Communications security is the discipline of preventing unauthorized interceptors from accessing telecommunications in an intelligible form, while still delivering content to the intended recipients. In the North Atlantic Treaty Organization culture, including United States Department of Defense culture, it is often referred to by the abbreviation COMSEC. The field includes cryptographic security, transmission security, emissions security and physical security of COMSEC equipment and associated keying material. COMSEC is used to protect both classified and unclassified traffic on military communications networks, including voice, video, and data. It is used for both analog and digital applications, and both wired and wireless links. Voice over secure internet protocol VOSIP has become the de facto standard for securing voice communication, replacing the need for Secure Terminal Equipment (STE) in much of NATO, including the U.S.A. USCENTCOM moved entirely to VOSIP in 2008. == Specialties == Cryptographic security: The component of communications security that results from the provision of technically sound cryptosystems and their proper use. This includes ensuring message confidentiality and authenticity. Emission security (EMSEC): The protection resulting from all measures taken to deny unauthorized persons information of value that might be derived from communications systems and cryptographic equipment intercepts and the interception and analysis of compromising emanations from cryptographic equipment, information systems, and telecommunications systems. Transmission security (TRANSEC): The component of communications security that results from the application of measures designed to protect transmissions from interception and exploitation by means other than cryptanalysis (e.g. frequency hopping and spread spectrum). Physical security: The component of communications security that results from all physical measures necessary to safeguard classified equipment, material, and documents from access thereto or observation thereof by unauthorized persons. == Related terms == ACES – Automated Communications Engineering Software AEK – Algorithmic Encryption Key AKMS – the Army Key Management System CCI – Controlled Cryptographic Item - equipment which contains COMSEC embedded devices CT3 – Common Tier 3 DTD – Data Transfer Device ICOM – Integrated COMSEC, e.g. a radio with built in encryption KEK – Key Encryption Key KG-30 – family of COMSEC equipment KOI-18 – Tape Reader General Purpose KPK – Key production key KYK-13 – Electronic Transfer Device KYX-15 – Electronic Transfer Device LCMS – Local COMSEC Management Software OTAR – Over the Air Rekeying OWK – Over the Wire Key SKL – Simple Key Loader SOI – Signal operating instructions STE – Secure Terminal Equipment (secure phone) STU-III – (obsolete secure phone, replaced by STE) TED – Trunk Encryption Device such as the WALBURN/KG family TEK – Traffic Encryption Key TPI – Two person integrity TSEC – Telecommunications Security (sometimes referred to in error transmission security or TRANSEC) Types of COMSEC equipment: Authentication equipment Crypto equipment: Any equipment that embodies cryptographic logic or performs one or more cryptographic functions (key generation, encryption, and authentication). Crypto-ancillary equipment: Equipment designed specifically to facilitate efficient or reliable operation of crypto-equipment, without performing cryptographic functions itself. Crypto-production equipment: Equipment used to produce or load keying material == DoD Electronic Key Management System == The Electronic Key Management System (EKMS) is a United States Department of Defense (DoD) key management, COMSEC material distribution, and logistics support system. The National Security Agency (NSA) established the EKMS program to supply electronic key to COMSEC devices in securely and timely manner, and to provide COMSEC managers with an automated system capable of ordering, generation, production, distribution, storage, security accounting, and access control. The Army's platform in the four-tiered EKMS, AKMS, automates frequency management and COMSEC management operations. It eliminates paper keying material, hardcopy Signal operating instructions (SOI) and saves the time and resources required for courier distribution. It has 4 components: LCMS provides automation for the detailed accounting required for every COMSEC account, and electronic key generation and distribution capability. ACES is the frequency management portion of AKMS. ACES has been designated by the Military Communications Electronics Board as the joint standard for use by all services in development of frequency management and crypto-net planning. CT3 with DTD software is in a fielded, ruggedized hand-held device that handles, views, stores, and loads SOI, Key, and electronic protection data. DTD provides an improved net-control device to automate crypto-net control operations for communications networks employing electronically keyed COMSEC equipment. SKL is a hand-held PDA that handles, views, stores, and loads SOI, Key, and electronic protection data. == Key Management Infrastructure (KMI) Program == KMI is intended to replace the legacy Electronic Key Management System to provide a means for securely ordering, generating, producing, distributing, managing, and auditing cryptographic products (e.g., asymmetric keys, symmetric keys, manual cryptographic systems, and cryptographic applications). This system is currently being fielded by Major Commands and variants will be required for non-DoD Agencies with a COMSEC Mission.
