the identity matrix T ⊗ | E | ( T − 1 ) ⊗ | E | {\displaystyle T^{\otimes |E|}(T^{-1})^{\otimes |E|}} in between f u ⊗ | U | f v ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}} to get f u ⊗ | U | f v ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}} = f u ⊗ | U | T ⊗ | E | ( T − 1 ) ⊗ | E | f v ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =f_{u}^{\otimes |U|}T^{\otimes |E|}(T^{-1})^{\otimes |E|}f_{v}^{\otimes |V|}} = ( f u T ⊗ ( deg u ) ) ⊗ | U | ( f v ( T − 1 ) ⊗ ( deg v ) ) ⊗ | V | . {\displaystyle =\left(f_{u}T^{\otimes (\deg u)}\right)^{\otimes |U|}\left(f_{v}(T^{-1})^{\otimes (\deg v)}\right)^{\otimes |V|}.} Thus, Holant ( G , f u , f v ) {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u},f_{v})} and Holant ( G , f u T ⊗ ( deg u ) , ( T − 1 ) ⊗ ( deg v ) f v ) {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(G,f_{u}T^{\otimes (\deg u)},(T^{-1})^{\otimes (\deg v)}f_{v})} have exactly the same Holant value for every constraint graph. They essentially define the same counting problem. === Specific examples === ==== Vertex covers and independent sets ==== Let G be a graph. There is a 1-to-1 correspondence between the vertex covers of G and the independent sets of G. For any set S of vertices of G, S is a vertex cover in G if and only if the complement of S is an independent set in G. Thus, the number of vertex covers in G is exactly the same as the number of independent sets in G. The equivalence of these two counting problems can also be proved using a holographic reduction. For simplicity, let G be a 3-regular graph. The 2-stretch of G gives a bipartite graph H=(U,V,E), where U corresponds to the edges in G and V corresponds to the vertices in G. The Holant problem that naturally corresponds to counting the number of vertex covers in G is Holant ( H , OR 2 , EQUAL 3 ) . {\displaystyle {\text{Holant}}(H,{\text{OR}}_{2},{\text{EQUAL}}_{3}).} The truth table of OR2 as a row vector is (0,1,1,1). The truth table of EQUAL3 as a column vector is ( 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 ) T = [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 {\displaystyle (1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1)^{T}={\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}} . Then under a holographic transformation by [ 0 1 1 0 ] , {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}},} OR 2 ⊗ | U | EQUAL 3 ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle {\text{OR}}_{2}^{\otimes |U|}{\text{EQUAL}}_{3}^{\otimes |V|}} = ( 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) ⊗ | U | ( [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =(0,1,1,1)^{\otimes |U|}\left({\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = ( 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) ⊗ | U | [ 0 1 1 0 ] ⊗ | E | [ 0 1 1 0 ] ⊗ | E | ( [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =(0,1,1,1)^{\otimes |U|}{\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes |E|}{\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes |E|}\left({\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = ( ( 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 ) [ 0 1 1 0 ] ⊗ 2 ) ⊗ | U | ( ( [ 0 1 1 0 ] [ 1 0 ] ) ⊗ 3 + ( [ 0 1 1 0 ] [ 0 1 ] ) ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =\left((0,1,1,1){\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 2}\right)^{\otimes |U|}\left(\left({\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}\right)^{\otimes 3}+\left({\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}\right)^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = ( 1 , 1 , 1 , 0 ) ⊗ | U | ( [ 0 1 ] ⊗ 3 + [ 1 0 ] ⊗ 3 ) ⊗ | V | {\displaystyle =(1,1,1,0)^{\otimes |U|}\left({\begin{bmatrix}0\\1\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}+{\begin{bmatrix}1\\0\end{bmatrix}}^{\otimes 3}\right)^{\otimes |V|}} = NAND 2 ⊗ | U | EQUAL 3 ⊗ | V | , {\displaystyle ={\text{NAND}}_{2}^{\otim
Pwnie Awards
