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
Feed forward (control)
A feed forward (sometimes written feedforward) is an element or pathway within a control system that passes a controlling signal from a source in its external environment to a load elsewhere in its external environment. This is often a command signal from an external operator. In control engineering, a feedforward control system is a control system that uses sensors to detect disturbances affecting the system and then applies an additional input to minimize the effect of the disturbance. This requires a mathematical model of the system so that the effect of disturbances can be properly predicted. A control system which has only feed-forward behavior responds to its control signal in a pre-defined way without responding to the way the system reacts; it is in contrast with a system that also has feedback, which adjusts the input to take account of how it affects the system, and how the system itself may vary unpredictably. In a feed-forward system, the control variable adjustment is not error-based. Instead it is based on knowledge about the process in the form of a mathematical model of the process and knowledge about, or measurements of, the process disturbances. Some prerequisites are needed for control scheme to be reliable by pure feed-forward without feedback: the external command or controlling signal must be available, and the effect of the output of the system on the load should be known (that usually means that the load must be predictably unchanging with time). Sometimes pure feed-forward control without feedback is called 'ballistic', because once a control signal has been sent, it cannot be further adjusted; any corrective adjustment must be by way of a new control signal. In contrast, 'cruise control' adjusts the output in response to the load that it encounters, by a feedback mechanism. These systems could relate to control theory, physiology, or computing. == Overview == With feed-forward or feedforward control, the disturbances are measured and accounted for before they have time to affect the system. In the house example, a feed-forward system may measure the fact that the door is opened and automatically turn on the heater before the house can get too cold. The difficulty with feed-forward control is that the effects of the disturbances on the system must be accurately predicted, and there must not be any unmeasured disturbances. For instance, if a window was opened that was not being measured, the feed-forward-controlled thermostat might let the house cool down. The term has specific meaning within the field of CPU-based automatic control. The discipline of feedforward control as it relates to modern, CPU based automatic controls is widely discussed, but is seldom practiced due to the difficulty and expense of developing or providing for the mathematical model required to facilitate this type of control. Open-loop control and feedback control, often based on canned PID control algorithms, are much more widely used. There are three types of control systems: open-loop, feed-forward, and feedback. An example of a pure open-loop control system is manual non-power-assisted steering of a motor car; the steering system does not have access to an auxiliary power source and does not respond to varying resistance to turning of the direction wheels; the driver must make that response without help from the steering system. In comparison, power steering has access to a controlled auxiliary power source, which depends on the engine speed. When the steering wheel is turned, a valve is opened which allows fluid under pressure to turn the wheels. A sensor monitors that pressure so that the valve only opens enough to cause the correct pressure to reach the wheel turning mechanism. This is feed-forward control where the output of the system, the change in direction of travel of the vehicle, plays no part in the system. See Model predictive control. If the driver is included in the system, then they do provide a feedback path by observing the direction of travel and compensating for errors by turning the steering wheel. In that case you have a feedback system, and the block labeled System in Figure(c) is a feed-forward system. In other words, systems of different types can be nested, and the overall system regarded as a black-box. Feedforward control is distinctly different from open-loop control and teleoperator systems. Feedforward control requires a mathematical model of the plant (process and/or machine being controlled) and the plant's relationship to any inputs or feedback the system might receive. Neither open-loop control nor teleoperator systems require the sophistication of a mathematical model of the physical system or plant being controlled. Control based on operator input without integral processing and interpretation through a mathematical model of the system is a teleoperator system and is not considered feedforward control. == History == Historically, the use of the term feedforward is found in works by Harold S. Black in US patent 1686792 (invented 17 March 1923) and D. M. MacKay as early as 1956. While MacKay's work is in the field of biological control theory, he speaks only of feedforward systems. MacKay does not mention feedforward control or allude to the discipline of feedforward controls. MacKay and other early writers who use the term feedforward are generally writing about theories of how human or animal brains work. Black also has US patent 2102671 invented 2 August 1927 on the technique of feedback applied to electronic systems. The discipline of feedforward controls was largely developed by professors and graduate students at Georgia Tech, MIT, Stanford and Carnegie Mellon. Feedforward is not typically hyphenated in scholarly publications. Meckl and Seering of MIT and Book and Dickerson of Georgia Tech