Description logic
Description logics (DL) are a family of formal knowledge representation languages. Many DLs are more expressive than propositional logic but less expressive than first-order logic. In contrast to the latter, the core reasoning problems for DLs are (usually) decidable, and efficient decision procedures have been designed and implemented for these problems. There are general, spatial, temporal, spatiotemporal, and fuzzy description logics, and each description logic features a different balance between expressive power and reasoning complexity by supporting different sets of mathematical constructors. DLs are used in artificial intelligence to describe and reason about the relevant concepts of an application domain (known as terminological knowledge). It is of particular importance in providing a logical formalism for ontologies and the Semantic Web: the Web Ontology Language (OWL) and its profiles are based on DLs. A major area of application of DLs and OWL is in biomedical informatics, where they assist in the codification of biomedical knowledge. DLs and OWL are also applied in other domains, including defense, climate modeling, and large-scale industrial knowledge graphs. == Introduction == A DL models concepts, roles and individuals, and their relationships. The fundamental modeling concept of a DL is the axiom—a logical statement relating roles and/or concepts. This is a key difference from the frames paradigm where a frame specification declares and completely defines a class. == Nomenclature == === Terminology compared to FOL and OWL === The description logic community uses different terminology than the first-order logic (FOL) community for operationally equivalent notions; some examples are given below. The Web Ontology Language (OWL) uses again a different terminology, also given in the table below. === Naming convention === There are many varieties of description logics and there is an informal naming convention, roughly describing the operators allowed. The expressivity is encoded in the label for a logic starting with one of the following basic logics: Followed by any of the following extensions: ==== Exceptions ==== Some canonical DLs that do not exactly fit this convention are: ==== Examples ==== As an example, A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is a centrally important description logic from which comparisons with other varieties can be made. A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is simply A L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {AL}}} with complement of any concept allowed, not just atomic concepts. A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is used instead of the equivalent A L U E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALUE}}} . A further example, the description logic S H I Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIQ}}} is the logic A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} plus extended cardinality restrictions, and transitive and inverse roles. The naming conventions aren't purely systematic so that the logic A L C O I N {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALCOIN}}} might be referred to as A L C N I O {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALCNIO}}} and other abbreviations are also made where possible. The Protégé ontology editor supports S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . Three major biomedical informatics terminology bases, SNOMED CT, GALEN, and GO, are expressible in E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {EL}}} (with additional role properties). OWL 2 provides the expressiveness of S R O I Q ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} , OWL-DL is based on S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} , and for OWL-Lite it is S H I F ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIF}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . == History == Description logic was given its current name in the 1980s. Previous to this it was called (chronologically): terminological systems, and concept languages. === Knowledge representation === Frames and semantic networks lack formal (logic-based) semantics. DL was first introduced into knowledge representation (KR) systems to overcome this deficiency. The first DL-based KR system was KL-ONE (by Ronald J. Brachman and Schmolze, 1985). During the '80s other DL-based systems using structural subsumption algorithms were developed including KRYPTON (1983), LOOM (1987), BACK (1988), K-REP (1991) and CLASSIC (1991). This approach featured DL with limited expressiveness but relatively efficient (polynomial time) reasoning. In the early '90s, the introduction of a new tableau based algorithm paradigm allowed efficient reasoning on more expressive DL. DL-based systems using these algorithms — such as KRIS (1991) — show acceptable reasoning performance on typical inference problems even though the worst case complexity is no longer polynomial. From the mid '90s, reasoners were created with good practical performance on very expressive DL with high worst case complexity. Examples from this period include FaCT, RACER (2001), CEL (2005), and KAON 2 (2005). DL reasoners, such