In image registration, inverse consistency measures the consistency of mappings between images produced by a registration algorithm. The inverse consistency error, introduced by Christiansen and Johnson in 2001, quantifies the distance between the composition of the mappings from each image to the other, produced by the registration procedure, and the identity function, and is used as a regularisation constraint in the loss function of many registration algorithms to enforce consistent mappings. Inverse consistency is necessary for good image registration but it is not sufficient, since a mapping can be perfectly consistent but not register the images at all. == Definition == Image registration is the process of establishing a common coordinate system between two images, and given two images I 1 : Ω 1 → R I 2 : Ω 2 → R {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}I_{1}:\Omega _{1}\to \mathbb {R} \\I_{2}:\Omega _{2}\to \mathbb {R} \end{aligned}}} registering a source image I 1 {\displaystyle I_{1}} to a target image I 2 {\displaystyle I_{2}} consists of determining a transformation f 1 : Ω 2 → Ω 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}:\Omega _{2}\to \Omega _{1}} that maps points from the target space to the source space. An ideal registration algorithm should not be sensitive to which image in the pair is used as source or target, and the registration operator should be antisymmetric such that the mappings f 1 : Ω 2 → Ω 1 f 2 : Ω 1 → Ω 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}f_{1}:\Omega _{2}\to \Omega _{1}\\f_{2}:\Omega _{1}\to \Omega _{2}\end{aligned}}} produced when registering I 1 {\displaystyle I_{1}} to I 2 {\displaystyle I_{2}} and I 2 {\displaystyle I_{2}} to I 1 {\displaystyle I_{1}} respectively should be the inverse of each other, i.e. f 2 = f 1 − 1 {\displaystyle f_{2}=f_{1}^{-1}} and f 1 = f 2 − 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}=f_{2}^{-1}} or, equivalently, f 2 ∘ f 1 = id Ω 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}\circ f_{1}=\operatorname {id} _{\Omega _{2}}} and f 1 ∘ f 2 = id Ω 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}\circ f_{2}=\operatorname {id} _{\Omega _{1}}} , where ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } denotes the function composition operator. Real algorithms are not perfect, and when swapping the role of source and target image in a registration problem the so obtained transformations are not the inverse of each other. Inverse consistency can be enforced by adding to the loss function of the registration a symmetric regularisation term that penalises inconsistent transformations ∫ Ω 2 ‖ f 2 ( f 1 ( x ) ) − x ‖ 2 d x + ∫ Ω 1 ‖ f 1 ( f 2 ( x ) ) − x ‖ 2 d x . {\displaystyle \int _{\Omega _{2}}\left\Vert f_{2}(f_{1}(x))-x\right\Vert ^{2}\mathrm {d} x+\int _{\Omega _{1}}\left\Vert f_{1}(f_{2}(x))-x\right\Vert ^{2}\mathrm {d} x.} Inverse consistency can be used as a quality metric to evaluate image registration results. The inverse consistency error ( I C E {\displaystyle ICE} ) measures the distance between the composition of the two transforms and the identity function, and it can be formulated in terms of both average ( I C E a {\displaystyle ICE_{a}} ) or maximum ( I C E m {\displaystyle ICE_{m}} ) over a region of interest Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } of the image: I C E a = 1 ∫ Ω d x ∫ Ω ‖ f 2 ( f 1 ( x ) ) − x ‖ d x I C E m = max x ∈ Ω ‖ f 2 ( f 1 ( x ) ) − x ‖ . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}ICE_{a}&={\frac {1}{\int _{\Omega }\mathrm {d} x}}\int _{\Omega }\left\Vert f_{2}(f_{1}(x))-x\right\Vert \mathrm {d} x\\ICE_{m}&=\max _{x\in \Omega }\left\Vert f_{2}(f_{1}(x))-x\right\Vert .\end{aligned}}} While inverse consistency is a necessary property of good registration algorithms, inverse consistency error alone is not a sufficient metric to evaluate the quality of image registration results, since a perfectly consistent mapping, with no other constraint, may be not even close to correctly register a pair of images.
