MetaMask is a software cryptocurrency wallet developed by ConsenSys for interacting with the Ethereum blockchain and other EVM-compatible networks. It enables users to manage Ethereum accounts and connect to decentralized applications (dApps) via a browser extension or mobile app. As of early 2026, MetaMask reports over 100 million users worldwide. == Overview == MetaMask allows users to store and manage private keys, send and receive Ethereum-based cryptocurrencies and tokens (including ERC-20 and ERC-721 standards), broadcast transactions, and interact with dApps. dApps connect to the wallet via JavaScript interfaces, prompting users to approve signatures or transactions. The wallet features MetaMask Swaps, an in-app token swap aggregator sourcing liquidity from multiple decentralized exchanges (DEXs), with a service fee of 0.875%. In 2025, MetaMask introduced the MetaMask Rewards program (initially mobile-only), where users earn points for activities such as swaps, bridging, and referrals. Season 1 (October 2025 – January 2026) distributed over $30 million in Linea tokens and other perks to participants. == History == MetaMask launched in 2016 as open-source software under the MIT license. It initially supported browser extensions for Chrome and Firefox. Mobile versions were in closed beta from 2019 and publicly released for iOS and Android in September 2020. In August 2020, the license changed to a custom proprietary one. MetaMask Swaps launched on desktop in October 2020 and on mobile in March 2021. The Rewards program launched in late 2025 with Linea integration. == Criticism == MetaMask has faced criticism over privacy, including default analytics settings that share some user data (which can be disabled). Its reliance on Infura (acquired by ConsenSys in 2019) has raised concerns about centralization in Ethereum infrastructure. The wallet regularly issues warnings about phishing scams and fake airdrops impersonating MetaMask.
Principle of rationality
The principle of rationality (or rationality principle) was coined by Karl R. Popper in his Harvard Lecture of 1963, and published in his book Myth of Framework. It is related to what he called the 'logic of the situation' in an Economica article of 1944/1945, published later in his book The Poverty of Historicism. According to Popper's rationality principle, agents act in the most adequate way according to the objective situation. It is an idealized conception of human behavior which he used to drive his model of situational analysis. Cognitive scientist Allen Newell elaborated on the principle in his account of knowledge level modeling. == Popper == Popper called for social science to be grounded in what he called situational analysis or situational logic. This requires building models of social situations which include individual actors and their relationship to social institutions, e.g. markets, legal codes, bureaucracies, etc. These models attribute certain aims and information to the actors. This forms the 'logic of the situation', the result of reconstructing meticulously all circumstances of an historical event. The 'principle of rationality' is the assumption that people are instrumental in trying to reach their goals, and this is what drives the model. Popper believed that this model could be continuously refined to approach the objective truth. Popper called his principle of rationality nearly empty (a technical term meaning without empirical content) and strictly speaking false, but nonetheless tremendously useful. These remarks earned him a lot of criticism because seemingly he had swerved from his famous Logic of Scientific Discovery. Among the many philosophers having discussed Popper's principle of rationality from the 1960s up to now are Noretta Koertge, R. Nadeau, Viktor J. Vanberg, Hans Albert, E. Matzner, Ian C. Jarvie, Mark A. Notturno, John Wettersten, Ian C. Böhm. == Newell == In the context of knowledge-based systems, Newell (in 1982) proposed the following principle of rationality: "If an agent has knowledge that one of its actions will lead to one of its goals, then the agent will select that action." This principle is employed by agents at the knowledge level to move closer to a desired goal. An important philosophical difference between Newell and Popper is that Newell argued that the knowledge level is real in the sense that it exists in nature and is not made up. This allowed Newell to treat the rationality principle as a way of understanding nature and avoid the problems Popper ran into by treating knowledge as non physical and therefore non empirical.
