Elizabeth DuRoss Liddy (May 12, 1944 – August 21, 2025) was an American computer scientist and academic who was professor of information science and dean of the Syracuse University School of Information Studies. She was a pioneer in the field of natural language processing. == Early life and education == Liddy was born in Dayton, Ohio, on May 14, 1944, and grew up in Utica, New York. She was one of five children, all of whom worked in her father's family business. Liddy attended St. Francis DeSalle High School, where she was awarded a Regent's Scholarship, and eventually attended Daemen College. She was literary editor of her high school year book and edited a literary magazine during her time at college. At Daemen College Liddy studied English language and literature. After graduating Liddy remained in New York, where she volunteered in an elementary school library. She joined the Syracuse University School of Information Studies in 1983, where she started a graduate program in library science. She worked as a faculty librarian at Onondaga Community College whilst earning her degree. Here Liddy worked as a Visiting assistant professor, whilst completing her doctorate part-time in information transfer. Her dissertation research involved natural language processing, a computerized approach to analyzing text. She was hired to the faculty at Syracuse University whilst completing her PhD. == Research and career == In 1994 Liddy was the founding President of TextWise, a semantics-based search engine. The first product she developed was called Document Retrieval Using Linguistic Knowledge (DR-LINK). She left TextWise in 1999, after growing the number of employees to over 50. She started the Syracuse University Center for Natural Language Processing in 1999, and was honored with the university's Outstanding Alumni Award the following year. Liddy was appointed Dean of the School of Information Studies (iSchool) in 2008, and held the position for over ten years. She temporarily left the role in 2015. The school was transformed under her leadership, increasing the enrollment of students by over 70% and launching a graduate certificate in data science. She raised over $20 million to support research and development at Syracuse University. She chaired the iSchool Organization, which connects information science schools all over the world, from 2012 to 2014. Liddy worked to increase the representation of women at the iSchool, through initiatives such as the IT Girls Overnight Retreat – an annual weekend to introduce high school girls to Information Technology. She improved the career development programs of students at Syracuse University, increasing student employment to almost 100% post graduation. Liddy retired as Dean of the iSchool in 2019. === Selected innovations === US 6026388, Liddy, Elizabeth D., "User interface and other enhancements for natural language information retrieval system and method", published August 16, 1995, issued February 15, 2000 US 5963940, Liddy, Elizabeth D., "Natural language information retrieval system and method", published August 16, 1995, issued October 5, 1999 US 6006221, Liddy, Elizabeth D., "Multilingual document retrieval system and method using semantic vector matching", published August 16, 1995, issued December 21, 1999 == Personal life and death == Liddy was married shortly after graduating Daemen College in 1966. She had three children. Liddy died in Charlotte, North Carolina, on August 21, 2025, at the age of 81.
Plum Voice
The Plum Group, Inc. (DBA Plum Voice) is a company. Plum is headquartered in New York City with offices in Boston and Denver. == History == Plum Voice, founded in 2000 as The Plum Group, Inc., was incorporated to create technologies for personalized audio communication. By 2001, Plum had commercialized the open-standard Plum VoiceXML IVR platform which facilitated the creation of dynamic telecom applications. 2001 - Commercial launch of Plum VoiceXML IVR platform for customer-premises deployment 2002 - Launch of Plum Voice Hosting Centers for 24x7x365 managed IVR hosting 2004 - Plum Voice application suite receives a "Product of the Year" award from Customer Interactions magazine 2008 - Plum Survey builder launched, a do-it-yourself IVR survey tool. 2010 - Plum launched QuickFuse, a web-based rapid development platform used to create voice applications. 2013 - Plum launched VoiceTrends, an analytics and reporting toolkit designed specifically for voice applications. Plum achieves PCI-DSS Level 1. 2015 - Plum launched Plum Insight, a multi-channel (voice, web, mobile) survey platform. Plum achieves HIPAA compliance. 2016 - Plum launched a new version of QuickFuse called Fuse+. 2020 - Plum sunsets QuickFuse, rebrands Fuse+ as Plum Fuse.