began the development of the concepts of Feedforward Control in the mid-1970s. The discipline of Feedforward Controls was well defined in many scholarly papers, articles and books by the late 1980s. == Benefits == The benefits of feedforward control are significant and can often justify the extra cost, time and effort required to implement the technology. Control accuracy can often be improved by as much as an order of magnitude if the mathematical model is of sufficient quality and implementation of the feedforward control law is well thought out. Energy consumption by the feedforward control system and its driver is typically substantially lower than with other controls. Stability is enhanced such that the controlled device can be built of lower cost, lighter weight, springier materials while still being highly accurate and able to operate at high speeds. Other benefits of feedforward control include reduced wear and tear on equipment, lower maintenance costs, higher reliability and a substantial reduction in hysteresis. Feedforward control is often combined with feedback control to optimize performance. == Model == The mathematical model of the plant (machine, process or organism) used by the feedforward control system may be created and input by a control engineer or it may be learned by the control system. Control systems capable of learning and/or adapting their mathematical model have become more practical as microprocessor speeds have increased. The discipline of modern feedforward control was itself made possible by the invention of microprocessors. Feedforward control requires integration of the mathematical model into the control algorithm such that it is used to determine the control actions based on what is known about the state of the system being controlled. In the case of control for a lightweight, flexible robotic arm, this could be as simple as compensating between when the robot arm is carrying a payload and when it is not. The target joint angles are adjusted to place the payload in the desired position based on knowing the deflections in the arm from the mathematical model's interpretation of the disturbance caused by the payload. Systems that plan actions and then pass the plan to a different system for execution do not satisfy the above definition of feedforward control. Unless the system includes a means to detect a disturbance or receive an input and process that input through the mathematical model to determine the required modification to the control action, it is not true feedforward control. === Open system === In control theory, an open system is a feed forward system that does not have any feedback loop to control its output. In contrast, a closed system uses on a feedback loop to control the operation of the system. In an open system, the output of the system is not fed back into the input to the system for control or operation. == Applications == === Physiological feed-forward system === In physiology, feed-forward control is exemplified by the normal anticipatory regulation of heartbeat in advance of actual physical exertion by the central autonomic network. Feed-forward
Kerckhoffs's principle
Kerckhoffs's principle (also called Kerckhoffs's desideratum, assumption, axiom, doctrine or law) of cryptography was stated by the Dutch cryptographer Auguste Kerckhoffs in the 19th century. The principle holds that a cryptosystem should be secure, even if everything about the system, except the key, is public knowledge. This concept is widely embraced by cryptographers, in contrast to security through obscurity, which is not. Kerckhoffs's principle was phrased by the American mathematician Claude Shannon as "the enemy knows the system", i.e., "one ought to design systems under the assumption that the enemy will immediately gain full familiarity with them". In that form, it is called Shannon's maxim. Another formulation by American researcher and professor Steven M. Bellovin is: In other words—design your system assuming that your opponents know it in detail. (A former official at NSA's National Computer Security Center told me that the standard assumption there was that serial number 1 of any new device was delivered to the Kremlin.) == Origins == The invention of telegraphy radically changed military communications and increased the number of messages that needed to be protected from the enemy dramatically, leading to the development of field ciphers which had to be easy to use without large confidential codebooks prone to capture on the battlefield. It was this environment which led to the development of Kerckhoffs's requirements. Auguste Kerckhoffs was a professor of German language at Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales (HEC) in Paris. In early 1883, Kerckhoffs's article, La Cryptographie Militaire, was published in two parts in the Journal of Military Science, in which he stated six design rules for military ciphers. Translated from French, they are: The system must be practically, if not mathematically, indecipherable; It should not require secrecy, and it should not be a problem if it falls into enemy hands; It must be possible to communicate and remember the key without using written notes, and correspondents must be able to change or modify it at will; It must be applicable to telegraph communications; It must be portable, and should not require several persons to handle or operate; Lastly, given the circumstances in which it is to be used, the system must be easy to use and should not be stressful to use or require its users to know and comply with a long list of rules. Some are no longer relevant given the ability of computers to perform complex encryption. The second rule, now known as Kerckhoffs's principle, is still critically important. == Explanation of the principle == Kerckhoffs viewed cryptography as a rival to, and a better alternative