as FaCT, FaCT++, RACER, DLP and Pellet, implement the method of analytic tableaux. KAON2 is implemented by algorithms which reduce a SHIQ(D) knowledge base to a disjunctive datalog program. === Semantic web === The DARPA Agent Markup Language (DAML) and Ontology Inference Layer (OIL) ontology languages for the Semantic Web can be viewed as syntactic variants of DL. In particular, the formal semantics and reasoning in OIL use the S H I Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIQ}}} DL. The DAML+OIL DL was developed as a submission to—and formed the starting point of—the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Ontology Working Group. In 2004, the Web Ontology Working Group completed its work by issuing the OWL recommendation. The design of OWL is based on the S H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SH}}} family of DL with OWL DL and OWL Lite based on S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} and S H I F ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIF}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} respectively. The W3C OWL Working Group began work in 2007 on a refinement of - and extension to - OWL. In 2009, this was completed by the issuance of the OWL2 recommendation. OWL2 is based on the description logic S R O I Q ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . Practical experience demonstrated that OWL DL lacked several key features necessary to model complex domains. == Modeling == === TBox vs Abox === In DL, a distinction is drawn between the so-called TBox (terminological box) and the ABox (assertional box). In general, the TBox contains sentences describing concept hierarchies (i.e., relations between concepts) while the ABox contains ground sentences stating where in the hierarchy, individuals belong (i.e., relations between individuals and concepts). For example, the statement: belongs in the TBox, while the statement: belongs in the ABox. Note that the TBox/ABox distinction is not significant, in the same sense that the two "kinds" of sentences are not treated differently in first-order logic (which subsumes most DL). When translated into first-order logic, a subsumption axiom like (1) is simply a conditional restriction to unary predicates (concepts) with only variables appearing in it. Clearly, a sentence of this form is not privileged or special over sentences in which only constants ("grounded" values) appear like (2). === Motivation for having Tbox and Abox === So why was the distinction introduced? The primary reason is that the separation can be useful when describing and formulating decision-procedures for various DL. For example, a reasoner might process the TBox and ABox separately, in part because certain key inference problems are tied to one but not the other one ('classification' is related to the TBox, 'instance checking' to the ABox). Another example is that the complexity of the TBox can greatly affect the performance of a given decision-procedure for a certain DL, independently of the ABox. Thus, it is useful to have a way to talk about that specific part of the knowledge base. The secondary reason is that the distinction can make sense from the knowledge base modeler's perspective. It is plausible to distinguish between our conception of terms/concepts in the world (class axioms in the TBox) and particular manifestations of those terms/concepts (instance assertions in the ABox). In the above example: when the hierarchy within a company is the same in every branch but the assignment to employees is different in every department (because there are other people working there), it makes sense to reuse the TBox for different branches that do not use the same ABox. There are two features of description logic that are not shared by most other data description formalisms: DL does not make the unique name assumption (UNA) or the closed-world assumption (CWA). Not having UNA means that two concepts with different names may be allowed by some inference to be shown to be equivalent. Not having CWA, or rather having the open world assumption (OWA) means that
Stability (learning theory)
Stability, also known as algorithmic stability, is a notion in computational learning theory of how a machine learning algorithm output is changed with small perturbations to its inputs. A stable learning algorithm is one for which the prediction does not change much when the training data is modified slightly. For instance, consider a machine learning algorithm that is being trained to recognize handwritten letters of the alphabet, using 1000 examples of handwritten letters and their labels ("A" to "Z") as a training set. One way to modify this training set is to leave out an example, so that only 999 examples of handwritten letters and their labels are available. A stable learning algorithm would produce a similar classifier with both the 1000-element and 999-element training sets. Stability can be studied for many types of learning problems, from language learning to inverse problems in physics and engineering, as it is a property of the learning process rather than the type of information being learned. The study of stability gained importance in computational