Neural architecture search
Neural architecture search (NAS) is a technique for automating the design of artificial neural networks (ANN), a widely used model in the field of machine learning. NAS has been used to design networks that are on par with or outperform hand-designed architectures. Methods for NAS can be categorized according to the search space, search strategy and performance estimation strategy used: The search space defines the type(s) of ANN that can be designed and optimized. The search strategy defines the approach used to explore the search space. The performance estimation strategy evaluates the performance of a possible ANN from its design (without constructing and training it). NAS is closely related to hyperparameter optimization and meta-learning and is a subfield of automated machine learning (AutoML). == Reinforcement learning == Reinforcement learning (RL) can underpin a NAS search strategy. Barret Zoph and Quoc Viet Le applied NAS with RL targeting the CIFAR-10 dataset and achieved a network architecture that rivals the best manually-designed architecture for accuracy, with an error rate of 3.65, 0.09 percent better and 1.05x faster than a related hand-designed model. On the Penn Treebank dataset, that model composed a recurrent cell that outperforms LSTM, reaching a test set perplexity of 62.4, or 3.6 perplexity better than the prior leading system. On the PTB character language modeling task it achieved bits per character of 1.214. Learning a model architecture directly on a large dataset can be a lengthy process. NASNet addressed this issue by transferring a building block designed for a small dataset to a larger dataset. The design was constrained to use two types of convolutional cells to return feature maps that serve two main functions when convoluting an input feature map: normal cells that return maps of the same extent (height and width) and reduction cells in which the returned feature map height and width is reduced by a factor of two. For the reduction cell, the initial operation applied to the cell's inputs uses a stride of two (to reduce the height and width). The learned aspect of the design included elements such as which lower layer(s) each higher layer took as input, the transformations applied at that layer and to merge multiple outputs at each layer. In the studied example, the best convolutional layer (or "cell") was designed for the CIFAR-10 dataset and then applied to the ImageNet dataset by stacking copies of this cell, each with its own parameters. The approach yielded accuracy of 82.7% top-1 and 96.2% top-5. This exceeded the best human-invented architectures at a cost of 9 billion fewer FLOPS—a reduction of 28%. The system continued to exceed the manually-designed alternative at varying computation levels. The image features learned from image classification can be transferred to other computer vision problems. E.g., for object detection, the learned cells integrated with the Faster-RCNN framework improved performance by 4.0% on the COCO dataset. In the so-called Efficient Neural Architecture Search (ENAS), a controller discovers architectures by learning to search for an optimal subgraph within a large graph. The controller is trained with policy gradient to select a subgraph that maximizes the validation set's expected reward. The model corresponding to the subgraph is trained to minimize a canonical cross entropy loss. Multiple child models share parameters, ENAS requires fewer GPU-hours than other approaches and 1000-fold less than "standard" NAS. On CIFAR-10, the ENAS design achieved a test error of 2.89%, comparable to NASNet. On Penn Treebank, the ENAS design reached test perplexity of 55.8. == Evolution == An alternative approach to NAS is based on evolutionary algorithms, which has been employed by several groups. An Evolutionary Algorithm for Neural Architecture Search generally performs the following procedure. First a pool consisting of different candidate architectures along with their validation scores (fitness) is initialised. At each step the architectures in the candidate pool are mutated (e.g.: 3x3 convolution instead of a 5x5 convolution). Next the new architectures are trained from scratch for a few epochs and their validation scores are obtained. This is followed by replacing the lowest scoring architectures in the candidate pool with the better, newer architectures. This procedure is repeated multiple times and thus the candidate pool is refined over time. Mutations in the context of evolving ANNs are operations such as adding or removing a layer, which include changing the type of a layer (e.g., from convolution to pooling), changing the hyperparameters of a layer, or changing the training hyperparameters. On CIFAR-10 and ImageNet, evolution and RL performed comparably, while both slightly outperformed random search. == Bayesian optimization == Bayesian Optimization (BO), which has proven to be an efficient method for hyperparameter optimization, can also be applied to NAS. In this context, the objective function maps an architecture to its validation error after being trained for a number of epochs. At each iteration, BO uses a surrogate to model this objective function based on previously obtained architectures and their validation errors. One then chooses the next architecture to evaluate by maximizing an acquisition function, such as expected improvement, which provides a balance between exploration and exploitation. Acquisition function maximization and objective function evaluation are often computationally expensive for NAS, and make the application of BO challenging in this context. Recently, BANANAS has achieved promising