than, steganographic encoding, which was common in the nineteenth century for hiding the meaning of military messages. One problem with encoding schemes is that they rely on humanly-held secrets such as "dictionaries" which disclose for example, the secret meaning of words. Steganographic-like dictionaries, once revealed, permanently compromise a corresponding encoding system. Another problem is that the risk of exposure increases as the number of users holding the secrets increases. Nineteenth century cryptography, in contrast, used simple tables which provided for the transposition of alphanumeric characters, generally given row-column intersections which could be modified by keys which were generally short, numeric, and could be committed to human memory. The system was considered "indecipherable" because tables and keys do not convey meaning by themselves. Secret messages can be compromised only if a matching set of table, key, and message falls into enemy hands in a relevant time frame. Kerckhoffs viewed tactical messages as only having a few hours of relevance. Systems are not necessarily compromised, because their components (i.e. alphanumeric character tables and keys) can be easily changed. === Advantage of secret keys === Using secure cryptography is supposed to replace the difficult problem of keeping messages secure with a much more manageable one, keeping relatively small keys secure. A system that requires long-term secrecy for something as large and complex as the whole design of a cryptographic system obviously cannot achieve that goal. It only replaces one hard problem with another. However, if a system is secure even when the enemy knows everything except the key, then all that is needed is to manage keeping the keys secret. There are a large number of ways the internal details of a widely used system could be discovered. The most obvious is that someone could bribe, blackmail, or otherwise threaten staff or customers into explaining the system. In war, for example, one side will probably capture some equipment and people from the other side. Each side will also use spies to gather information. If a method involves software, someone could do memory dumps or run the software under the control of a debugger in order to understand the method. If hardware is being used, someone could buy or steal some of the hardware and build whatever programs or gadgets needed to test it. Hardware can also be dismantled so that the chip details can be examined under the microscope. === Maintaining security === A generalization some make from Kerckhoffs's principle is: "The fewer and simpler the secrets that one must keep to ensure system security, the easier it is to maintain system security." Bruce Schneier ties it in with a belief that all security systems must be designed to fail as gracefully as possible: Kerckhoffs's principle applies beyond codes and ciphers to security systems in general: every secret creates a potential failure point. Secrecy, in other words, is a prime cause of brittleness—and therefore something likely to make a system prone to catastrophic collapse. Conversely, openness provides ductility. Any security system depends crucially on keeping some things secret. However, Kerckhoffs's principle points out that the things kept secret ought to be those least costly to change if inadvertently disclosed. For example, a cryptographic algorithm may be implemented by hardware and software that is widely distributed among users. If security depends on keeping that secret, then disclosure leads to major logistic difficulties in developing, testing, and distributing implementations of a new algorithm – it is "brittle". On the other hand, if keeping the algorithm secret is not important, but only the keys used with the algorithm must be secret, then disclosure of the keys simply requires the simpler, less costly process of generating and distributing new keys. == Applications == In accordance with Kerckhoffs's principle, the majority of civilian cryptography makes use of publicly known algorithms. By contrast, ciphers used to protect classified government or military information are often kept secret (see Type 1 encryption). However, it should not be assumed that government/military ciphers must be kept secret to maintain security. It is possible that they are intended to be as cryptographically sound as public algorithms, and the decision to keep them secret is in keeping with a layered security posture. == Security through obscurity == It is moderately common for companies to keep the inner workings of a system secret. Some argue this "security by obscurity" makes the product safer and less vulnerable to attack. A counter-argument is that keeping the innards secret may improve security in the short term, but in the long run, only systems that have been published and analyzed should be trusted. Steven Bellovin and Randy Bush commented: Security Through Obscurity Considered Dangerous Hiding security vulnerabilities in algorithms, software, and/or hardware decreases the likelihood they will be repaired and increases the likelihood that they can and will be exploited. Discouraging or outlawing discussion of weaknesses and vulnerabilities is extremely dangerous and deleterious to the security of computer systems, the network, and its citizens. Open Discussion Encourages Better Security The long history of cryptography and cryptoanalysis has shown time and time again that open discussion and analysis of algorithms exposes weaknesses not thought of by the original authors, and thereby leads to better and more secure algorithms. As Kerckhoffs noted about cipher systems in 1883 [Kerc83], "Il faut qu'il n'exige pas le secret, et qu'il puisse sans inconvénient tomber entre les mains de l'ennemi." (Roughly, "the system must not require secrecy and must be able to be stolen by the enemy without causing trouble.")