The Pwnie Awards are an annual awards ceremony that recognizes both excellence and incompetence in the field of information security, described by SecurityWeek as an event that "recognizes excellence and mocks incompetence in cybersecurity." Winners are selected by a committee of security industry professionals from nominations collected from the information security community. Nominees are announced yearly at Summercon, and the awards themselves are presented at the Black Hat Security Conference. == Origins == The name Pwnie Award is based on the word "pwn", which is hacker slang meaning to "compromise" or "control" based on the previous usage of the word "own" (and it is pronounced similarly). The name "The Pwnie Awards," pronounced as "Pony," is meant to sound like the Tony Awards, an awards ceremony for Broadway theater in New York City. == History == The Pwnie Awards were founded in 2007 by Alexander Sotirov and Dino Dai Zovi following discussions regarding Dino's discovery of a cross-platform QuickTime vulnerability (CVE-2007-2175) and Alexander's discovery of an ANI file processing vulnerability (CVE-2007-0038) in Internet Explorer. == Winners == === 2024 === Most Epic Fail: Crowdstrike for 2024 CrowdStrike incident Best Mobile Bug: Operation Triangulation Lamest Vendor Response: Xiaomi for obstructing Pwn2Own researchers from using their services Best Cryptographic Attack: GoFetch Best Desktop Bug: forcing realtime WebAudio playback in Chrome (CVE-2023-5996) Best Song: Touch Some Grass by UwU Underground Best Privilege Escalation: Windows Streaming Service UAF (CVE-2024-30089) by Valentina Palmiotti (chompie) Best Remote Code Execution: Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability (CVE-2024-30080) Most Epic Achievement: Discovery and reverse engineering of the XZ Utils backdoor Most Innovative Research: Let the Cache Cache and Let the WebAssembly Assemble: Knocking’ on Chrome’s Shell by Edouard Bochin, Tao Yan, and Bo Qu Most Underhyped Research: See No Eval: Runtime Dynamic Code Execution in Objective-C === 2023 === Best Desktop Bug: CountExposure! by RyeLv(@b2ahex) Best Cryptographic Attack: Video-based cryptanalysis: Extracting Cryptographic Keys from Video Footage of a Device’s Power LED by Ben Nassi, Etay Iluz, Or Cohen, Ofek Vayner, Dudi Nassi, Boris Zadov, Yuval Elovici Best Song: Clickin’ Most Innovative Research: Inside Apple’s Lightning: Jtagging the iPhone for Fuzzing and Profit Most Under-Hyped Research: Activation Context Cache Poisoning Best Privilege Escalation Bug: URB Excalibur: Slicing Through the Gordian Knot of VMware VM Escapes Best Remote Code Execution Bug: ClamAV RCE Lamest Vendor Response: Three Lessons From Threema: Analysis of a Secure Messenger Most Epic Fail: “Holy fucking bingle, we have the no fly list,” Epic Achievement: Clement Lecigne: 0-days hunter world champion Lifetime Achievement Award: Mudge === 2022 === Lamest Vendor Response: Google's "TAG" response team for "unilaterally shutting down a counterterrorism operation." Epic Achievement: Yuki Chen’s Windows Server-Side RCE Bugs Most Epic Fail: HackerOne Employee Caught Stealing Vulnerability Reports for Personal Gains Best Desktop Bug: Pietro Borrello, Andreas Kogler, Martin Schwarzl, Moritz Lipp, Daniel Gruss, Michael Schwarz for Architecturally Leaking Data from the Microarchitecture Most Innovative Research: Pietro Borrello, Martin Schwarzl, Moritz Lipp, Daniel Gruss, Michael Schwarz for Custom Processing Unit: Tracing and Patching Intel Atom Microcode Best Cryptographic Attack: Hertzbleed: Turning Power Side-Channel Attacks Into Remote Timing Attacks on x86 by Yingchen Wang, Riccardo Paccagnella, Elizabeth Tang He, Hovav Shacham, Christopher Fletcher, David Kohlbrenner Best Remote Code Execution Bug: KunlunLab for Windows RPC Runtime Remote Code Execution (CVE-2022-26809) Best Privilege Escalation Bug: Qidan He of Dawnslab, for Mystique in the House: The Droid Vulnerability Chain That Owns All Your Userspace Best Mobile Bug: FORCEDENTRY Most Under-Hyped Research: Yannay Livneh for Spoofing IP with IPIP Best Song: Dialed Up by Project Mammoth === 2021 === Lamest Vendor Response: Cellebrite, for their response to Moxie, the creator of Signal, reverse-engineering their UFED and accompanying software and reporting a discovered exploit. Epic Achievement: Ilfak Guilfanov, in honor of IDA's 30th Anniversary. Best Privilege Escalation Bug: Baron Samedit of Qualys, for the discovery of a 10-year-old exploit in sudo. Best Song: The Ransomware