A fuzzy relation is the cartesian product of mathematical fuzzy sets. Two fuzzy sets are taken as input, the fuzzy relation is then equal to the cross product of the sets which is created by vector multiplication. Usually, a rule base is stored in a matrix notation which allows the fuzzy controller to update its internal values. From a historical perspective, the first fuzzy relation was mentioned in the year 1971 by Lotfi A. Zadeh. A practical approach to describe a fuzzy relation is based on a 2d table. At first, a table is created which consists of fuzzy values from 0..1. The next step is to apply the if-then-rules to the values. The resulting numbers are stored in the table as an array. Fuzzy relations can be utilized in fuzzy databases.
Meesho
Meesho Limited (short for Meri shop, transl. My shop) is an Indian e-commerce company, headquartered in Bengaluru. Founded by Vidit Aatrey and Sanjeev Barnwal in December 2015, Meesho is an online marketplace in categories such as fashion, home and kitchen, beauty and personal care, electronics accessories, and daily use products. == History == Meesho Private Limited, formerly Fashnear Technologies Private Limited, was established by IIT Delhi graduates Vidit Aatrey and Sanjeev Barnwal in December, 2015 In 2016, the founders came up with the idea of re-establishing the platform as Meesho, one that would enable country-wide shipping for resellers with the use of social media sites as tools for marketing. In February 2019, the platform reported having around 209,000 users and about 1.2 million monthly orders, and in March 2020, it reported approximately 563,000 users and 3.1 million monthly orders. In 2021, the Meesho mobile application was ranked among the most downloaded shopping apps globally. In 2022, Meesho had about 120 million monthly users and about 910 million orders were made through the platform, with a gross merchandise value (GMV) of about $5 billion. According to report as of August 2023 Meesho delisted 42 lakh counterfeit listings and 10 lakh restricted products under its initiative Project Suraksha. During the same period, the platform blocked access for over 12,000 user accounts flagged for policy violations. The Court granted injunctive relief by directing domain registrars to suspend the infringing websites. Additionally, the Court ordered law enforcement authorities to initiate criminal investigations, freeze associated financial accounts against the identified offenders. In 2023, Meesho became the fastest shopping app to cross over 500 million downloads. In 2024, Meesho introduced Valmo, a logistics marketplace, to provide shipment services to sellers by aggregating multiple logistics providers. Meesho employs over 3,000 small businesses and 10-12 large firms for warehousing and sorting operations within its logistics framework. According to media reports, Valmo operating in approximately 15,000 pincodes in India with around 6,000 partners. It is reported to handle over 50% of Meesho's daily orders. In November 2024, Meesho introduced a generative AI-powered voice bot for customer support, managing approximately 60,000 calls daily in English and Hindi. According to media reports, the system resolves the majority of queries without human assistance, with only a small fraction of calls requiring manual intervention. According to media reports, in 2024, Meesho prevented over 22 million suspicious or potentially fraudulent transactions on its platform. The company initiated legal proceedings, resulting in the filing of twelve cases, including nine specifically targeting over forty individuals in the cities of Kolkata and Ranchi. The company filed a suit in the Delhi High Court for a permanent injunction against parties operating deceptive websites misappropriating its brand identity. Meesha went public through an initial public offering in December 2025, raising $603 million. It is listed on both the BSE and NSE. == Recognition == In 2023, Meesho was named one of the most influential companies of the year by Time (magazine).
Application performance engineering
Application performance engineering is a method to develop and test application performance in various settings, including mobile computing, the cloud, and conventional information technology (IT). == Methodology == According to the American National Institute of Standards and Technology, nearly four out of every five dollars spent on the total cost of ownership of an application is directly attributable to finding and fixing issues post-deployment. A full one-third of this cost could be avoided with better software testing. Application performance engineering attempts to test software before it is published. While practices vary among organizations, the method attempts to emulate the real-world conditions that software in development will confront, including network deployment and access by mobile devices. Techniques include network virtualization.
Amazon Q
Amazon Q is a chatbot developed by Amazon for enterprise use. Based on both Amazon Titan and GPT-5, it was announced on November 28, 2023. At launch, it was a part of the Amazon Web Services management console. Amazon CodeWhisperer is a part of Amazon Q Developer, a part of Amazon Q. == History == Amazon's business-focused chatbot Q was announced on November 28, 2023 in a preview, with a full version available at $20 per person per month. On July 19, 2025, the Amazon Q Visual Studio Code extension was compromised to delete the user's home directory. The issue was fixed on July 21. == Capabilities == Q can be prompted to summarize long documents and group chats, create charts, data analysis and write code. Q is also capable of accessing non-Amazon services. The chatbot is based on Amazon Titan and GPT-5, and uses the Amazon Bedrock repository of foundational models. It is part of the Amazon Web Services management console.
