Blacker (styled BLACKER) is a U.S. Department of Defense computer network security project designed to achieve A1 class ratings (very high assurance) of the Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC). The first Blacker program began in the late 1970s, with a follow-on eventually producing fielded devices in the late 1980s. It was the first secure system with trusted end-to-end encryption on the United States' Defense Data Network. The project was implemented by SDC (software), and Burroughs (hardware), and after their merger, by the resultant company Unisys.
CEITON
CEITON is a web-based software system for facilitating and automating business processes such as planning, scheduling, and payroll using workflow technologies. The system is used by several media companies such as MDR, Yle, RAI and Red Bull Media House. In December 2018, the first CEITON User Group Meeting took place in Leipzig, Germany. == Architecture == The software runs on a server (on premises) or in the cloud and is scalable on parallel servers. Data security is warranted by role-based access control (RBAC). The software is used via web-browsers and not dependent on particular system software. == Structure and Features == CEITON combines the two classical approaches of production planning and control and workflow management. === Project Management === The scheduling system plans, manages, bills, and analyzes projects or tasks. It manages human and technical resources, material, and locations on a single GUI. The system uses a gantt chart to assign tasks to be done to available and eligible resources (i.e. staff), automatically or by drag-and-drop. The scheduling module includes material management, resource management/ human resource management, integration of freelancers, clients and suppliers, long-term budget planning, time-tracking, shift scheduling, quality management, delivery and logistics, document management, archive, analysis and controlling, business reporting, as well as all accounting and documentation processes. === Workflow === The workflow management system module coordinates business processes. Processes are defined once as a workflow and then repeatedly executed. Human resources are automatically assigned to steps (tasks) and integrated in workflow forms. Systems are integrated with an EAI/SOAP module, allowing data exchange with arbitrary external systems which are also involved in the business process. It also features a 3-D workflow overview in which the status of each project step can be determined by its color in the overview. === Process Management === For project and order processing management, business processes are designed as workflows, and coordinate communication automatically. Different user interfaces for staff, customers or suppliers can be created so each gets only relevant information. Different workflow forms are associated with different log-ins. The main application for the system is knowledge-based business processes, in which many people are involved and virtual results are produced, e.g. in research, or development of media products, such as TV and movies. Broadcasters and media companies such as MDR and Yle use CEITON to control their production processes for products and services and coordinate complex workflows with all kinds of resources. === Integrations === An integrated EAI module allows CEITON to integrate every external system in any business process without programming, using SOAP and similar technologies. Aspera and FileCatalyst were integrated for faster data transfer, yet complex ERP systems and numerous SAP modules have also been integrated, for example, to extract working times to payroll. === Mobile Working === Since Version 7, released in 2015, CEITON includes a time-tracking module allowing employees to enter their times from mobile devices such as tablets running Android, iPhones etc. == History == Ceiton Technologies (SME tech firm), the company developing CEITON, was founded in Leipzig, Germany in 2000, staffing solutions for the Bureau of Internal Revenue in Manila, Philippines, were implemented in 2000 together with the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit of the German government. The first version (1.0) of the software was released in July 2001. The product was originally developed for German broadcasting companies. CEITON is named after the Japanese concept Seiton, one of the principles of Japanese workplace design methodology known as 5S. Since version 7, released in 2015, CEITON includes a time-tracking module allowing employees to enter their times from mobile devices such as tablets running Android, iPhones etc. In May 2005 CEITON won the IQ innovation award, sponsored by Siemens, in the category Excellent innovation in the IT-sector. Since 2007, CEITON has been present at the broadcast trade fairs NAB in Las Vegas and IBC in Amsterdam. In 2020, the company celebrated its 20th anniversary.
Feigenbaum test
A Feigenbaum test is a variation of the Turing test where a computer system attempts to replicate an expert in a given field such as chemistry or marketing. It is also known, as a subject matter expert Turing test and was proposed by Edward Feigenbaum in a 2003 paper. The concept is also described by Ray Kurzweil in his 2005 book The Singularity is Near. Kurzweil argues that machines who pass this test are an inevitable consequence of Moore's Law.