Gaussian process emulator
In statistics, Gaussian process emulator is one name for a general type of statistical model that has been used in contexts where the problem is to make maximum use of the outputs of a complicated (often non-random) computer-based simulation model. Each run of the simulation model is computationally expensive and each run is based on many different controlling inputs. The variation of the outputs of the simulation model is expected to vary reasonably smoothly with the inputs, but in an unknown way. The overall analysis involves two models: the simulation model, or "simulator", and the statistical model, or "emulator", which notionally emulates the unknown outputs from the simulator. The Gaussian process emulator model treats the problem from the viewpoint of Bayesian statistics. In this approach, even though the output of the simulation model is fixed for any given set of inputs, the actual outputs are unknown unless the computer model is run and hence can be made the subject of a Bayesian analysis. The main element of the Gaussian process emulator model is that it models the outputs as a Gaussian process on a space that is defined by the model inputs. The model includes a description of the correlation or covariance of the outputs, which enables the model to encompass the idea that differences in the output will be small if there are only small differences in the inputs.
Sammon mapping
Sammon mapping or Sammon projection is an algorithm that maps a high-dimensional space to a space of lower dimensionality (see multidimensional scaling) by trying to preserve the structure of inter-point distances in high-dimensional space in the lower-dimension projection. It is particularly suited for use in exploratory data analysis. The method was proposed by John W. Sammon in 1969. It is considered a non-linear approach as the mapping cannot be represented as a linear combination of the original variables as possible in techniques such as principal component analysis, which also makes it more difficult to use for classification applications. Denote the distance between ith and jth objects in the original space by d i j ∗ {\displaystyle \scriptstyle d_{ij}^{}} , and the distance between their projections by d i j {\displaystyle \scriptstyle d_{ij}^{}} . Sammon's mapping aims to minimize the following error function, which is often referred to as Sammon's stress or Sammon's error: E = 1 ∑ i < j d i j ∗ ∑ i < j ( d i j ∗ − d i j ) 2 d i j ∗ . {\displaystyle E={\frac {1}{\sum \limits _{i geWorkbench (genomics Workbench) is an open-source software platform for integrated genomic data analysis. It is a desktop application written in the programming language Java. geWorkbench uses a component architecture. As of 2016, there are more than 70 plug-ins available, providing for the visualization and analysis of gene expression, sequence, and structure data. geWorkbench is the Bioinformatics platform of MAGNet, the National Center for the Multi-scale Analysis of Genomic and Cellular Networks, one of the 8 National Centers for Biomedical Computing funded through the NIH Roadmap (NIH Common Fund). Many systems and structure biology tools developed by MAGNet investigators are available as geWorkbench plugins. == Features == Computational analysis tools such as t-test, hierarchical clustering, self-organizing maps, regulatory network reconstruction, BLAST searches, pattern-motif discovery, protein structure prediction, structure-based protein annotation, etc. Visualization of gene expression (heatmaps, volcano plot), molecular interaction networks (through Cytoscape), protein sequence and protein structure data (e.g., MarkUs). Integration of gene and pathway annotation information from curated sources as well as through Gene Ontology enrichment analysis. Component integration through platform management of inputs and outputs. Among data that can be shared between components are expression datasets, interaction networks, sample and marker (gene) sets and sequences. Dataset history tracking - complete record of data sets used and input settings. Integration with 3rd party tools such as GenePattern, Cytoscape, and Genomespace. Demonstrations of each feature described can be found at GeWorkbench-web Tutorials. == Versions == geWorkbench is open-source software that can be downloaded and installed locally. A zip file of the released version Java source is also available. Prepackaged installer versions also exist for Windows, Macintosh, and Linux. A document-oriented database, or document store, is a computer program and data storage system designed for storing, retrieving, and managing document-oriented information, also known as semi-structured data. Document-oriented databases are one of the main categories of NoSQL databases, and the popularity of the term "document-oriented database" has grown alongside the adoption of NoSQL itself. XML databases are a subclass of document-oriented databases optimized for XML documents. Graph databases are similar, but add another layer, the relationship, which allows them to link documents for rapid traversal. Document-oriented databases are conceptually an extension of the key–value store, another type of NoSQL database. In key-value stores, data is treated as opaque by the database, whereas document-oriented systems exploit the internal structure of documents to extract metadata and optimize storage and queries. Although in practice the distinction can be minimal due to modern tooling, document stores are designed to provide a richer programming experience with modern programming techniques. Document databases