In mathematical modeling, resilience refers to the ability of a dynamical system to recover from perturbations and return to its original stable steady state. It is a measure of the stability and robustness of a system in the face of changes or disturbances. If a system is not resilient enough, it is more susceptible to perturbations and can more easily undergo a critical transition. A common analogy used to explain the concept of resilience of an equilibrium is one of a ball in a valley. A resilient steady state corresponds to a ball in a deep valley, so any push or perturbation will very quickly lead the ball to return to the resting point where it started. On the other hand, a less resilient steady state corresponds to a ball in a shallow valley, so the ball will take a much longer time to return to the equilibrium after a perturbation. The concept of resilience is particularly useful in systems that exhibit tipping points, whose study has a long history that can be traced back to catastrophe theory. While this theory was initially overhyped and fell out of favor, its mathematical foundation remains strong and is now recognized as relevant to many different systems. == History == In 1973, Canadian ecologist C. S. Holling proposed a definition of resilience in the context of ecological systems. According to Holling, resilience is "a measure of the persistence of systems and of their ability to absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same relationships between populations or state variables". Holling distinguished two types of resilience: engineering resilience and ecological resilience. Engineering resilience refers to the ability of a system to return to its original state after a disturbance, such as a bridge that can be repaired after an earthquake. Ecological resilience, on the other hand, refers to the ability of a system to maintain its identity and function despite a disturbance, such as a forest that can regenerate after a wildfire while maintaining its biodiversity and ecosystem services. With time, the once well-defined and unambiguous concept of resilience has experienced a gradual erosion of its clarity, becoming more vague and closer to an umbrella term than a specific concrete measure. == Definition == Mathematically, resilience can be approximated by the inverse of the return time to an equilibrium given by resilience ≡ − Re ( λ 1 ( A ) ) {\displaystyle {\text{resilience}}\equiv -{\text{Re}}(\lambda _{1}({\textbf {A}}))} where λ 1 {\textstyle \lambda _{1}} is the maximum eigenvalue of matrix A {\textstyle {\textbf {A}}} . The largest this value is, the faster a system returns to the original stable steady state, or in other words, the faster the perturbations decay. == Applications and examples == In ecology, resilience might refer to the ability of the ecosystem to recover from disturbances such as fires, droughts, or the introduction of invasive species. A resilient ecosystem would be one that is able to adapt to these changes and continue functioning, while a less resilient ecosystem might experience irreversible damage or collapse. The exact definition of resilience has remained vague for practical matters, which has led to a slow and proper application of its insights for management of ecosystems. In epidemiology, resilience may refer to the ability of a healthy community to recover from the introduction of infected individuals. That is, a resilient system is more likely to remain at the disease-free equilibrium after the invasion of a new infection. Some stable systems exhibit critical slowing down where, as they approach a basic reproduction number of 1, their resilience decreases, hence taking a longer time to return to the disease-free steady state. Resilience is an important concept in the study of complex systems, where there are many interacting components that can affect each other in unpredictable ways. Mathematical models can be used to explore the resilience of such systems and to identify strategies for improving their resilience in the face of environmental or other changes. For example, when modelling networks it is often important to be able to quantify network resilience, or network robustness, to the loss of nodes. Scale-free networks are particularly resilient since most of their nodes have few links. This means that if some nodes are randomly removed, it is more likely that the nodes with fewer connections are taken out, thus preserving the key properties of the network.