Library classification
A library classification is a system used within a library to organize materials, including books, sound and video recordings, electronic materials, etc., both on shelves and in catalogs and indexes. Each item is typically assigned a call number, which identifies the location of the item within the system. Materials can be arranged by many different factors, typically in either a hierarchical tree structure based on the subject or using a faceted classification system, which allows the assignment of multiple classifications to an object, enabling the classifications to be ordered in many ways. == Description == Library classification is an important and crucial aspect in library and information science. It is distinct from scientific classification in that it has as its goal to provide a useful ordering of documents rather than a theoretical organization of knowledge. Although it has the practical purpose of creating a physical ordering of documents, it does generally attempt to adhere to accepted scientific knowledge. Library classification helps to accommodate all the newly published literature in an already created order of arrangement in a filial sequence. Library classification can be defined as the arrangement of books on shelves, or description of them, in the manner which is most useful to those who read with the ultimate aim of grouping similar things together. Library classification is meant to achieve these four purposes: ordering the fields of knowledge in a systematic way, bring related items together in the most helpful sequence, provide orderly access on the shelf, and provide a location for an item on the shelf. Library classification is distinct from the application of subject headings in that classification organizes knowledge into a systematic order, while subject headings provide access to intellectual materials through vocabulary terms that may or may not be organized as a knowledge system. The characteristics that a bibliographic classification demands for the sake of reaching these purposes are: a useful sequence of subjects at all levels, a concise memorable notation, and a host of techniques and devices of number synthesis. == History == Library classifications were preceded by classifications used by bibliographers such as Conrad Gessner. The earliest library classification schemes organized books in broad subject categories. The earliest known library classification scheme is the Pinakes by Callimachus, a scholar at the Library of Alexandria during the third century BC. During the Renaissance and Reformation era, "Libraries were organized according to the whims or knowledge of individuals in charge." This changed the format in which various materials were classified. Some collections were classified by language and others by how they were printed. After the printing revolution in the sixteenth century, the increase in available printed materials made such broad classification unworkable, and more granular classifications for library materials had to be developed in the nineteenth century. In 1627 Gabriel Naudé published a book called Advice on Establishing a Library. At the time, he was working in the private library of Président à mortier Henri de Mesmes II. Mesmes had around 8,000 printed books and many more Greek, Latin and French written manuscripts. Although it was a private library, scholars with references could access it. The purpose of Advice on Establishing a Library was to identify rules for private book collectors to organize their collections in a more orderly way to increase the collection's usefulness and beauty. Naudé developed a classification system based on seven different classes: theology, medicine, jurisprudence, history, philosophy, mathematics, and the humanities. These seven classes would later be increased to twelve. Advice on Establishing a Library was about a private library, but within the same book, Naudé encouraged the idea of public libraries open to all people regardless of their ability to pay for access to the collection. One of the most famous libraries that Naudé helped improve was the Bibliothèque Mazarine in Paris. Naudé spent ten years there as a librarian. Because of Naudé's strong belief in free access to libraries to all people, the Bibliothèque Mazarine became the first public library in France around 1644. Although libraries created order within their collections from as early as the fifth century BC, the Paris Bookseller's classification, developed in 1842 by Jacques Charles Brunet, is generally seen as the first of the modern book classifications. Brunet provided five major classes: theology, jurisprudence, sciences and arts, belles-lettres, and history. Classification can now be seen as a provider of subject access to information in a networked environment. == Types == There are many standard systems of library classification in use, and many more have been proposed over the years. However, in general, classification systems can be divided into three types depending on how they are used: === Universal schemes === Covers all subjects, e.g. the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), and Colon Classification (CC). === Specific classification schemes === Covers particular subjects or types of materials, e.g. Iconclass (art), British Catalogue of Music Classification, and Dickinson classification (music), or the NLM Classification (medicine). === National schemes === Specially created for certain countries, e.g. Swedish library classification system, SAB (Sveriges Allmänna Biblioteksförening). The Library of Congress Classification was designed around the collection of the US Library of Congress and has an American, European, and Christian bias. Nevertheless, it is used widely in large academic and research libraries. In terms of functionality, classification systems are often described as: === Enumerative === Subject headings are listed alphabetically, with numbers assigned to each heading in alphabetical order. === Hierarchical === Subjects are divided hierarchically, from most general to most specific. === Faceted/analytico-synthetic === Subjects are divided into mutually exclusive orthogonal facets. There are few completely enumerative systems or faceted systems; most systems are a blend but favouring one type or the other. The most common classification systems, LCC and DDC, are essentially enumerative, though with some hierarchical and faceted elements (more so for DDC), especially at the broadest and most general level. The first true faceted system was the colon classification of S. R. Ranganathan. == Methods or systems == Classification types denote the classification or categorization according to the form or characteristics or qualities of a classification scheme or schemes. Method and system has similar meaning. Method or methods or system means the classification schemes like Dewey Decimal Classification or Universal Decimal Classification. The types of classification is for identifying and understanding or education or research purposes while classification method means those classification schemes like DDC, UDC. === English language universal classification systems === The most common systems in English-speaking countries are: Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) Library of Congress Classification (LCC) Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) Other systems include: Book Industry Standards and Communications (BISAC), originally developed for use by U.S. booksellers, has become increasingly popular in libraries. Bliss bibliographic classification used in some British libraries Colon classification (CC) Garside classification used in most libraries of University College London Gladstone Library Classification, devised by W.E. Gladstone and used exclusively at Gladstone's Library Harvard-Yenching Classification, an English classification system for Chinese language materials === Non-English universal classification systems === German Regensburger Verbundklassifikation (RVK) A system of book classification for Chinese libraries (Liu's Classification) library classification for user New Classification Scheme for Chinese Libraries Nippon Decimal Classification (NDC) Chinese Library Classification (CLC) Korean Decimal Classification (KDC) Russian Library-Bibliographical Classification (BBK) Swedish library classification system (SAB) === Universal classification systems that rely on synthesis (faceted systems) === Bliss bibliographic classification Colon classification Cutter Expansive Classification Universal Decimal Classification Newer classification systems tend to use the principle of synthesis (combining codes from different lists to represent the different attributes of a work) heavily, which is comparatively lacking in LC or DDC. == Practice == Library classification is associated with library (descriptive) cataloging under the rubric of cataloging and classification, sometimes grouped together as technical serv
Defeasible logic
Defeasible logic is a non-monotonic logic proposed by Donald Nute to formalize defeasible reasoning. In defeasible logic, there are three different types of propositions: strict rules specify that a fact is always a consequence of another; defeasible rules specify that a fact is typically a consequence of another; undercutting defeaters specify exceptions to defeasible rules. A priority ordering over the defeasible rules and the defeaters can be given. During the process of deduction, the strict rules are always applied, while a defeasible rule can be applied only if no defeater of a higher priority specifies that it should not.
Shape context
Shape context is a feature descriptor used in object recognition. Serge Belongie and Jitendra Malik proposed the term in their paper "Matching with Shape Contexts" in 2000. == Theory == The shape context is intended to be a way of describing shapes that allows for measuring shape similarity and the recovering of point correspondences. The basic idea is to pick n points on the contours of a shape. For each point pi on the shape, consider the n − 1 vectors obtained by connecting pi to all other points. The set of all these vectors is a rich description of the shape localized at that point but is far too detailed. The key idea is that the distribution over relative positions is a robust, compact, and highly discriminative descriptor. So, for the point pi, the coarse histogram of the relative coordinates of the remaining n − 1 points, h i ( k ) = # { q ≠ p i : ( q − p i ) ∈ bin ( k ) } {\displaystyle h_{i}(k)=\#\{q\neq p_{i}:(q-p_{i})\in {\mbox{bin}}(k)\}} is defined to be the shape context of p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} . The bins are normally taken to be uniform in log-polar space. The fact that the shape context is a rich and discriminative descriptor can be seen in the figure below, in which the shape contexts of two different versions of the letter "A" are shown. (a) and (b) are the sampled edge points of the two shapes. (c) is the diagram of the log-polar bins used to compute the shape context. (d) is the shape context for the point marked with a circle in (a), (e) is that for the point marked as a diamond in (b), and (f) is that for the triangle. As can be seen, since (d) and (e) are the shape contexts for two closely related points, they are quite similar, while the shape context in (f) is very different. For a feature descriptor to be useful, it needs to have certain invariances. In particular it needs to be invariant to translation, scaling, small perturbations, and, depending on the application, rotation. Translational invariance comes naturally to shape context. Scale invariance is obtained by normalizing all radial distances by the mean distance α {\displaystyle \alpha } between all the point pairs in the shape although the median distance can also be used. Shape contexts are empirically demonstrated to be robust to deformations, noise, and outliers using synthetic point set matching experiments. One can provide complete rotational invariance in shape contexts. One way is to measure angles at each point relative to the direction of the tangent at that point (since the points are chosen on edges). This results in a completely rotationally invariant descriptor. But of course this is not always desired since some local features lose their discriminative power if not measured relative to the same frame. Many applications in fact forbid rotational invariance e.g. distinguishing a "6" from a "9". == Use in shape matching == A complete system that uses shape contexts for shape matching consists of the following steps (which will be covered in more detail in the Details of Implementation section): Randomly select a set of points that lie on the edges of a known shape and another set of points on an unknown shape. Compute the shape context of each point found in step 1. Match each point from the known shape to a point on an unknown shape. To minimize the cost of matching, first choose a transformation (e.g. affine, thin plate spline, etc.) that warps the edges of the known shape to the unknown (essentially aligning the two shapes). Then select the point on the unknown shape that most closely corresponds to each warped point on the known shape. Calculate the "shape distance" between each pair of points on the two shapes. Use a weighted sum of the shape context distance, the image appearance distance, and the bending energy (a measure of how much transformation is required to bring the two shapes into alignment). To identify the unknown shape, use a nearest-neighbor classifier to compare its shape distance to shape distances of known objects. == Details of implementation == === Step 1: Finding a list of points on shape edges === The approach assumes that the shape of an object is essentially captured by a finite subset of the points on the internal or external contours on the object. These can be simply obtained using the Canny edge detector and picking a random set of points from the edges. Note that these points need not and in general do not correspond to key-points such as maxima of curvature or inflection points. It is preferable to sample the shape with roughly uniform spacing, though it is not critical. === Step 2: Computing the shape context === This step is described in detail in the Theory section. === Step 3: Computing the cost matrix === Consider two points p and q that have normalized K-bin histograms (i.e. shape contexts) g(k) and h(k). As shape contexts are distributions represented as histograms, it is natural to use the χ2 test statistic as the "shape context cost" of matching the two points: C S = 1 2 ∑ k = 1 K [ g ( k ) − h ( k ) ] 2 g ( k ) + h ( k ) {\displaystyle C_{S}={\frac {1}{2}}\sum _{k=1}^{K}{\frac {[g(k)-h(k)]^{2}}{g(k)+h(k)}}} The values of this range from 0 to 1. In addition to the shape context cost, an extra cost based on the appearance can be added. For instance, it could be a measure of tangent angle dissimilarity (particularly useful in digit recognition): C A = 1 2 ‖ ( cos ( θ 1 ) sin ( θ 1 ) ) − ( cos ( θ 2 ) sin ( θ 2 ) ) ‖ {\displaystyle C_{A}={\frac {1}{2}}{\begin{Vmatrix}{\dbinom {\cos(\theta _{1})}{\sin(\theta _{1})}}-{\dbinom {\cos(\theta _{2})}{\sin(\theta _{2})}}\end{Vmatrix}}} This is half the length of the chord in unit circle between the unit vectors with angles θ 1 {\displaystyle \theta _{1}} and θ 2 {\displaystyle \theta _{2}} . Its values also range from 0 to 1. Now the total cost of matching the two points could be a weighted-sum of the two costs: C = ( 1 − β ) C S + β C A {\displaystyle C=(1-\beta )C_{S}+\beta C_{A}\!