differ significantly from traditional relational databases (RDBs). Relational databases store data in predefined tables, often requiring an object to be split across multiple tables. In contrast, document databases store all information for a given object in a single document, with each document potentially having a unique structure. This design eliminates the need for object-relational mapping when loading data into the database. == Documents == The central concept of a document-oriented database is the notion of a document. Although implementations vary in their specific definitions, document-oriented databases generally treat documents as self-contained units that encapsulate and encode data in a standardized format. Common encoding formats include XML, YAML, JSON, as well as binary representations such as BSON. Documents in a document store are equivalent to the programming concept of an object. They are not required to adhere to a fixed schema, and documents within the same collection may contain different fields or structures. Fields may be optional, and documents of the same logical type may differ in composition. For example, the following illustrates a document encoded in JSON: A second document might be encoded in XML as: The two example documents share some structural elements but also contain unique fields. The structure, text, and other data within each document are collectively referred to as the document's content and can be accessed or modified using retrieval or editing operations. Unlike relational databases, in which each record contains the same fields and unused fields are left empty, document-oriented databases do not require uniform fields across documents. This design allows new information to be added to some documents without affecting the structure of others. Document databases often support the storage of additional metadata alongside the document content. Such metadata may relate to organizational features, security, indexing, or other implementation-specific features. === CRUD operations === The core operations supported by a document-oriented database for manipulating documents are similar to those in other databases. Although terminology is not perfectly standardized, these operations are generally recognized as Create, Read, Update, and Delete (CRUD). Creation (C): Adds a new document to the database. Retrieval (R): Retrieves documents or fields based on queries. Update (U): Modifies the contents of existing documents. Deletion (D): Removes documents from the database. === Keys === Documents in a document-oriented database are addressed via a unique identifier. This identifier, often a string, URI, or path, can be used to retrieve the document from the database. Most document stores maintain an index on the key to optimize retrieval, and in some implementations the key is required when creating or inserting a new document. === Retrieval === In addition to key-based access, document-oriented databases typically provide an API or query language that enables retrieval based on document content or associated metadata. For example, a query may return all documents with a specific field matching a given value. The available query features, indexing options, and performance characteristics vary across implementations. Document stores differ from key-value stores in that they exploit the internal structure and metadata of stored documents. In many key-value stores, values are treated as opaque or "black-box" data, meaning the database system does not interpret their internal structure. By contrast, document-oriented databases can classify and interpret document content. This enables queries that distinguish between types of data––for example, retrieving all phone numbers containing "555" without also matching a postal code such as "55555." === Editing === Document databases typically provide mechanisms for updating or editing the content or metadata of a document. Updates may involve replacing the entire document or modifying individual elements or fields within the document. === Organization === Document database implementations support a variety of methods for organizing documents, including: Collections: Groups of documents. Depending on the implementation, a document may be required to belong to a single collection or may be allowed in multiple collections. Tags and non-visible metadata: Additional data stored outside the main document content. Directory hierarchies: Documents organized in a tree-like structure, often based on path or URI. These organizational structures may differ between logical and physical representations (e.g. on disk or in memory). == Relationship to other databases == === Relationship to key-value stores === A document-oriented database can be viewed as a specialized form of key-value store, which is itself a category of NoSQL database. In a basic key-value store, the stored value is typically treated as opaque by the database system. By contrast, a document-oriented database provides APIs or a query and update language that allows queries and modifications based on the internal structure of the document. For users who do not require advanced query, retrieval, or update capabilities, the distinction between document-oriented databases and key-value stores may be minimal. === Relationship to search engines === Some search engine and information retrieval systems, such as Apache Solr and Elasticsearch, provide document storage and support core document operations. As a result, they may meet certain functional definitions of a document-oriented database, although their primary design goals