Identity column
An identity column is a column (also known as a field) in a database table that is made up of values generated by the database. This is much like an AutoNumber field in Microsoft Access or a sequence in Oracle. Because the concept is so important in database science, many RDBMS systems implement some type of generated key, although each has its own terminology. Today a popular technique for generating identity is to generate a random UUID. An identity column differs from a primary key in that its values are managed by the server and usually cannot be modified. In many cases an identity column is used as a primary key; however, this is not always the case. It is a common misconception that an identity column will enforce uniqueness; however, this is not the case. If you want to enforce uniqueness on the column you must include the appropriate constraint too. In Microsoft SQL Server you have options for both the seed (starting value) and the increment. By default the seed and increment are both 1. == Code samples == or In PostgreSQL == Related functions == It is often useful or necessary to know what identity value was generated by an INSERT command. Microsoft SQL Server provides several functions to do this: @@IDENTITY provides the last value generated on the current connection in the current scope, while IDENT_CURRENT(tablename) provides the last value generated, regardless of the connection or scope it was created on. Example:
Case-based reasoning
Case-based reasoning (CBR), broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems. In everyday life, an auto mechanic who fixes an engine by recalling another car that exhibited similar symptoms is using case-based reasoning. A lawyer who advocates a particular outcome in a trial based on legal precedents or a judge who creates case law is using case-based reasoning. So, too, an engineer copying working elements of nature (practicing biomimicry) is treating nature as a database of solutions to problems. Case-based reasoning is a prominent type of analogy solution making. It has been argued that case-based reasoning is not only a powerful method for computer reasoning, but also a pervasive behavior in everyday human problem solving; or, more radically, that all reasoning is based on past cases personally experienced. This view is related to prototype theory, which is most deeply explored in cognitive science. == Process == Case-based reasoning has been formalized for purposes of computer reasoning as a four-step process: Retrieve: Given a target problem, retrieve cases relevant to solving it from memory. A case consists of a problem, its solution, and, typically, annotations about how the solution was derived. For example, suppose Fred wants to prepare blueberry pancakes. Being a novice cook, the most relevant experience he can recall is one in which he successfully made plain pancakes. The procedure he followed for making the plain pancakes, together with justifications for decisions made along the way, constitutes Fred's retrieved case. Reuse: Map the solution from the previous case to the target problem. This may involve adapting the solution as needed to fit the new situation. In the pancake example, Fred must adapt his retrieved solution to include the addition of blueberries. Revise: Having mapped the previous solution to the target situation, test the new solution in the real world (or a simulation) and, if necessary, revise. Suppose Fred adapted his pancake solution by adding blueberries to the batter. After mixing, he discovers that the batter has turned blue – an undesired effect. This suggests the following revision: delay the addition of blueberries until after the batter has been ladled into the pan. Retain: After the solution has been successfully adapted to the target problem, store the resulting experience as a new case in memory. Fred, accordingly, records his new-found procedure for making blueberry pancakes, thereby enriching his set of stored experiences, and better preparing him for future pancake-making demands. == Comparison to other methods == At first glance, CBR may seem similar to the rule induction algorithms of machine learning. Like a rule-induction algorithm, CBR starts with a set of cases or training examples; it forms generalizations of these examples, albeit implicit ones, by identifying commonalities between a retrieved case and the target problem. If for instance a procedure for plain pancakes is mapped to blueberry pancakes, a decision is made to use the same basic batter and frying method, thus implicitly generalizing the set of situations under which the batter and frying method can be used. The key difference, however, between the implicit generalization in CBR and the generalization in rule induction lies in when the generalization is made. A rule-induction algorithm draws its generalizations from a set of training examples before the target problem is even known; that is, it performs eager generalization. For instance, if a rule-induction algorithm were given recipes for plain pancakes, Dutch apple pancakes, and banana pancakes as its training examples, it would have to derive, at training time, a set of general rules for making all types of pancakes. It would not be until testing time that it would be given, say, the task of cooking blueberry pancakes. The difficulty for the rule-induction algorithm is in anticipating the different directions in which it should attempt to generalize its training examples. This is in contrast to CBR, which delays (implicit) generalization of its cases until testing time – a strategy of lazy generalization. In the pancake example, CBR has already been given the target problem of cooking blueberry pancakes; thus it can generalize its cases exactly as needed to cover this situation. CBR