Song by Forrest Brazeal Best Server-Side Bug: Orange Tsai, for his Microsoft Exchange Server ProxyLogon attack surface discoveries. Best Cryptographic Attack: The NSA for its disclosure of a bug in the verification of signatures in Windows which breaks the certificate trust chain. Most Innovative Research: Enes Göktaş, Kaveh Razavi, Georgios Portokalidis, Herbert Bos, and Cristiano Giuffrida at VUSec for their research on the "BlindSide" Attack. Most Epic Fail: Microsoft, for their failure to fix PrintNightmare. Best Client-Side Bug: Gunnar Alendal's discovery of a buffer overflow on the Samsung Galaxy S20's secure chip. Most Under-Hyped Research: The Qualys Research Team for 21Nails, 21 vulnerabilities in Exim, the Internet's most popular mail server. === 2020 === Best Server-Side Bug: BraveStarr (CVE-2020-10188) – A Fedora 31 netkit telnetd remote exploit (Ronald Huizer') Best Privilege Escalation Bug: checkm8 – A permanent unpatchable USB bootrom exploit for a billion iOS devices. (axi0mX) Epic Achievement: "Remotely Rooting Modern Android Devices" (Guang Gong) Best Cryptographic Attack: Zerologon vulnerability (Tom Tervoort, CVE-2020-1472) Best Client-Side Bug: RCE on Samsung Phones via MMS (CVE-2020-8899 and -16747), a zero click remote execution attack. (Mateusz Jurczyk) Most Under-Hyped Research: Vulnerabilities in System Management Mode (SMM) and Trusted Execution Technology (TXT) (CVE-2019-0151 and -0152) (Gabriel Negreira Barbosa, Rodrigo Rubira Branco, Joe Cihula) Most Innovative Research: TRRespass: When Memory Vendors Tell You Their Chips Are Rowhammer-free, They Are Not. (Pietro Frigo, Emanuele Vannacci, Hasan Hassan, Victor van der Veen, Onur Mutlu, Cristiano Giuffrida, Herbert Bos, Kaveh Razavi) Most Epic Fail: Microsoft; for the implementation of Elliptic-curve signatures which allowed attackers to generate private pairs for public keys of any signer, allowing HTTPS and signed binary spoofing. (CVE-2020-0601) Best Song: Powertrace by Rebekka Aigner, Daniel Gruss, Manuel Weber, Moritz Lipp, Patrick Radkohl, Andreas Kogler, Maria Eichlseder, ElTonno, tunefish, Yuki and Kater Lamest Vendor Response: Daniel J. Bernstein (CVE-2005-1513) === 2019 === Best Server-Side Bug: Orange Tsai and Meh Chang, for their SSL VPN research. Most Innovative Research: Vectorized Emulation Brandon Falk Best Cryptographic Attack: \m/ Dr4g0nbl00d \m/ Mathy Vanhoef, Eyal Ronen Lamest Vendor Response: Bitfi Most Over-hyped Bug: Allegations of Supermicro hardware backdoors, Bloomberg Most Under-hyped Bug: Thrangrycat, (Jatin Kataria, Red Balloon Security) === 2018 === Most Innovative Research: Spectre/Meltdown (Paul Kocher, Jann Horn, Anders Fogh, Daniel Genkin, Daniel Gruss, Werner Haas, Mike Hamburg, Moritz Lipp, Stefan Mangard, Thomas Prescher, Michael Schwarz, Yuval Yarom) Best Privilege Escalation Bug: Spectre/Meltdown (Paul Kocher, Jann Horn, Anders Fogh, Daniel Genkin, Daniel Gruss, Werner Haas, Mike Hamburg, Moritz Lipp, Stefan Mangard, Thomas Prescher, Michael Schwarz, Yuval Yarom) Lifetime Achievement: Michał Zalewski Best Cryptographic Attack: ROBOT - Return Of Bleichenbacher’s Oracle Threat Hanno Böck, Juraj Somorovsky, Craig Young Lamest Vendor Response: Bitfi hardware crypto-wallet, after the "unhackable" device was hacked to extract the keys required to steal coins and rooted to play Doom. === 2017 === Epic Achievement: Federico Bento for Finally getting TIOCSTI ioctl attack fixed Most Innovative Research: ASLR on the line Ben Gras, Kaveh Razavi, Erik Bosman, Herbert Bos, Cristiano Giuffrida Best Privilege Escalation Bug: DRAMMER Victor van der Veen, Yanick Fratantonio, Martina Lindorfer, Daniel Gruss, Clementine Maurice, Giovanni Vigna, Herbert Bos, Kaveh Razavi, Cristiano Giuffrida Best Cryptographic Attack: The first collision for full SHA-1 Marc Stevens, Elie Bursztein, Pierre Karpman, Ange Albertini, Yarik Markov Lamest Vendor Response: Lennart Poettering - for mishandling security vulnerabilities most spectacularly for multiple critical Systemd bugs Best Song: Hello (From the Other Side) - Manuel Weber, Michael Schwarz, Daniel Gruss, Moritz Lipp, Rebekka Aigner === 2016 === Most Innovative Research: Dedup Est Machina: Memory Deduplication as an Advanced Exploitation Vector Erik Bosman, Kaveh Razavi, Herbert Bos, Cristiano Giuffrida Lifetime Achievement: Peiter Zatko aka Mudge Best Cryptographic Attack: DROWN attack Nimrod Aviram et al. Best Song: Cyberlier - Katie Mous