results in this direction by introducing a high-performing instantiation of BO coupled to a neural predictor. == Hill-climbing == Another group used a hill climbing procedure that applies network morphisms, followed by short cosine-annealing optimization runs. The approach yielded competitive results, requiring resources on the same order of magnitude as training a single network. E.g., on CIFAR-10, the method designed and trained a network with an error rate below 5% in 12 hours on a single GPU. == Multi-objective search == While most approaches solely focus on finding architecture with maximal predictive performance, for most practical applications other objectives are relevant, such as memory consumption, model size or inference time (i.e., the time required to obtain a prediction). Because of that, researchers created a multi-objective search. LEMONADE is an evolutionary algorithm that adopted Lamarckism to efficiently optimize multiple objectives. In every generation, child networks are generated to improve the Pareto frontier with respect to the current population of ANNs. Neural Architect is claimed to be a resource-aware multi-objective RL-based NAS with network embedding and performance prediction. Network embedding encodes an existing network to a trainable embedding vector. Based on the embedding, a controller network generates transformations of the target network. A multi-objective reward function considers network accuracy, computational resource and training time. The reward is predicted by multiple performance simulation networks that are pre-trained or co-trained with the controller network. The controller network is trained via policy gradient. Following a modification, the resulting candidate network is evaluated by both an accuracy network and a training time network. The results are combined by a reward engine that passes its output back to the controller network. == One-shot models == RL or evolution-based NAS require thousands of GPU-days of searching/training to achieve state-of-the-art computer vision results as described in the NASNet, mNASNet and MobileNetV3 papers. To reduce computational cost, many recent NAS methods rely on the weight-sharing idea. In this approach, a single overparameterized supernetwork (also known as the one-shot model) is defined. A supernetwork is a very large Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) whose subgraphs are different candidate neural networks. Thus, in a supernetwork, the weights are shared among a large number of different sub-architectures that have edges in common, each of which is considered as a path within the supernet. The essential idea is to train one supernetwork that spans many options for the final design rather than generating and training thousands of networks independently. In addition to the learned parameters, a set of architecture parameters are learnt to depict preference for one module over another. Such methods reduce the required computational resources to only a few GPU days. More recent works further combine this weight-sharing paradigm, with a continuous relaxation of the search space, which enables the use of gradient-based optimization methods. These approaches are generally referred to as differentiable NAS and have proven very efficient in exploring the search space of ne
Mata v. Avianca, Inc.
Mata v. Avianca, Inc. was a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York case in which the Court dismissed a personal injury case against the airline Avianca and issued a $5,000 fine to the plaintiffs' lawyers who had submitted fake precedents generated by ChatGPT in their legal briefs. == Background == In February 2022, Roberto Mata filed a personal injury lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Avianca, alleging that he was injured when a metal serving cart struck his knee during an international flight. The plaintiff's lawyers used ChatGPT to generate a legal motion, which contained numerous fake legal cases involving fictitious airlines with fabricated quotations and internal citations. Avianca's lawyers notified the Court that they had been "unable to locate" a few legal cases cited in the legal motion. The Court could not locate the cases either and ordered the plaintiff's lawyers to provide copies of the cited legal cases. Mata's lawyers provided copies of documents purportedly containing all but one of the legal cases, after ChatGPT assured that the cases "indeed exist" and "can be found in reputable legal databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw." == Opinion == In May 2023, Judge P. Kevin Castel dismissed the personal injury case against Avianca and ordered the plaintiff's attorneys to pay a $5,000 fine. Judge Castel noted numerous inconsistencies in the opinion summaries, describing one of the legal analyses as "gibberish." Judge Castel held that Mata's lawyers had acted with "subjective bad faith" sufficient for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11. == Impact == In July 2024, the American Bar Association issued its first formal ethics opinion on the responsibilities of lawyers using generative AI (GAI). The 15-page opinion outlines how the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to the use of GAI in the practice of law. Experts caution that lawyers cannot reasonably rely on the accuracy, completeness, or validity of content generated by GAI tools. Due to the continued usage of GAI in the practice of law, Mata has been described as a landmark case by legal professionals, as it is frequently cited by courts in cases where usage of GAI during the course of proceedings leads to the creation and citation of nonexistent caselaw.