therefore tends to be a good approach for rich, complex domains in which there are myriad ways to generalize a case. In law, there is often explicit delegation of CBR to courts, recognizing the limits of rule based reasons: limiting delay, limited knowledge of future context, limit of negotiated agreement, etc. While CBR in law and cognitively inspired CBR have long been associated, the former is more clearly an interpolation of rule based reasoning, and judgment, while the latter is more closely tied to recall and process adaptation. The difference is clear in their attitude toward error and appellate review. Another name for case-based reasoning in problem solving is symptomatic strategies. It does require à priori domain knowledge that is gleaned from past experience which established connections between symptoms and causes. This knowledge is referred to as shallow, compiled, evidential, history-based as well as case-based knowledge. This is the strategy most associated with diagnosis by experts. Diagnosis of a problem transpires as a rapid recognition process in which symptoms evoke appropriate situation categories. An expert knows the cause by virtue of having previously encountered similar cases. Case-based reasoning is the most powerful strategy, and that used most commonly. However, the strategy won't work independently with truly novel problems, or where deeper understanding of whatever is taking place is sought. An alternative approach to problem solving is the topographic strategy which falls into the category of deep reasoning. With deep reasoning, in-depth knowledge of a system is used. Topography in this context means a description or an analysis of a structured entity, showing the relations among its elements. Also known as reasoning from first principles, deep reasoning is applied to novel faults when experience-based approaches aren't viable. The topographic strategy is therefore linked to à priori domain knowledge that is developed from a more a fundamental understanding of a system, possibly using first-principles knowledge. Such knowledge is referred to as deep, causal or model-based knowledge. Hoc and Carlier noted that symptomatic approaches may need to be supported by topographic approaches because symptoms can be defined in diverse terms. The converse is also true – shallow reasoning can be used abductively to generate causal hypotheses, and deductively to evaluate those hypotheses, in a topographical search. == Criticism == Critics of CBR argue that it is an approach that accepts anecdotal evidence as its main operating principle. Without statistically relevant data for backing and implicit generalization, there is no guarantee that the generalization is correct. However, all inductive reasoning where data is too scarce for statistical relevance is inherently based on anecdotal evidence. == History == CBR traces its roots to the work of Roger Schank and his students at Yale University in the early 1980s. Schank's model of dynamic memory was the basis for the earliest CBR systems: Janet Kolodner's CYRUS and Michael Lebowitz's IPP. Other schools of CBR and closely allied fields emerged in the 1980s, which directed at topics such as legal reasoning, memory-based reasoning (a way of reasoning from examples on massively parallel machines), and combinations of CBR with other reasoning methods. In the 1990s, interest in CBR grew internationally, as evidenced by the establishment of an International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning in 1995, as well as European, German, British, Italian, and other CBR workshops. CBR technology has resulted in the deployment of a number of successful systems, the earliest being Lockheed's CLAVIER, a system for laying out composite parts to be baked in an industrial convection oven. CBR has been used extensively in applications such as the Compaq SMART system and has found a major application area in the health sciences, as well as in structural safety management. There is recent work that develops CBR within a statistical framework and formalizes case-based inference as a specific type of probabilistic inference. Thus, it becomes possible to produce case-based predictions equipped with a certain level of confidence. One description of the difference between CBR and induction from instances is that statistical inference aims to find what tends to make cases similar while CBR aims to encode what suffices to claim similarly.
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.
Conditional random field
Conditional random fields (CRFs) are a class of statistical modeling methods often applied in pattern recognition and machine learning and used for structured prediction. Whereas a classifier predicts a label for a single sample without considering "neighbouring" samples, a CRF can take context into account. To do so, the predictions are modelled as a graphical model, which represents the presence of dependencies between the predictions. The kind of graph used depends on the application. For example, in natural language processing, "linear chain" CRFs are popular, for which each prediction is dependent only on its immediate neighbours. In image processing, the graph typically connects locations to nearby and/or similar locations to enforce that they receive similar predictions. Other examples where CRFs are used are: labeling or parsing of sequential data for natural language processing or biological sequences, part-of-speech tagging, shallow parsing, named entity recognition, gene finding, peptide critical functional region finding, and object recognition and image segmentation in computer vision. == Description == CRFs are a type of discriminative undirected probabilistic graphical model. Lafferty, McCallum and Pereira define a CRF on observations