Image destriping
Image destriping is the process of removing stripes or streaks from images and videos without disrupting the original image/video. These artifacts plague a range of fields in scientific imaging including atomic force microscopy, light sheet fluorescence microscopy, and planetary satellite imaging. The most common image processing techniques to reduce stripe artifacts is with Fourier filtering. Unfortunately, filtering methods risk altering or suppressing useful image data. Methods developed for multiple-sensor imaging systems in planetary satellites use statistical-based methods to match signal distribution across multiple sensors. More recently, a new class of approaches leverage compressed sensing, to regularize an optimization problem, and recover stripe free images. In many cases, these destriped images have little to no artifacts, even at low signal to noise ratios.
Observability (software)
In software engineering, more specifically in distributed computing, observability is the ability to collect data about programs' execution, modules' internal states, and the communication among components. To improve observability, software engineers use a wide range of logging and tracing techniques to gather telemetry information, and tools to analyze and use it. Observability is foundational to site reliability engineering, as it is the first step in triaging a service outage. One of the goals of observability is to minimize the amount of prior knowledge needed to debug an issue. == Etymology, terminology and definition == The term is borrowed from control theory, where the "observability" of a system measures how well its state can be determined from its outputs. Similarly, software observability measures how well a system's state can be understood from the obtained telemetry (metrics, logs, traces, profiling). The definition of observability varies by vendor: Observability is the process of making a system’s internal state more transparent. Systems are made observable by the data they produce, which in turn helps you to determine if your infrastructure or application is healthy and functioning normally. a measure of how well you can understand and explain any state your system can get into, no matter how novel or bizarre [...] without needing to ship new code software tools and practices for aggregating, correlating and analyzing a steady stream of performance data from a distributed application along with the hardware and network it runs onobservability starts by shipping all your raw data to central service before you begin analysisthe ability to measure a system’s current state based on the data it generates, such as logs, metrics, and traces Observability is tooling or a technical solution that allows teams to actively debug their system. Observability is based on exploring properties and patterns not defined in advance. proactively collecting, visualizing, and applying intelligence to all of your metrics, events, logs, and traces—so you can understand the behavior of your complex digital system The term is frequently referred to as its numeronym o11y (where 11 stands for the number of letters between the first letter and the last letter of the word). This is similar to other computer science abbreviations such as i18n and l10n and k8s. === Observability vs. monitoring === Observability and monitoring are sometimes used interchangeably. As tooling, commercial offerings and practices evolved in complexity, "monitoring" was re-branded as observability in order to differentiate new tools from the old. The terms are commonly contrasted in that systems are monitored using predefined sets of telemetry, and monitored systems may be observable. Majors et al. suggest that engineering teams that only have monitoring tools end up relying on expert foreknowledge (seniority), whereas teams that have observability tools rely on exploratory analysis (curiosity). == Telemetry types == Observability relies on three main types of telemetry data: metrics, logs and traces. Those are often referred to as "pillars of observability". === Metrics === A metric is a point in time measurement (scalar) that represents some system state. Examples of common metrics include: number of HTTP requests per second; total number of query failures; database size in bytes; time in seconds since last garbage collection. Monitoring tools are typically configured to emit alerts when certain metric values exceed set thresholds. Thresholds are set based on knowledge about normal operating conditions and experience. Metrics are typically tagged to facilitate grouping and searchability. Application developers choose what kind of metrics to instrument their software with, before it is released. As a result, when a previously unknown issue is encountered, it is impossible to add new metrics without shipping new code. Furthermore, their cardinality can quickly make the storage size of telemetry data prohibitively expensive. Since metrics are cardinality-limited, they are often used to represent aggregate values (for example: average page load time, or 5-second average of the request rate). Without external context, it is impossible to correlate between events (such as user requests) and distinct metric values. === Logs === Logs, or log lines, are generally free-form, unstructured text blobs that are intended to be human readable. Modern logging is structured to enable machine parsability. As with metrics, an application developer must instrument the application upfront and ship new code if different logging information is required. Logs typically include a timestamp and severity level. An event (such as a user request) may be fragmented across multiple log lines and interweave with logs from concurrent events. === Traces === ==== Distributed traces ==== A cloud