differ. === Relationship to relational databases === In a relational database, data is organized into predefined types represented as tables. Each table contains rows (records) with a fixed set of columns (fields), so all records in a table share the same structure. Administrators typically define indexes on selected fields to improve query performance. A central principle of relational database design is database normalization, in which data that might otherwise be repeated is stored in separate tables and linked using keys. When records in different tables are related, a foreign key is used to associate them. For example, an address book application may store a contact's name, image, phone numbers, mailing addresses, and email addresses. In a normalized relational design, separate tables might be created for contacts, phone numbers, and email addresses. The phone number table would include a foreign key referencing the associated contact. To reconstruct a complete contact record, the database retrieves related information from each table using the foreign keys and combines it into a single record. In contrast, a document-oriented database stores all data related to an object within a single document, and stored in the database as a single entry. In the address book example,the contact's name, image, and contact information may be stored together in one document. The document is retrieved using a unique key, and all related information is returned together, without needing to look up multiple tables. A key difference between the document-oriented and relational models is that the data formats are not predefined in the document case. In most cases, any sort of document can be stored in a database, and documents can change in type and form over time. For example, a new field such as COUNTRY_FLAG can be added to new documents as they are inserted without affecting existing documents. To aid retrieval, document-oriented systems generally allow the administrator to provide hints to the database for locating certain types of information. These hints work in a similar fashion to indexes in relational databases. Many systems also allow additional metadata outside the content of the document itself In computational learning theory, induction of regular languages refers to the task of learning a formal description (e.g. grammar) of a regular language from a given set of example strings. Although E. Mark Gold has shown that not every regular language can be learned this way (see language identification in the limit), approaches have been investigated for a variety of subclasses. They are sketched in this article. For learning of more general grammars, see Grammar induction. == Definitions == A regular language is defined as a (finite or infinite) set of strings that can be described by one of the mathematical formalisms called "finite automaton", "regular grammar", or "regular expression", all of which have the same expressive power. Since the latter formalism leads to shortest notations, it shall be introduced and used here. Given a set Σ of symbols (a.k.a. alphabet), a regular expression can be any of ∅ (denoting the empty set of strings), ε (denoting the singleton set containing just the empty string), a (where a is any character in Σ; denoting the singleton set just containing the single-character string a), r + s (where r and s are, in turn, simpler regular expressions; denoting their set's union) r ⋅ s (denoting the set of all possible concatenations of strings from r's and s's set), r + (denoting the set of n-fold repetitions of strings from r's set, for any n ≥ 1), or r (similarly denoting the set of n-fold repetitions, but also including the empty string, seen as 0-fold repetition). For example, using Σ = {0,1}, the regular expression (0+1+ε)⋅(0+1) denotes the set of all binary numbers with one or two digits (leading zero allowed), while 1⋅(0+1)⋅0 denotes the (infinite) set of all even binary numbers (no leading zeroes). Given a set of strings (also called "positive examples"), the task of regular language induction is to come up with a regular expression that denotes a set containing all of them. As an example, given {1, 10, 100}, a "natural" description could be the regular expression 1⋅0, corresponding to the informal characterization "a 1 followed by arbitrarily many (maybe even none) 0's". However, (0+1) and 1+(1⋅0)+(1⋅0⋅0) is another regular expression, denoting the largest (assuming Σ = {0,1}) and the smallest set containing the given strings, and called the trivial overgeneralization and undergeneralization, respectively. Some approaches work in an extended setting where also a set of "negative example" strings is given; then, a regular expression is to be found that generates all of the positive, but none of the negative examples. == Lattice of automata == Dupont et al. have shown that the set of all structurally complete finite automata generating a given input set of example strings forms a lattice, with the trivial undergeneralized and the trivial overgeneralized automaton as bottom and top element, respectively. Each member of this lattice can be obtained by factoring the undergeneralized automaton by an appropriate equivalence relation. For the above example string set {1, 10, 100}, the picture shows at its bottom the undergeneralized automaton Aa,b,c,d in grey, consisting of states a, b, c, and d. On the state set {a,b,c,d}, a total of 15 equivalence relations exist, forming a lattice. Mapping each equivalence E to the corresponding quotient automaton language L(Aa,b,c,d / E) obtains the partially ordered set shown in the picture. Each