X {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {X}}} and random variables Y {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Y}}} as follows: Let G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} be a graph such that Y = ( Y v ) v ∈ V {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Y}}=({\boldsymbol {Y}}_{v})_{v\in V}} , so that Y {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Y}}} is indexed by the vertices of G {\displaystyle G} . Then ( X , Y ) {\displaystyle ({\boldsymbol {X}},{\boldsymbol {Y}})} is a conditional random field when each random variable Y v {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Y}}_{v}} , conditioned on X {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {X}}} , obeys the Markov property with respect to the graph; that is, its probability is dependent only on its neighbours in G and not its past states: P ( Y v | X , { Y w : w ≠ v } ) = P ( Y v | X , { Y w : w ∼ v } ) {\displaystyle P({\boldsymbol {Y}}_{v}|{\boldsymbol {X}},\{{\boldsymbol {Y}}_{w}:w\neq v\})=P({\boldsymbol {Y}}_{v}|{\boldsymbol {X}},\{{\boldsymbol {Y}}_{w}:w\sim v\})} , where w ∼ v {\displaystyle {\mathit {w}}\sim v} means that w {\displaystyle w} and v {\displaystyle v} are neighbors in G {\displaystyle G} . What this means is that a CRF is an undirected graphical model whose nodes can be divided into exactly two disjoint sets X {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {X}}} and Y {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Y}}} , the observed and output variables, respectively; the conditional distribution p ( Y | X ) {\displaystyle p({\boldsymbol {Y}}|{\boldsymbol {X}})} is then modeled. === Inference === For general graphs, the problem of exact inference in CRFs is intractable. The inference problem for a CRF is basically the same as for an MRF and the same arguments hold. However, there exist special cases for which exact inference is feasible: If the graph is a chain or a tree, message passing algorithms yield exact solutions. The algorithms used in these cases are analogous to the forward-backward and Viterbi algorithm for the case of HMMs. If the CRF only contains pair-wise potentials and the energy is submodular, combinatorial min cut/max flow algorithms yield exact solutions. If exact inference is impossible, several algorithms can be used to obtain approximate solutions. These include: Loopy belief propagation Alpha expansion Mean field inference Linear programming relaxations === Parameter learning === Learning the parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } is usually done by maximum likelihood learning for p ( Y i | X i ; θ ) {\displaystyle p(Y_{i}|X_{i};\theta )} . If all nodes have exponential family distributions and all nodes are observed during training, this optimization is convex. It can be solved for example using gradient descent algorithms, or Quasi-Newton methods such as the L-BFGS algorithm. On the other hand, if some variables are unobserved, the inference problem has to be solved for these variables. Exact inference is intractable in general graphs, so approximations have to be used. === Examples === In sequence modeling, the graph of interest is usually a chain graph. An input sequence of observed variables X {\displaystyle X} represents a sequence of observations and Y {\displaystyle Y} represents a hidden (or unknown) state variable that needs to be inferred given the observations. The Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}} are structured to form a chain, with an edge between each Y i − 1 {\displaystyle Y_{i-1}} and Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}} . As well as having a simple interpretation of the Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}} as "labels" for each element in the input sequence, this layout admits efficient algorithms for: model training, learning the conditional distributions between the Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}} and feature functions from some corpus of training data. decoding, determining the probability of a given label sequence Y {\displaystyle Y} given X {\displaystyle X} . inference, determining the most likely label sequence Y {\displaystyle Y} given X {\displaystyle X} . The conditional dependency of each Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}} on X {\displaystyle X} is defined through a fixed set of feature functions of the form f ( i , Y i − 1 , Y i , X ) {\displaystyle f(i,Y_{i-1},Y_{i},X)} , which can be thought of as measurements on the input sequence that partially determine the likelihood of each possible value for Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}} . The model assigns each feature a numerical weight and combines them to determine the probability of a certain value for Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}} . Linear-chain CRFs have many of the same applications as conceptually simpler hidden Markov models (HMMs), but relax certain assumptions about the input and output sequence distributions. An HMM can loosely be understood as a CRF with very specific feature functions that use constant probabilities to model state transitions and emissions. Conversely, a CRF can loosely be understood as a generalization of an HMM that makes the constant transition probabilities into arbitrary functions that vary across the positions in the sequence of hidden states, depending on the input sequence. Notably, in contrast to HMMs, CRFs can contain any number of feature functions, the feature functions can inspect the entire input sequence X {\displaystyle X} at any point during inference, and the range of the feature functions need not have a probabilistic interpretation. == Variants == === Higher-order CRFs and semi-Markov CRFs === CRFs can be extended into higher order models