Social film
A social film is a type of interactive film that is presented through the lens of social media. A social film is distributed digitally and integrates with a social networking service, such as Facebook or YouTube. It combines features of web video, social network games and social media. == Key elements == Social films are a more recent phenomenon, and, in turn, there are few precedents for their format. Although there are not many examples of this genre of film, the medium has certain identifiable elements: Casual entertainment Social media User-generated content Game mechanics Using just one of these factors or a combination of them, a social film engages viewers to interact directly with the work. This can be done through usual social media functionality like comments and ranking or adding directly to the narrative itself. Just as with memes, social film distribution relies on the viral spread enabled by social media. This is based on the viral expansion loops model, in which a viewer benefits from sharing the application with friends, exponentially creating new viewers compelled to share the application. == History == One of the first social films to be created was from the YouTube channel lonelygirl15. This social film started in 2006 and was created by Miles Beckett , Mesh Flinders, and Greg Goodfried. They used YouTube posts to create an interactive video series about a fictional character who showcased her life in a vlog format. As the videos went on, more bizarre things would keep happening to the main character, Bree, before she just stopped uploading. This channel was not only the first viral social film, but went on to be one of the first viral YouTube channels to be created. It did take a few years to see any more films in this genre, but 2011 saw many people start to try their hand at making these films. The first social film in this year was a film called Him, Her and Them which was produced and released by Murmur in April 2011. It was distributed exclusively through Facebook and promoted as the first “Facebook film.” The film is composed of short video clips and interactive slideshows, integrating Facebook's Social Graph API. Users participate via text-based additions to the story, which are viewable only by friends within their social network. In May 2011, Canon and Ron Howard teamed up to create Project Imagin8ion, which was a photo contest where photographers submitted photos and the top 8 photos would be the inspiration for a short film. This short film was called "When You Find Me" and could be found exclusively on YouTube. In July 2011, Intel and Toshiba partnered together to create Hollywood's first Social Film experience, a thriller called Inside, directed by D.J. Caruso and starring Emmy Rossum. The project is broken up into several segments across multiple social media platforms including Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. In this instance, the audience is challenged to help Emmy Rossum's character, Christina, safely make it out of the room she's been trapped in. This particular form of social film is a major undertaking in that it combines social media activity with A-list acting talent to create a user experience that all happens in real time. Although not quite the same idea, Hollywood also started experimenting with the idea of interactive and crowd-sourced films. One of the first examples of this was a short film called "Life In A Day" directed by Kevin Macdonald and produced by Ridley Scott. Kevin asked people from all over the world to submit videos onto YouTube of what they were doing on July 24th, 2010. They combined all of the best videos that were submitted together to create one film of people doing different things all around the world, no matter how boring or simple those things seemed. They took this short to film festivals before releasing it to the public on YouTube in 2011. In August 2012, Intel and Toshiba partnered again to create The Beauty Inside, directed by Drake Doremus, starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Topher Grace. It's Hollywood's first social film that gives everyone in the audience a chance to play Alex, the lead role. The experience will be broken up into six filmed episodes interspersed with real-time interactive storytelling that all takes place on Alex's Facebook timeline. In August 2013, Intel and Toshiba released their third entry into the category, The Power Inside, directed by Will Speck and Josh Gordon and starring Harvey Keitel, Analeigh Tipton, and Craig Roberts. It's Hollywood's first social film that asks the audience to audition to help save or destroy the world. The experience is broken up into six filmed episodes interspersed with user-generated content and interactive storytelling on the main character's Facebook timeline. In 2015, Intel partnered with Dell for their fourth entry, What Lives Inside directed by Robert Stromberg and starring Colin Hanks, Catherine O'Hara, and J. K. Simmons. The first of four episodes was released on Hulu on March 25, 2015.
Consumer relationship system
Consumer relationship systems (CRS) are specialized customer relationship management (CRM) software applications that are used to handle a company's dealings with its customers. Current consumer relationship systems integrate the software with telephone and call recording systems as well as with corporate systems for input and reporting. Customers can provide input from the company's website directly into the CRS. These systems are popular because they can deliver the 'voice of the consumer' that contributes to product quality improvement and that ultimately increases corporate profits. Consumer relationship systems that provide automated support as well as advanced systems may have artificial intelligence (AI) interfaces that can extract and analyse data collected, or handle basic questions and complaints. == History == The first CRS was developed in the 1980s. In 1981 Michael Wilke and Robert Thornton founded Wilke/Thornton, Inc in Columbus, Ohio, to develop new CRS software.