learning theory in the 2000s when it was shown to have a connection with generalization. It was shown that for large classes of learning algorithms, notably empirical risk minimization algorithms, certain types of stability ensure good generalization. == History == A central goal in designing a machine learning system is to guarantee that the learning algorithm will generalize, or perform accurately on new examples after being trained on a finite number of them. In the 1990s, milestones were reached in obtaining generalization bounds for supervised learning algorithms. The technique historically used to prove generalization was to show that an algorithm was consistent, using the uniform convergence properties of empirical quantities to their means. This technique was used to obtain generalization bounds for the large class of empirical risk minimization (ERM) algorithms. An ERM algorithm is one that selects a solution from a hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} in such a way to minimize the empirical error on a training set S {\displaystyle S} . A general result, proved by Vladimir Vapnik for an ERM binary classification algorithms, is that for any target function and input distribution, any hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} with VC-dimension d {\displaystyle d} , and n {\displaystyle n} training examples, the algorithm is consistent and will produce a training error that is at most O ( d n ) {\displaystyle O\left({\sqrt {\frac {d}{n}}}\right)} (plus logarithmic factors) from the true error. The result was later extended to almost-ERM algorithms with function classes that do not have unique minimizers. Vapnik's work, using what became known as VC theory, established a relationship between generalization of a learning algorithm and properties of the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} of functions being learned. However, these results could not be applied to algorithms with hypothesis spaces of unbounded VC-dimension. Put another way, these results could not be applied when the information being learned had a complexity that was too large to measure. Some of the simplest machine learning algorithms—for instance, for regression—have hypothesis spaces with unbounded VC-dimension. Another example is language learning algorithms that can produce sentences of arbitrary length. Stability analysis was developed in the 2000s for computational learning theory and is an alternative method for obtaining generalization bounds. The stability of an algorithm is a property of the learning process, rather than a direct property of the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} , and it can be assessed in algorithms that have hypothesis spaces with unbounded or undefined VC-dimension such as nearest neighbor. A stable learning algorithm is one for which the learned function does not change much when the training set is slightly modified, for instance by leaving out an example. A measure of Leave one out error is used in a Cross Validation Leave One Out (CVloo) algorithm to evaluate a learning algorithm's stability with respect to the loss function. As such, stability analysis is the application of sensitivity analysis to machine learning. == Summary of classic results == Early 1900s - Stability in learning theory was earliest described in terms of continuity of the learning map L {\displaystyle L} , traced to Andrey Nikolayevich Tikhonov. 1979 - Devroye and Wagner observed that the leave-one-out behavior of an algorithm is related to its sensitivity to small changes in the sample. 1999 - Kearns and Ron discovered a connection between finite VC-dimension and stability. 2002 - In a landmark paper, Bousquet and Elisseeff proposed the notion of uniform hypothesis stability of a learning algorithm and showed that it implies low generalization error. Uniform hypothesis stability, however, is a strong condition that does not apply to large classes of algorithms, including ERM algorithms with a hypothesis space of only two functions. 2002 - Kutin and Niyogi extended Bousquet and Elisseeff's results by providing generalization bounds for several weaker forms of stability which they called almost-everywhere stability. Furthermore, they took an initial step in establishing the relationship between stability and consistency in ERM algorithms in the Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) setting. 2004 - Poggio et al. proved a general relationship between stability and ERM consistency. They proposed a statistical form of leave-one-out-stability which they called CVEEEloo stability, and showed that it is a) sufficient for generalization in bounded loss classes, and b) necessary and sufficient for consistency (and thus generalization) of ERM algorithms for certain loss functions such as the square loss, the absolute value and the binary classification loss. 2010 - Shalev Shwartz et al. noticed problems with the original results of Vapnik due to the complex relations between hypothesis space and loss class. They discuss stability notions that capture different loss classes and different types of learning, supervised and unsupervised. 