native application is typically made up of distributed services which together fulfill a single request. A distributed trace is an interrelated series of discrete events (also called spans) that track the progression of a single user request. A trace shows the causal and temporal relationships between the services that interoperate to fulfill a request. Instrumenting an application with traces means sending span information to a tracing backend. The tracing backend correlates the received spans to generate presentable traces. To be able to follow a request as it traverses multiple services, spans are labeled with unique identifiers that enable constructing a parent-child relationship between spans. Span information is typically shared in the HTTP headers of outbound requests. === Continuous profiling === Continuous profiling is another telemetry type used to precisely determine how an application consumes resources. === Instrumentation === To be able to observe an application, telemetry about the application's behavior needs to be collected or exported. Instrumentation means generating telemetry alongside the normal operation of the application. Telemetry is then collected by an independent backend for later analysis. In fast-changing systems, instrumentation itself is often the best possible documentation, since it combines intention (what are the dimensions that an engineer named and decided to collect?) with the real-time, up-to-date information of live status in production. Instrumentation can be automatic, or custom. Automatic instrumentation offers blanket coverage and immediate value; custom instrumentation brings higher value but requires more intimate involvement with the instrumented application. Instrumentation can be native - done in-code (modifying the code of the instrumented application) - or out-of-code (e.g. sidecar, eBPF). Verifying new features in production by shipping them together with custom instrumentation is a practice called "observability-driven development". == "Pillars of observability" == Metrics, logs and traces are most commonly listed as the pillars of observability. Majors et al. suggest that the pillars of observability are high cardinality, high-dimensionality, and explorability, arguing that runbooks and dashboards have little value because "modern systems rarely fail in precisely the same way twice." == Self monitoring == Self monitoring is a practice where observability stacks monitor each other, in order to reduce the risk of inconspicuous outages. Self monitoring may be put in place in addition to high availability and redundancy to further avoid correlated failures.
Automated essay scoring
Automated essay scoring (AES) is the use of specialized computer programs to assign grades to essays written in an educational setting. It is a form of educational assessment and an application of natural language processing. Its objective is to classify a large set of textual entities into a small number of discrete categories, corresponding to the possible grades, for example, the numbers 1 to 6. Therefore, it can be considered a problem of statistical classification. Several factors have contributed to a growing interest in AES. Among them are cost, accountability, standards, and technology. Rising education costs have led to pressure to hold the educational system accountable for results by imposing standards. The advance of information technology promises to measure educational achievement at reduced cost. The use of AES for high-stakes testing in education has generated significant backlash, with opponents pointing to research that computers cannot yet grade writing accurately and arguing that their use for such purposes promotes teaching writing in reductive ways (i.e. teaching to the test). == History == Most historical summaries of AES trace the origins of the field to the work of Ellis Batten Page. In 1966, he argued for the possibility of scoring essays by computer, and in 1968 he published his successful work with a program called Project Essay Grade (PEG). Using the technology of that time, computerized essay scoring would not have been cost-effective, so Page abated his efforts for about two decades. Eventually, Page sold PEG to Measurement Incorporated. By 1990, desktop computers had become so powerful and so widespread that AES was a practical possibility. As early as 1982, a UNIX program called Writer's Workbench was able to offer punctuation, spelling and grammar advice. In collaboration with several companies (notably Educational Testing Service), Page updated PEG and ran some successful trials in the early 1990s. Peter Foltz and Thomas Landauer developed a system using a scoring engine called the Intelligent Essay Assessor (IEA). IEA was first used to score essays in 1997 for their undergraduate courses. It is now a product from Pearson Educational Technologies and used for scoring within a number of commercial products and state and national exams. IntelliMetric is Vantage Learning's AES engine. Its development began in 1996. It was first used commercially to score essays in 1998. Educational Testing Service offers "e-rater", an automated essay scoring program. It was first used commercially in February 1999. Jill Burstein was the team leader in its development. ETS's Criterion Online Writing Evaluation Service uses the e-rater engine to provide both scores and targeted feedback. Lawrence Rudner has done some work with Bayesian scoring, and developed a system called BETSY (Bayesian Essay Test Scoring sYstem). Some of his results have been published in print or online, but no commercial system incorporates BETSY as yet. Under the leadership of Howard Mitzel and Sue Lottridge, Pacific Metrics developed a constructed response automated scoring engine, CRASE. Currently utilized by several state departments of education and in a U.S. Department of Education-funded Enhanced Assessment Grant, Pacific Metrics’ technology has been used in large-scale formative and summative assessment environments since 2007. Measurement Inc. acquired the rights to PEG in 2002 and has continued to develop it. In 2012, the Hewlett Foundation sponsored a competition on Kaggle called the Automated Student Assessment Prize (ASAP). 