node's language is denoted by a regular expression. The language may be recognized by quotient automata w.r.t. different equivalence relations, all of which are shown below the node. An arrow between two nodes indicates that the lower node's language is a proper subset of the higher node's. If both positive and negative example strings are given, Dupont et al. build the lattice from the positive examples, and then investigate the separation border between automata that generate some negative example and such that do not. Most interesting are those automata immediately below the border. In the picture, separation borders are shown for the negative example strings 11 (green), 1001 (blue), 101 (cyan), and 0 (red). Coste and Nicolas present an own search method within the lattice, which they relate to Mitchell's version space paradigm. To find the separation border, they use a graph coloring algorithm on the state inequality relation induced by the negative examples. Later, they investigate several ordering relations on the set of all possible state fusions. Kudo and Shimbo use the representation by automaton factorizations to give a unique framework for the following approaches (sketched below): k-reversible languages and the "tail clustering" follow-up approach, Successor automata and the predecessor-successor method, and pumping-based approaches (framework-integration challenged by Luzeaux, however). Each of these approaches is shown to correspond to a particular kind of equivalence relations used for factorization. == Approaches == === k-reversible languages === Angluin considers so-called "k-reversible" regular automata, that is, deterministic automata in which each state can be reached from at most one state by following a transition chain of length k. Formally, if Σ, Q, and δ denote the input alphabet, the state set, and the transition function of an automaton A, respectively, then A is called k-reversible if: ∀a0, ..., ak ∈ Σ ∀s1, s2 ∈ Q: δ(s1, a0...ak) = δ(s2, a0...ak) ⇒ s1 = s2, where δ means the homomorphic extension of δ to arbitrary words. Angluin gives a cubic algorithm for learning of the smallest k-reversible language from a given set of input words; for k = 0, the algorithm has even almost linear complexity. The required state uniqueness after k + 1 given symbols forces unifying automaton states, thus leading to a proper generalization different from the trivial undergeneralized automaton. This algorithm has been used to learn simple parts of English syntax; later, an incremental version has been provided. Another approach based on k-reversible automata is the tail clustering method. === Successor automata === From a given set of input strings, Vernadat and Richetin build a so-called successor automaton, consisting of one state for each distinct character and a transition between each two adjacent characters' states. For example, the singleton input set {aabbaabb} leads to an automaton corresponding to the regular expression (a+⋅b+). An extension of this approach is the predecessor-successor method which generalizes each character repetition immediately to a Kleene + and then includes for each character the set of its possible predecessors in its state. Successor automata can learn exactly the class of local languages. Since each regular language is the homomorphic image of a local language, grammars from the former class can be learned by lifting, if an appropriate (depending on the intended application) homomorphism is provided. In particular, there is such a homomorphism for the class of languages learnable by the predecessor-successor method. The learnability of local languages can be reduced to that of k-reversible languages. === Early approaches === Chomsky and Miller (1957) used the pumping lemma: they guess a part v of an input string uvw and try to build a corresponding cycle into the automaton to be learned; using membership queries they ask, for appropriate k, which of the strings uw, uvvw, uvvvw, ..., uvkw also belongs to the language to be learned, thereby refining the structure of their automaton. In 1959, Solomonoff generalized this approach to context-free languages, which also obey a pumping lemma. === Cover automata === Câmpeanu et al. learn a finite automaton as a compact representation of a large finite language. Given such a language F, they search a so-called cover automaton A such that its language L(A) covers F in the following sense: L(A) ∩ Σ≤ l = F, where l is the length of the longest string in F, and Σ≤ l denotes the set of all strings not longer than l. If such a cover automaton exists, F is uniquely determined by A and l. For example, F = {ad, read, reread } has l = 6 and a cover automaton corresponding to the regular expression (r⋅e)⋅a⋅d. For two strings x and y, Câmpeanu et al. define x ~ y if xz ∈ F ⇔ yz ∈ F for all strings z of a length such that both xz and yz are not longer than l. Based on this relation, whose lack of transitivity causes considerable technical problems, they give an O(n4) algorithm to construct from F a cover automaton A of minimal state count. Moreover, for union, intersection, and difference of two finite languages they provide corresponding operations on their cover automata. Păun et al. improve the time complexity to O(n2). === Residual automata === For a set S of strings and a string u, the Brzozowski derivative u−1S is defined as the set of all rest-strings obtainable from a string in S by cutting off its prefix u (if possible), formally: u−1S = {v ∈ Σ: uv ∈ S}, cf. picture. Denis et al. define a GeWorkbench
Document-oriented database
Induction of regular languages