2016 - Moritz Hardt et al. proved stability of gradient descent given certain assumption on the hypothesis and number of times each instance is used to update the model. == Preliminary definitions == We define several terms related to learning algorithms training sets, so that we can then define stability in multiple ways and present theorems from the field. A machine learning algorithm, also known as a learning map L {\displaystyle L} , maps a training data set, which is a set of labeled examples ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} , onto a function f {\displaystyle f} from X {\displaystyle X} to Y {\displaystyle Y} , where X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} are in the same space of the training examples. The functions f {\displaystyle f} are selected from a hypothesis space of functions called H {\displaystyle H} . The training set from which an algorithm learns is defined as S = { z 1 = ( x 1 , y 1 ) , . . , z m = ( x m , y m ) } {\displaystyle S=\{z_{1}=(x_{1},\ y_{1})\ ,..,\ z_{m}=(x_{m},\ y_{m})\}} and is of size m {\displaystyle m} in Z = X × Y {\displaystyle Z=X\times Y} drawn i.i.d. from an unknown distribution D. Thus, the learning map L {\displaystyle L} is defined as a mapping from Z m {\displaystyle Z_{m}} into H {\displaystyle H} , mapping a training set S {\displaystyle S} onto a function f S {\displaystyle f_{S}} from X {\displaystyle X} to Y {\displaystyle Y} . Here, we consider only deterministic algorithms where L {\displaystyle L} is symmetric with respect to S {\displaystyle S} , i.e. it does not depend on the order of the elements in the training set. Furthermore, we assume that all functions are measurable and all sets are countable. The loss V {\displaystyle V} of a hypothesis f {\displaystyle f} with respect to an example z = ( x , y ) {\displaystyle z=(x,y)} is then defined as V ( f , z ) = V ( f ( x ) , y ) {\displaystyle V(f,z)=V(f(x),y)} . The empirical error of f {\displaystyle f} is I S [ f ] = 1 n ∑ V ( f , z i ) {\displaystyle I_{S}[f]={\frac {1}{n}}\sum V(f,z_{i})} . The true error of f {\displaystyle f} is I [ f ] = E z V ( f , z ) {\displaystyle I[f]=\mathbb {E} _{z}V(f,z)} Given a training set S of size m, we will build, for all i = 1....,m, modified training sets as follows: By removing the i-th element S | i = { z 1 , . . . , z i − 1 , z i + 1 , . . . , z m } {\displaystyle S^{|i}=\{z_{1},...,\ z_{i-1},\ z_{i+1},...,\ z_{m}\}} By replacing the i-th element S i = { z 1 , . . . , z i − 1 , z i ′ , z i + 1 , . . . , z m } {\displaystyle S^{i}=\{z_{1},...,\ z_{i-1},\ z_{i}',\ z_{i+1},...,\ z_{m}\}} == Definitions of stability == === Hypothesis Stability === An algorithm L {\displaystyle L} has hypothesis stability β with respect to the loss function V if the following holds: ∀ i ∈ { 1 , . . . , m } , E S , z [ | V ( f S , z ) − V ( f S |
AI effect
The AI effect is a phenomenon in which advances in artificial intelligence lead to a redefinition of what is considered intelligence, such that capabilities achieved by AI systems are no longer regarded as examples of "real" intelligence. The concept has been used to describe both a cognitive tendency and a sociotechnical pattern, in which successful AI techniques are reclassified as routine computation or absorbed into other domains. Historian Pamela McCorduck described this as a recurring feature of AI research, noting in her 2004 book Machines Who Think that once a problem is solved, it is no longer considered evidence of intelligence. Researcher Rodney Brooks similarly observed in 2002 that once systems are understood, they are often regarded as "just computation". == Definition == The AI effect refers to a shift in how intelligence is defined as machines acquire new capabilities. Tasks such as playing chess, recognizing speech, or interpreting images were historically considered indicators of intelligence, but after successful automation they are often reclassified as routine computation. McCorduck described this as an "odd paradox", in which successful AI systems are assimilated into other domains, leaving AI researchers to focus on unsolved problems. The phenomenon is often interpreted as an instance of moving the goalposts. A commonly cited formulation is Tesler's theorem, often expressed as "AI is whatever hasn't been done yet". When problems are not fully formalised, they may be described using models involving human computation, such as human-assisted Turing machines. == Historical examples == === Game playing === Early AI systems capable of playing games such as checkers and chess were initially regarded as demonstrations of machine intelligence. As these systems improved and became better understood, their achievements were often reinterpreted as examples of computation rather than intelligence. The victory of IBM's Deep Blue over Garry Kasparov in 1997 is a frequently cited example. Critics argued that the system relied on brute-force methods rather than genuine understanding. === Pattern recognition === Technologies such as optical character recognition and speech recognition were once considered core problems in artificial intelligence. As these systems became reliable and widely deployed, they were increasingly treated as standard engineering solutions. === Integration