Pixelmator
Pixelmator is a series of graphics editors developed by Apple for macOS, iOS, and iPadOS. Pixelmator apps leverage Apple-specific technologies such as CoreML and Metal. Pixelmator uses a proprietary format across their apps (.PXD), but supports editing a variety of file types including Photoshop, RAW, and WebP. == History == Pixelmator Team was founded in 2007 by Lithuanian brothers Saulius and Aidas Dailidė, and released Pixelmator (now Pixelmator Classic) 1.0 in September of the same year. The company resided in Vilnius, Lithuania. In November 2024, Pixelmator Team agreed to be acquired by Apple for an unknown monetary amount, which was completed on 11 February 2025, the company was later folded into Apple with its products coming under them fully. == Pixelmator Classic == Pixelmator Classic was the original version of Pixelmator released for Mac on 25 September 2007. It uses a palette-style interface with floating toolbars compared to Pixelmator Pro's single-window interface. It is no longer being updated and has been delisted from the Mac App Store. == Pixelmator iOS == Pixelmator for iOS launched on 23 October 2014 as an iPad-exclusive app with touch-optimized versions of Pixelmator's desktop features. In May 2015, Pixelmator for iOS 2.0 was released with support for the iPhone. Apple no longer updates Pixelmator for iOS as of 13 January 2026, shortly before the release of Pixelmator Pro for iPad. == Pixelmator Pro == Pixelmator Pro is an image, video, and vector editing software for macOS that launched on 29 November 2017. It was a paid upgrade for Pixelmator Classic users, featuring a redesigned interface, a graphics pipeline rewritten using Metal, Apple silicon support and a greater focus on ML/AI editing features. On 28 January 2026, Apple announced Apple Creator Studio, a subscription bundle for their professional software that contains Pixelmator Pro. They also brought Pixelmator Pro to iPad, shortly after discontinuing Pixelmator iOS. == Photomator == Photomator (formerly Pixelmator Photo) is a photo-oriented editing app which launched on iPad in 2019, on iOS in 2021, and macOS in 2022. After launching the macOS version, the app moved from a one-time purchase to a subscription; however, a lifetime license can still be purchased for $99. Photomator differentiates itself from other Pixelmator apps with features such as batch editing of full photoshoots and AI-powered color correction. Edits in Photomator are made on a single layer and are non-destructive.
Omni-Path
Omni-Path Architecture (OPA) is a high-performance communication architecture developed by Intel. It aims for low communication latency, low power consumption and a high throughput. It directly competes with InfiniBand. Intel planned to develop technology based on this architecture for exascale computing. The current owner of Omni-Path is Cornelis Networks. == History == Production of Omni-Path products started in 2015 and delivery of these products started in the first quarter of 2016. In November 2015, adapters based on the 2-port "Wolf River" ASIC were announced, using QSFP28 connectors with channel speeds up to 100 Gbit/s. Simultaneously, switches based on the 48-port "Prairie River" ASIC were announced. First models of that series were available starting in 2015. In April 2016, implementation of the InfiniBand "verbs" interface for the Omni-Path fabric was discussed. In October 2016, IBM, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Dell, Lenovo, Samsung, Seagate Technology, Micron Technology, Western Digital and SK Hynix announced a joint consortium called Gen-Z to develop an open specification and architecture for non-volatile storage and memory products—including Intel's 3D Xpoint technology—which might in part compete against Omni-Path. Intel offered their Omni-Path products and components via other (hardware) vendors. For example, Dell EMC offered Intel Omni-Path as Dell Networking H-series, following the naming-standard of Dell Networking in 2017. In July 2019, Intel announced it would not continue development of Omni-Path networks and canceled OPA 200 series (200-Gbps variant of Omni-Path). In September 2020, Intel announced that the Omni-Path network products and technology would be spun out into a new venture with Cornelis Networks. Intel would continue to maintain support for legacy Omni-Path products, while Cornelis Networks continues the product line, leveraging existing Intel intellectual property related to Omni-Path architecture. In 2021, Cornelis announced Omni-Path Express, which replaces PSM2-based drivers and middleware, which trace back to PathScale's PSM created in 2003, for the existing Omni-Path hardware, with a native libfabric provider.