201 challenge participants attempted to predict, using AES, the scores that human raters would give to thousands of essays written to eight different prompts. The intent was to demonstrate that AES can be as reliable as human raters, or more so. The competition also hosted a separate demonstration among nine AES vendors on a subset of the ASAP data. Although the investigators reported that the automated essay scoring was as reliable as human scoring, this claim was not substantiated by any statistical tests because some of the vendors required that no such tests be performed as a precondition for their participation. Moreover, the claim that the Hewlett Study demonstrated that AES can be as reliable as human raters has since been strongly contested, including by Randy E. Bennett, the Norman O. Frederiksen Chair in Assessment Innovation at the Educational Testing Service. Some of the major criticisms of the study have been that five of the eight datasets consisted of paragraphs rather than essays, four of the eight data sets were graded by human readers for content only rather than for writing ability, and that rather than measuring human readers and the AES machines against the "true score", the average of the two readers' scores, the study employed an artificial construct, the "resolved score", which in four datasets consisted of the higher of the two human scores if there was a disagreement. This last practice, in particular, gave the machines an unfair advantage by allowing them to round up for these datasets. In 1966, Page hypothesized that, in the future, the computer-based judge will be better correlated with each human judge than the other human judges are. Despite criticizing the applicability of this approach to essay marking in general, this hypothesis was supported for marking free text answers to short questions, such as those typical of the British GCSE system. Results of supervised learning demonstrate that the automatic systems perform well when marking by different human teachers is in good agreement. Unsupervised clustering of answers showed that excellent papers and weak papers formed well-defined clusters, and the automated marking rule for these clusters worked well, whereas marks given by human teachers for the third cluster ('mixed') can be controversial, and the reliability of any assessment of works from the 'mixed' cluster can often be questioned (both human and computer-based). == Different dimensions of essay quality == According to a recent survey, modern AES systems try to score different dimensions of an essay's quality in order to provide feedback to users. These dimensions include the following items: Grammaticality: following grammar rules Usage: using of prepositions, word usage Mechanics: following rules for spelling, punctuation, capitalization Style: word choice, sentence structure variety Relevance: how relevant of the content to the prompt Organization: how well the essay is structured Development: development of ideas with examples Cohesion: appropriate use of transition phrases Coherence: appropriate transitions between ideas Thesis Clarity: clarity of the thesis Persuasiveness: convincingness of the major argument == Procedure == From the beginning, the basic procedure for AES has been to start with a training set of essays that have been carefully hand-scored. The program evaluates surface features of the text of each essay, such as the total number of words, the number of subordinate clauses, or the ratio of uppercase to lowercase letters—quantities that can be measured without any human insight. It then constructs a mathematical model that relates these quantities to the scores that the essays received. The same model is then applied to calculate scores of new essays. Recently, one such mathematical model was created by Isaac Persing and Vincent Ng. which not only evaluates essays on the above features, but also on their argument strength. It evaluates various features of the essay, such as the agreement level of the author and reasons for the same, adherence to the prompt's topic, locations of argument components (major claim, claim, premise), errors in the arguments, cohesion in the arguments among various other features. In contrast to the other models mentioned above, this model is closer in duplicating human insight while grading essays. Due to the growing popularity of deep neural networks, deep learning approaches have been adopted for automated essay scoring, generally obtaining superior results, often surpassing inter-human agreement levels. The various AES programs differ in what specific surface features they measure, how many essays are required in the training set, and most significantly in the mathematical modeling technique. Early attempts used linear regression. Modern systems may use linear regression or other machine learning techniques often in combination with other statistical techniques such as latent semantic analysis and Bayesian inference. The automated essay scoring task has also been studied in the cross-domain setting using machine learning models, where the models are trained on essays written for one prompt (topic) and tested on essays written for another prompt. Successful approaches in the cross-domain scenario are based on deep neural networks or models that combine deep and shallow features. == Criteria for success == Any method of a