into applications === Many techniques originally developed within AI research have been incorporated into broader technological systems, including marketing, automation, and software applications. Michael Swaine reported in 2007 that AI advances are often presented as developments in other fields. Marvin Minsky observed that successful AI innovations often evolve into separate disciplines. Nick Bostrom noted in 2006 that widely adopted technologies are often no longer labeled as AI. == Contemporary discussion == The AI effect continues to be discussed in the context of recent advances in machine learning, particularly large language models and other generative AI systems. As these systems have become more widely used, some researchers and commentators have noted that their capabilities are frequently described as statistical or mechanical once understood, rather than as intelligence. A 2016 survey of artificial intelligence also noted that AI systems are increasingly embedded in everyday applications, reinforcing earlier observations that successful AI technologies tend to become normalized and no longer identified as AI. At the same time, the widespread commercial use of artificial intelligence has led to greater visibility of the field, contrasting with earlier periods in which AI techniques were often present but unacknowledged. == Interpretations == === Cognitive bias === Some authors describe the AI effect as a cognitive bias in which expectations of intelligence shift as machines achieve new capabilities. === Sociotechnical perspective === Another interpretation emphasizes how technologies are reclassified over time as they become widespread and commercially successful. === Philosophical debate === Some philosophers argue that reclassification reflects genuine conceptual distinctions rather than bias. == Historical context == During periods such as the AI winter, researchers sometimes avoided the term "artificial intelligence" due to negative perceptions. In the 21st century, however, the term "AI" has become widely used in public discourse and marketing. == Broader implications == The AI effect has been linked to broader questions about human uniqueness and the nature of intelligence. Michael Kearns suggested that people may seek to preserve a special role for humans. Similar patterns have been observed in studies of animal cognition. Herbert A. Simon noted that artificial intelligence can provoke strong emotional reactions.
Behavior informatics
Behavior informatics (BI) is the informatics of behaviors so as to obtain behavior intelligence and behavior insights. BI is a research method combining science and technology, specifically in the area of engineering. The purpose of BI includes analysis of current behaviors as well as the inference of future possible behaviors. This occurs through pattern recognition. Different from applied behavior analysis from the psychological perspective, BI builds computational theories, systems and tools to qualitatively and quantitatively model, represent, analyze, and manage behaviors of individuals, groups and/or organizations. BI is built on classic study of behavioral science, including behavior modeling, applied behavior analysis, behavior analysis, behavioral economics, and organizational behavior. Typical BI tasks consist of individual and group behavior formation, representation, computational modeling, analysis, learning, simulation, and understanding of behavior impact, utility, non-occurring behaviors, etc. for behavior intervention and management. The Behavior Informatics approach to data utilizes cognitive as well as behavioral data. By combining the data, BI has the potential to effectively illustrate the big picture when it comes to behavioral decisions and patterns. One of the goals of BI is also to be able to study human behavior while eliminating issues like self-report bias. This creates more reliable and valid information for research studies. == Behavior == From an Informatics perspective, a behavior consists of three key elements: actors (behavioral subjects and objects), operations (actions, activities) and interactions (relationships), and their properties. A behavior can be represented as a behavior vector, all behaviors of an actor or an actor group can be represented as behavior sequences and multi-dimensional behavior matrix. The following table explains some of the elements of behavior. Behavior Informatics takes into account behavior when analyzing business patterns and intelligence. The inclusion of behavior in these analyses provides prominent information on social and driving factors of patterns. == Applications == Behavior Informatics is being used in a variety of settings, including but not limited to health care management, telecommunications, marketing, and security. Behavior Informatics provides a manner in which to analyze and organize the many aspects that go into a person's health care needs and decisions. When it comes to business models, behavior informatics may be utilized for a similar role. Organizations implement behavior informatics to enhance business structure and regime, where it helps moderate ideal business decisions and situations.