by making each Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}} dependent on a fixed number k {\displaystyle k} of previous variables Y i − k , . . . , Y i − 1 {\displaystyle Y_{i-k},...,Y_{i-1}} . In conventional formulations of higher order CRFs, training and inference are only practical for small values of k {\displaystyle k} (such as k ≤ 5), since their computational cost increases exponentially with k {\displaystyle k} . However, another recent advance has managed to ameliorate these issues by leveraging concepts and tools from the field of Bayesian nonparametrics. Specifically, the CRF-infinity approach constitutes a CRF-type model that is capable of learning infinitely-long temporal dynamics in a scalable fashion. This is effected by introducing a novel potential function for CRFs that is based on the Sequence Memoizer (SM), a nonparametric Bayesian model for learning infinitely-long dynamics in sequential observations. To render such a model computationally tractable, CRF-infinity employs a mean-field approximation of the postulated novel potential functions (which are driven by an SM). This allows for devising efficient approximate training and inference algorithms for the model, without undermining its capability to capture and model temporal dependencies of arbitrary length. There exists another generalization of CRFs, the semi-Markov conditional random field (semi-CRF), which models variable-length segmentations of the label sequence Y {\displaystyle Y} . This provides much of the power of higher-order CRFs to model long-range dependencies of the Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}} , at a reasonable computational cost. Finally, large-margin models for structured prediction, such as the structured Support Vector Machine can be seen as an alternative training procedure to CRFs. === Latent-dynamic conditional random field === Latent-dynamic conditional random fields (LDCRF) or discriminative probabilistic latent variable models (DPLVM) are a type of CRFs for sequence tagging tasks. They are latent variable models that are trained discriminatively. In an LDCRF, like in any sequence tagging task, given a sequence of observations x = x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\dots ,x_{n}} , the main problem the model must solve is how to assign a sequence of labels y = y 1 , … , y n {\displaystyle y_{1},\dots ,y_{n}} from one finite set
User-defined function
A user-defined function (UDF) is a function provided by the user of a program or environment, in a context where the usual assumption is that functions are built into the program or environment. UDFs are usually written for the requirement of its creator. == BASIC language == In some old implementations of the BASIC programming language, user-defined functions are defined using the "DEF FN" syntax. More modern dialects of BASIC are influenced by the structured programming paradigm, where most or all of the code is written as user-defined functions or procedures, and the concept becomes practically redundant. == COBOL language == In the COBOL programming language, a user-defined function is an entity that is defined by the user by specifying a FUNCTION-ID paragraph. A user-defined function must return a value by specifying the RETURNING phrase of the procedure division header and they are invoked using the function-identifier syntax. See the ISO/IEC 1989:2014 Programming Language COBOL standard for details. As of May 2022, the IBM Enterprise COBOL for z/OS 6.4 (IBM COBOL) compiler contains support for user-defined functions. == Databases == In relational database management systems, a user-defined function provides a mechanism for extending the functionality of the database server by adding a function, that can be evaluated in standard query language (usually SQL) statements. The SQL standard distinguishes between scalar and table functions. A scalar function returns only a single value (or NULL), whereas a table function returns a (relational) table comprising zero or more rows, each row with one or more columns. User-defined functions in SQL are declared using the CREATE FUNCTION statement. For example, a user-defined function that converts Celsius to Fahrenheit (a temperature scale used in USA) might be declared like this: Once created, a user-defined function may be used in expressions in SQL statements. For example, it can be invoked where most other intrinsic functions are allowed. This also includes SELECT statements, where the function can be used against data stored in tables in the database. Conceptually, the function is evaluated once per row in such usage. For example, assume a table named Elements, with a row for each known chemical element. The table has a column named BoilingPoint for the boiling point of that element, in Celsius. The query would retrieve the name and the boiling point from each row. It invokes the CtoF user-defined function as declared above in order to convert the value in the column to a value in Fahrenheit. Each user-defined function carries certain properties or characteristics. The SQL standard defines the following properties: Language - defines the programming language in which the user-defined function is implemented; examples include SQL, C, C# and Java. Parameter style - defines the conventions that are used to pass the function parameters and results between the implementation of the function and the database system (only applicable if language is not SQL). Specific name - a name for the function that is unique within the database. Note that the function name does not have to be unique, considering overloaded functions. Some SQL implementations require that function names are unique within a database, and overloaded functions are not allowed. Determinism - specifies whether the function