\,} Now for each point pi on the first shape and a point qj on the second shape, calculate the cost as described and call it Ci,j. This is the cost matrix. === Step 4: Finding the matching that minimizes total cost === Now, a one-to-one matching π ( i ) {\displaystyle \pi (i)} that matches each point pi on shape 1 and qj on shape 2 that minimizes the total cost of matching, H ( π ) = ∑ i C ( p i , q π ( i ) ) {\displaystyle H(\pi )=\sum _{i}C\left(p_{i},q_{\pi (i)}\right)} is needed. This can be done in O ( N 3 ) {\displaystyle O(N^{3})} time using the Hungarian method, although there are more efficient algorithms. To have robust handling of outliers, one can add "dummy" nodes that have a constant but reasonably large cost of matching to the cost matrix. This would cause the matching algorithm to match outliers to a "dummy" if there is no real match. === Step 5: Modeling transformation === Given the set of correspondences between a finite set of points on the two shapes, a transformation T : R 2 → R 2 {\displaystyle T:\mathbb {R} ^{2}\to \mathbb {R} ^{2}} can be estimated to map any point from one shape to the other. There are several choices for this transformation, described below. ==== Affine ==== The affine model is a standard choice: T ( p ) = A p + o {\displaystyle T(p)=Ap+o\!} . The least squares solution for the matrix A {\displaystyle A} and the translational offset vector o is obtained by: o = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( p i − q π ( i ) ) , A = ( Q + P ) t {\displaystyle o={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(p_{i}-q_{\pi (i)}\right),A=(Q^{+}P)^{t}} Where P = ( 1 p 11 p 12 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ 1 p n 1 p n 2 ) {\displaystyle P={\begin{pmatrix}1&p_{11}&p_{12}\\\vdots &\vdots &\vdots \\1&p_{n1}&p_{n2}\end{pmatrix}}} with a similar expression for Q {\displaystyle Q\!} . Q + {\displaystyle Q^{+}\!} is the pseudoinverse of Q {\displaystyle Q\!} . ==== Thin plate spline ==== The thin plate spline (TPS) model is the most widely used model for transformations when working with shape contexts. A 2D transformation can be separated into two TPS function to model a coordinate transform: T ( x , y ) = ( f x ( x , y ) , f y ( x , y ) ) {\displaystyle T(x,y)=\left(f_{x}(x,y),f_{y}(x,y)\right)} where each of the ƒx and ƒy have the form: f ( x , y ) = a 1 + a x x + a y y + ∑ i = 1 n ω i U ( ‖ ( x i , y i ) − ( x , y ) ‖ ) , {\displaystyle f(x,y)=a_{1}+a_{x}x+a_{y}y+\sum _{i=1}^{n}\omega _{i}U\left({\begin{Vmatrix}(x_{i},y_{i})-(x,y)\end{Vmatrix}}\right),} and the kernel function U ( r ) {\displaystyle U(r)\!} is defined by U ( r ) = r 2 log r 2 {\displaystyle U(r)=r^{2}\log r^{2}\!} . The exact details of how to solve for the parameters can be found elsewhere but it essentially involves solving a linear system of equations. The bending energy (a measure of how much transformation is needed to align the points) will also be easily obtained. ==== Regularized TPS ==== The TPS formulation above has exact matching requirement for the pairs of points on the two shapes. For noisy data, it is best to
Tabnine
Tabnine is a code completion tool which uses generative artificial intelligence to assist users by autocompleting code. It was created in 2018 by Jacob Jackson, a student at the University of Waterloo. It is now developed by Tabnine, a software company founded under the name Codota by Dror Weiss and Eran Yahav in Tel Aviv, Israel, in 2013, and renamed to Tabnine in 2021. Initially established under the name Codota, the company underwent a rebranding in May 2021 following the release of the company’s first large language model based AI coding assistant, adopting the name Tabnine. == History == Tabnine was established as Codota in 2013 by Dror Weiss and Eran Yahav in Tel Aviv, Israel. Tabnine, initially founded under the name Codota, was created to develop tools based on over a decade of academic research at the Technion. Codota, the predecessor of Tabnine, secured $2 million in seed investment in June 2017. Following this, in June 2018, the company introduced the first AI-based code completion for Java IDE. In 2019, Codota acquired a product called Tabnine, which used the newly available large-language model technology to provide generative AI for software code across a broader range of programming languages across five IDEs. Codota replaced its earlier approach to code generation with this new approach to generative AI. The company secured a Series A round of funding in April 2020, raising $12 million. On May 26, 2021, Codota changed its name to Tabnine and underwent a corresponding rebranding. By April 2022, Tabnine reached over one million users. In June of the same year, Tabnine launched models that could predict full lines and snippets of code. The same year it raised $15.5 mln in a funding round led co-led by Qualcomm Ventures. In June 2023, Tabnine introduced an AI-powered chat agent, enabling developers to use natural language to generate code, to explain code, to generate tests and documentation, and to propose fixes to code. In November 2023, Tabnine closed a Series B round of funding, raising $25 million to scale the company’s operations. == Operations == Tabnine's headquarters is located in Tel Aviv, Israel, with an additional corporate entity in the United States. As of November 2023, Tabnine generative AI for software development is used by a million developers. It has 10 million installations across VS Code and JetBrains. Since its founding, Dror Weiss has served as CEO, with Eran Yahav as CTO.