Operation Serenata de Amor
Operation Serenata de Amor is an artificial intelligence project designed to analyze public spending in Brazil. The project has been funded by a recurrent financing campaign since September 7, 2016, and came in the wake of major scandals of misappropriation of public funds in Brazil, such as the Mensalão scandal and what was revealed in the Operation Car Wash investigations. The analysis began with data from the National Congress then expanded to other types of budget and instances of government, such as the Federal Senate. The project is built through collaboration on GitHub and using a public group with more than 600 participants on Telegram. The name "Serenata de Amor," which means "serenade of love," was taken from a popular cashew cream bonbon produced by Chocolates Garoto in Brazil. == Modules == Throughout development of the project, new modules have been newly introduced in addition to the main repository: The main repository, serenata-de-amor, serves as the starting point for investigative work. Rosie is the robot programmed to identify public funds expenses with discrepancies, starting with CEAP (Quota for Exercise of Parliamentary Activity); it analyzes each of the reimbursements requested by the deputies and senators, indicating the reasons that lead it to believe they are suspicious. From Rosie was born whistleblower, which tweets under the name of @RosieDaSerenata, distributing the results found on social media. Jarbas (Github repository) is a data visualization tool which shows a complete list of reimbursements made available by the Chamber of Deputies and mined by Rosie. Toolbox is a Python installable package that supports the development of Serenata de Amor and Rosie. == History == Operation Serenata de Amor is an Artificial intelligence project for analysis of public expenditures. It was conceived in March 2016 by data scientist Irio Musskopf, sociologist Eduardo Cuducos and entrepreneur Felipe Cabral. The project was financed collectively in the Catarse platform, where it reached 131% of the collection goal paying 3 months of project development. Ana Schwendler, also a data scientist, Pedro Vilanova "Tonny", data journalist, Bruno Pazzim, software engineer, Filipe Linhares, a frontend engineer, Leandro Devegili, an entrepreneur and André Pinho took the first steps towards constructing the platform, such as collecting and structuring the first datasets. Jessica Temporal, data scientist and Yasodara Córdova "Yaso", researcher, Tatiana Balachova "Russa", UX designer, joined the project after the financing took place. The members created a recurring financing campaign, expanding the analysis of public spending to the Federal Senate. Donors make monthly payments ranging from 5 BRL to 200 BRL to maintain group activities. The monthly amount collected is around 10,000 BRL. == Results == In January 2017, concluding the period financed by the initial campaign, the group carried out an investigation into the suspicious activities found by the data analysis system. 629 complaints were made to the Ombudsman's Office of the Chamber of Deputies, questioning expenses of 216 federal deputies. In addition, the Facebook project page has more than 25,000 followers, and users frequently cite the operation as a benchmark in transparency in the Brazilian government. One of the examples of results obtained by the operation is the case of the Deputy who had to return about 700 BRL to the House after his expenses were analyzed by the platform. The platform was able to analyze more than 3 million notes, raising about 8,000 suspected cases in public spending. The community that supports the work of the team benefits from open source repositories, with licenses open for the collaboration. So much so that the two main data scientists of the project presented it at the CivicTechFest in Taipei, obtaining several mentions even in the international press. The technical leader presented the project in Poland during DevConf2017 in Kraków. It was also presented in the Google News Lab in 2017. It was presented by Yaso, when she was the Director of the initiative, at the MIT Media Lab/Berkman Klein Center Initiative for Artificial Intelligence ethics, and at the Artificial Intelligence and Inclusion Symposium, an initiative of the Global Network of Internet & Society Centers (NoC). It was also presented both by Irio and Yaso at the Digital Harvard Kennedy School, over a lunch seminar, where the transparency of the platform and the main solutions found were discussed, so that the code and data are always available to verify its suitability. This infographic provides information about the first results of Operation Serenata de Amor, a project that analyzes open data on public spending to find discrepancies. The project was presented by Yaso to the House Audit and Control Committee of the Chamber of Deputies in August 2017, and raised the interest of House officials who work with open data. The operation has been a source of inspiration for other civic projects that aim to work with similar goals, demonstrating the broader impact of artificial intelligence also in industry in Brazil. Participation of several team members in events throughout Brazil and abroad can be found on the Internet, such as presentation at OpenDataDay, held at Calango Hackerspace in the Federal District, Campus Party Bahia, Campus Party Brasilia, Friends of Tomorrow, XIII National Meeting of Internal Control, in the event USP Talks Hackfest against corruption in João Pessoa, the latter being also highlighted in the National Press.