is deterministic or not. The determinism characteristic has an influence on the query optimizer when compiling a SQL statement. SQL-data access - tells the database management system whether the function contains no SQL statements (NO SQL), contains SQL statements but does not access any tables or views (CONTAINS SQL), reads data from tables or views (READS SQL DATA), or actually modifies data in the database (MODIFIES SQL DATA). User-defined functions should not be confused with stored procedures. Stored procedures allow the user to group a set of SQL commands. A procedure can accept parameters and execute its SQL statements depending on those parameters. A procedure is not an expression and, thus, cannot be used like user-defined functions. Some database management systems allow the creation of user defined functions in languages other than SQL. Microsoft SQL Server, for example, allows the user to use .NET languages including C# for this purpose. DB2 and Oracle support user-defined functions written in C or Java programming languages. === SQL Server 2000 === There are three types of UDF in Microsoft SQL Server 2000: scalar functions, inline table-valued functions, and multistatement table-valued functions. Scalar functions return a single data value (not a table) with RETURNS clause. Scalar functions can use all scalar data types, with exception of timestamp and user-defined data types. Inline table-valued functions return the result set of a single SELECT statement. Multistatement table-valued functions return a table, which was built with many TRANSACT-SQL statements. User-defined functions can be invoked from a query like built‑in functions such as OBJECT_ID, LEN, DATEDIFF, or can be executed through an EXECUTE statement like stored procedures. Performance Notes: User-defined functions are subroutines made of one or more Transact-SQL statements that can be used to encapsulate code for reuse. It takes zero or more arguments and evaluates a return value. Has both control-flow and DML statements in its body similar to stored procedures. Does not allow changes to any Global Session State, like modifications to database or external resource, such as a file or network. Does not support output parameter. DEFAULT keyword must be specified to pass the default value of parameter. Errors in UDF cause UDF to abort which, in turn, aborts the statement that invoked the UDF. === Apache Hive === Apache Hive defines, in addition to the regular user-defined functions (UDF), also user-defined aggregate functions (UDAF) and table-generating functions (UDTF). Hive enables developers to create their own custom functions with Java. === Apache Doris === Apache Doris, an open-source real-time analytical database, allows external users to contribute their own UDFs written in C++ to it.
And–or tree
An and–or tree is a graphical representation of the reduction of problems (or goals) to conjunctions and disjunctions of subproblems (or subgoals). == Example == The and–or tree: represents the search space for solving the problem P, using the goal-reduction methods: P if Q and R P if S Q if T Q if U == Definitions == Given an initial problem P0 and set of problem solving methods of the form: P if P1 and … and Pn the associated and–or tree is a set of labelled nodes such that: The root of the tree is a node labelled by P0. For every node N labelled by a problem or sub-problem P and for every method of the form P if P1 and ... and Pn, there exists a set of children nodes N1, ..., Nn of the node N, such that each node Ni is labelled by Pi. The nodes are conjoined by an arc, to distinguish them from children of N that might be associated with other methods. A node N, labelled by a problem P, is a success node if there is a method of the form P if nothing (i.e., P is a "fact"). The node is a failure node if there is no method for solving P. If all of the children of a node N, conjoined by the same arc, are success nodes, then the node N is also a success node. Otherwise the node is a failure node. == Search strategies == An and–or tree specifies only the search space for solving a problem. Different search strategies for searching the space are possible. These include searching the tree depth-first, breadth-first, or best-first using some measure of desirability of solutions. The search strategy can be sequential, searching or generating one node at a time, or parallel, searching or generating several nodes in parallel. == Relationship with logic programming == The methods used for generating and–or trees are propositional logic programs (without variables). In the case of logic programs containing variables, the solutions of conjoint sub-problems must be compatible. Subject to this complication, sequential and parallel search strategies for and–or trees provide a computational model for executing logic programs. == Relationship with two-player games == And–or trees can also be used to represent the search spaces for two-person games. The root node of such a tree represents the problem of one of the players winning the game, starting from the initial state of the game. Given a node N, labelled by the problem P of the player winning the game from a particular state of play, there exists a single set of conjoint children nodes, corresponding to all of the opponents responding moves. For each of these children nodes, there exists a set of non-conjoint children nodes, corresponding to all of the player's defending moves. For solving game trees with proof-number search family of algorithms, game trees are to be mapped to and–or trees. MAX-nodes (i.e. maximizing player to move) are represented as OR nodes, MIN-nodes map to AND nodes. The mapping is possible, when the search is done with only a binary goal, which usually is "player to move wins the game".