Concordance (publishing)
A concordance is an alphabetical list of the principal words used in a book or body of work, listing every instance of each word with its immediate context. Historically, concordances have been compiled only for works of special importance, such as the Vedas, Bible, Qur'an or the works of Shakespeare, James Joyce or classical Latin and Greek authors, because of the time, difficulty, and expense involved in creating a concordance in the pre-computer era. A concordance is more than an index, with additional material such as commentary, definitions and topical cross-indexing which makes producing one a labor-intensive process even when assisted by computers. In the precomputing era, search technology was unavailable, and a concordance offered readers of long works such as the Bible something comparable to search results for every word that they would have been likely to search for. Today, the ability to combine the result of queries concerning multiple terms (such as searching for words near other words) has reduced interest in concordance publishing. In addition, mathematical techniques such as latent semantic indexing have been proposed as a means of automatically identifying linguistic information based on word context. A bilingual concordance is a concordance based on aligned parallel text. A topical concordance is a list of subjects that a book covers (usually The Bible), with the immediate context of the coverage of those subjects. Unlike a traditional concordance, the indexed word does not have to appear in the verse. The best-known topical concordance is Nave's Topical Bible. The first Bible concordance was compiled for the Vulgate Bible by Hugh of St Cher (d.1262), who employed 500 friars to assist him. In 1448, Rabbi Mordecai Nathan completed a concordance to the Hebrew Bible. It took him ten years. A concordance to the Greek New Testament was published in 1546 by Sixt Birck, and the Septuagint was done a by Conrad Kircher in 1602. The first concordance to the English Bible was published in 1550 by John Merbecke. According to Cruden, it did not employ the verse numbers devised by Robert Stephens in 1545, but "the pretty large concordance" of Mr Cotton did. Then followed Cruden's Concordance and Strong's Concordance. == Use in linguistics == Concordances are frequently used in linguistics, when studying a text. For example: comparing different usages of the same word analysing keywords analysing word frequencies finding and analysing phrases and idioms finding translations of subsentential elements, e.g. terminology, in bitexts and translation memories creating indexes and word lists (also useful for publishing) Concordancing techniques are widely used in national text corpora such as American National Corpus (ANC), British National Corpus (BNC), and Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) available on-line. Stand-alone applications that employ concordancing techniques are known as concordancers or more advanced corpus managers. Some of them have integrated part-of-speech taggers (POS taggers) and enable the user to create their own POS-annotated corpora to conduct various types of searches adopted in corpus linguistics. == Inversion == The reconstruction of the text of some of the Dead Sea Scrolls involved a concordance. Access to some of the scrolls was governed by a "secrecy rule" that allowed only the original International Team or their designates to view the original materials. After the death of Roland de Vaux in 1971, his successors repeatedly refused to even allow the publication of photographs to other scholars. This restriction was circumvented by Martin Abegg in 1991, who used a computer to "invert" a concordance of the missing documents made in the 1950s which had come into the hands of scholars outside of the International Team, to obtain an approximate reconstruction of the original text of 17 of the documents. This was soon followed by the release of the original text of the scrolls.