Smart speaker industry in South Korea
Smart speakers, or AI speakers, have been developed by multiple domestic electronics and telecommunications firms in South Korea. Since their introduction to the local market in 2016, they have been used by millions of people in the country. == Brands == === Google === In September 2018, Google Home (including the Google Home Mini) launched in South Korea. Running Google Assistant, it featured simultaneous recognition of two languages among a total of seven, including Korean. At launch, it could play music from Bugs!, in addition to YouTube. === Kakao === In November 2017, Kakao launched the Kakao Mini, featuring integrated KakaoTalk functionality. === KT === KT launched the GiGA Genie smart speaker in January 2017, using a Harman Kardon speaker. In November 2017, KT announced GiGA Genie LTE, a portable AI speaker with LTE support. They also released a mini speaker called GiGA Genie Buddy. In 2018, KT created a special version of GiGa Genie with a screen for use in hotels. On 29 April 2019, KT announced the GiGA Genie Table TV, a consumer-oriented smart speaker with a display. It featured paid TV access through Wi-Fi. Based on usage data from the hotel model, KT decided not to add a touchscreen. The Table TV also featured a limited-access "personalized-text-to-speech technology" which could use parents' voice recording inputs to read children books. In February 2022, KT began rolling out Amazon Alexa integration into its speakers for English support. === Naver === In August 2017, Naver announced the Wave smart speaker, operating on Clova. In October 2017, Naver launched the Friends smart speaker, which were designed based on Line characters. ==== LG Uplus ==== In December 2017, LG Uplus launched the Friends+ speaker with Naver, operating on U+ Home AI. === Samsung === In August 2018, Samsung announced the Samsung Galaxy Home in partnership with Spotify. The original size was delayed, while the Galaxy Home Mini appeared briefly as a bonus for Samsung Galaxy S20 preorders in South Korea in February 2020. === SK Telecom === SK Telecom launched the Nugu smart speaker in September 2016, using an Astell & Kern audio system. In August 2017, SKT released a portable speaker named Nugu mini. In July 2018, SKT launched the Nugu Candle, featuring expanded mood lighting. The first-generation Nugu was subsequently discontinued. On 18 April 2019, SKT released the NUGU Nemo AI, which featured a display and JBL stereo speaker. In August 2019, SKT collaborated with SM Entertainment, incorporating functions related to the agency's artists into Nugu. In January 2022, SKT showcased the NUGU Candle SE, introducing Alexa support. == Usage == In 2018, approximately 3 million people in South Korea used smart speakers. According to data from KT in 2018, the most common commands to its speakers were for controlling televisions. Based on a broader survey in 2017, music was selected as the most frequent use case. By 2018, smart speaker companies were partnering with reading and other education services, adding potential use-cases for children. By 2022, smart speakers were being utilized by the South Korean government. SKT, in partnership with 70 regional governments, distributed smart speakers to 12,000 senior citizens living alone. The government paid for monthly subscriptions to help seniors stay mentally engaged. Naver made an agreement with the Seoul Metropolitan Government to provide Clova CareCall, an automated health checkup program to hundreds of senior citizens living alone. KT's AI care service included an emergency dispatch call function and medication notifications. == Criticism == === Communication === In a survey of 300 users in 2017, approximately half reported having some type of communication issue with their smart speakers. === Privacy === South Korean smart speakers sparked privacy concerns when they were found to be collecting and documenting user audio data in 2019. The speaker companies responded that only a minority of data was collected and that it was anonymized. They stated that such recordings were collected for performance improvements.