Algorithmic accountability
Algorithmic accountability refers to the allocation of responsibility for the consequences of real-world actions influenced by algorithms used in decision-making processes. Ideally, algorithms should be designed to eliminate bias from their decision-making outcomes. This means they ought to evaluate only relevant characteristics of the input data, avoiding distinctions based on attributes that are generally inappropriate in social contexts, such as an individual's ethnicity in legal judgments. However, adherence to this principle is not always guaranteed, and there are instances where individuals may be adversely affected by algorithmic decisions. Responsibility for any harm resulting from a machine's decision may lie with the algorithm itself or with the individuals who designed it, particularly if the decision resulted from bias or flawed data analysis inherent in the algorithm's design. == Algorithm usage == Algorithms are widely utilized across various sectors of society that incorporate computational techniques in their control systems. These applications span numerous industries, including but not limited to medical, transportation, and payment services. In these contexts, algorithms perform functions such as: Approving or denying credit card applications; Approving or denying immigrant visas; Determining which taxpayers will be audited on their income taxes; Managing systems that control self-driving cars on a highway; Scoring individuals as potential criminals for use in legal proceedings; Search engines that match and rank database and internet search results; Recommendation systems that filter which news, entertainment, or purchase items are featured in a feed; Market-making algorithms that match sellers and buyers, such as in transportation (ride-hailing) or financial platforms. However, the implementation of these algorithms can be complex and opaque. Generally, algorithms function as "black boxes," meaning that the specific processes an input undergoes during execution are often not transparent, with users typically only seeing the resulting output. This lack of transparency raises concerns about potential biases within the algorithms, as the parameters influencing decision-making may not be well understood. The outputs generated can lead to perceptions of bias, especially if individuals in similar circumstances receive different results. According to Nicholas Diakopoulos: But these algorithms can make mistakes. They have biases. Yet they sit in opaque black boxes, their inner workings, their inner “thoughts” hidden behind layers of complexity. We need to get inside that black box, to understand how they may be exerting power on us, and to understand where they might be making unjust mistakes == Wisconsin Supreme Court case == Algorithms are prevalent across various fields and significantly influence decisions that affect the population at large. Their underlying structures and parameters often remain unknown to those impacted by their outcomes. A notable case illustrating this issue is a recent ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court concerning "risk assessment" algorithms used in criminal justice. The court determined that scores generated by such algorithms, which analyze multiple parameters from individuals, should not be used as a determining factor for arresting an accused individual. Furthermore, the court mandated that all reports submitted to judges must include information regarding the accuracy of the algorithm used to compute these scores. This ruling is regarded as a noteworthy development in how society should manage software that makes consequential decisions, highlighting the importance of reliability, particularly in complex settings like the legal system. The use of algorithms in these contexts necessitates a high degree of impartiality in processing input data. However, experts note that there is still considerable work to be done to ensure the accuracy of algorithmic results. Questions about the transparency of data processing continue to arise, which raises issues regarding the appropriateness of the algorithms and the intentions of their designers. == Controversies == A notable instance of potential algorithmic bias is highlighted in an article by The Washington Post regarding the ride-hailing service Uber. An analysis of collected data revealed that estimated waiting times for users varied based on the neighborhoods in which they resided. Key factors influencing these discrepancies included the predominant ethnicity and average income of the area. Specifically, neighborhoods with a majority white population and higher economic status tended to have shorter waiting times, while those with more diverse ethnic compositions and lower average incomes experienced longer waits. It’s important to clarify that this observation reflects a correlation identified in the data, rather than a definitive cause-and-effect relationship. No value judgments are made regarding the behavior of the Uber app in these cases. In TechCrunch website, Hemant Taneja wrote: Concern about “black box” algorithms that govern our lives has been spreading. New York University’s Information Law Institute hosted a conference on algorithmic accountability, noting: “Scholars, stakeholders, and policymakers question the adequacy of existing mechanisms governing algorithmic decision-making and grapple with new challenges presented by the rise of algorithmic power in terms of transparency, fairness, and equal treatment.” Yale Law School’s Information Society Project is studying this, too. “Algorithmic modeling may be biased or limited, and the uses of algorithms are still opaque in many critical sectors,” the group concluded. == Possible solutions == Discussions among experts have sought viable solutions to understand the operations of algorithms, often referred to as "black boxes." It is generally proposed that companies responsible for developing and implementing these algorithms should ensure their reliability by disclosing the internal processes of their systems. Hemant Taneja, writing for TechCrunch, emphasizes that major technology companies, such as Google, Amazon, and Uber, must actively incorporate algorithmic accountability into their operations. He suggests that these companies should transparently monitor their own systems to avoid stringent regulatory measures. One potential approach is the introduction of regulations in the tech sector to enforce oversight of algorithmic processes. However, such regulations could significantly impact software developers and the industry as a whole. It may be more beneficial for companies to voluntarily disclose the details of their algorithms and decision-making parameters, which could enhance the trustworthiness of their solutions. Another avenue discussed is the possibility of self-regulation by the companies that create these algorithms, allowing them to take proactive steps in ensuring accountability and transparency in their operations. In TechCrunch website, Hemant Taneja wrote: There’s another benefit — perhaps a huge one — to software-defined regulation. It will also show us a path to a more efficient government. The world’s legal logic and regulations can be coded into software and smart sensors can offer real-time monitoring of everything from air and water quality, traffic flows and queues at the DMV. Regulators define the rules, technologist create the software to implement them and then AI and ML help refine iterations of policies going forward. This should lead to much more efficient, effective governments at the local, national and global levels.
Huawei Member Center
Huawei Member Center is a benefits app which runs using Huawei Mobile Services. Originally launched in China, Huawei Member Center is now being developed primarily around devices such as P40 Pro and the Nova 7. == Membership Levels == The Huawei Member Center provides rewards in two primary ways, 1) device-specific & promotions and 2) via frequent use of Huawei products and apps, using points to redeem additional benefits. In China, Huawei members are already classified into three levels, the highest being “elite”. Membership level determines the level of perks received, from priority access to the service hotline, new device events & proprietary early-access opportunities. Huawei ran a number of member events in 2019 called "Huawei Member Day" to promote the Member Center including providing tips for the Mate 30 Pro and offering a 50Gb cloud storage upgrade to users. == HMC in China == Huawei Member Center Has seen significant adoption in China and the east, the rewards for use on the app have ranged from free book coupons, discounted travel and exclusive gifts of new devices, such as the Huawei Enjoy Z.
Agent2Agent
Agent2Agent (A2A) is an open protocol that defines how artificial intelligence agents communicate with each other across different systems. It is intended to allow agents built by different vendors or frameworks to discover one another, exchange messages, and coordinate tasks. == History == The Agent2Agent protocol was announced by Google in April 2025 as an open standard for agent interoperability. In June 2025, Google transferred the protocol, its specification, and related software development kits to the Linux Foundation. The Linux Foundation established the Agent2Agent project to provide vendor-neutral governance. == Design == The A2A protocol supports communication between autonomous software agents operating across different platforms and organizations. It enables agents to discover one another and exchange structured messages without requiring shared internal state or proprietary integrations. A2A uses metadata documents, known as Agent Cards, to describe an agent's capabilities and how it can be accessed. These documents are exchanged using widely adopted web technologies such as HTTP and JSON-based messaging formats. A2A includes support for authentication and authorization to control which agents may participate in workflows. The protocol supports established security technologies including Transport Layer Security (TLS), JSON Web Tokens (JWTs), and OpenID Connect. A2A is often discussed alongside the Model Context Protocol (MCP). MCP focuses on connecting agents to tools and data sources, while A2A focuses on communication between agents themselves. == Adoption == At the time the Linux Foundation adopted the protocol, more than 100 technology companies had announced support for the Agent2Agent project. Microsoft stated that it planned to support the protocol in its AI platforms. == Reception == Technology press coverage has described A2A as an attempt to reduce fragmentation in AI agent ecosystems by providing a shared communication layer. TechRepublic characterized the protocol as part of a broader industry effort to reduce vendor lock-in for enterprise AI systems.