Construction robots
Construction robots are a subset of industrial robots used for building and infrastructure construction on site, or in the production of materials and components offsite. A 2021 survey said 55% of construction companies in the United States, Europe, and China used robots in some form. This figure, however, reflects reported use across the construction value chain rather than widespread deployment of robots on active construction sites. Real-world adoption remains limited, with many robotic systems confined to pilot projects, controlled environments, or specific task applications rather than continuous on-site construction use. One of the main challenges in deploying robots on construction sites is the unstructured and variable nature of the environment, which differs fundamentally from controlled factory settings where industrial robots have traditionally operated. Some robots currently deployed on job sites assist with physically demanding or repetitive tasks: excavating, lifting heavy materials, surveying, laying out markers, tying rebar, and installing drywall. More advanced systems are being developed for exterior finishing, steel placement, masonry, and reinforced concrete work. In practice, rather than autonomous systems performing core building tasks, the most widely adopted robot applications on construction sites involve technologies such as aerial drones (or, less frequently, robot 'dogs' - for example, Boston Dynamics' Spot - or humanoid robots) used for surveying, inspection, and progress monitoring (the robots typically carry video and/or 360-degree cameras, LiDar scanners or other data capture devices, with data analysed using artificial intelligence and machine learning). Some emerging systems are designed as multifunctional construction robots, integrating multiple tools and capabilities within a single robotic platform to perform different stages of the construction process. These systems aim to improve operational flexibility and increase automation in complex construction environments. Experimental projects using robotic construction technologies and additive manufacturing have been demonstrated in several countries as part of broader efforts to industrialize the construction sector and improve productivity through automation and digitalization. == Features == Construction robots are generally required to meet the following criteria: Mobility: the ability to navigate around a construction site, including uneven terrain and confined spaces. Adaptability: the ability to handle components of variable size, weight, and shape. Environmental awareness: the ability to sense and respond to changing on-site conditions. Interactivity: the ability to operate alongside human workers and other equipment. Multitasking: the ability to perform several different operations within a single deployment. == Capabilities == Construction robots have been developed and tested for a range of on-site tasks, including: Progress monitoring — robots equipped with cameras and sensors can track construction progress and identify deviations from plans. Inspection — robots are used to investigate infrastructure at dangerous or inaccessible locations, reducing risk to human workers and eliminating human error. Wall construction — robotic systems can lay bricks and blocks with greater speed and consistency than manual labour. Earthmoving and material handling — autonomous excavators and haul trucks use GPS, lidar, and motion sensors to perform digging, trenching, and loading tasks with minimal human input. Grading and dozing — autonomous bulldozers use GPS, gyroscopes, and laser sensors to control blade angle and depth, improving surface finish accuracy and reducing material overuse. 3D printing — additive manufacturing systems can construct walls and structural elements directly from digital models. == Notable construction-related activities undertaken by robots == The distribution of robotic applications in construction varies across the project lifecycle. Most applications are concentrated in structural construction tasks such as masonry, concrete work, and assembly, while other phases, including planning, maintenance, and demolition, remain less represented. === Automated building systems === The Nisseki Yokohama Building (also known as Rail City Yokohama), a 30-storey office building in Yokohama, Japan, was constructed between 1994 and 1997 using the SMART system (Shimizu Manufacturing system by Advanced Robotics Technology), developed by Shimizu Corporation and a consortium of seven other Japanese companies. The system used automated horizontal hoists and vertical lifts to position steel beams, columns, precast concrete floor slabs, and prefabricated facade panels, with welding robots connecting structural elements under laser-guided precision. Each component was tracked by barcode to monitor progress and coordinate just-in-time delivery of materials. Obayashi Corporation developed the Advanced Building Construction System (ABCS), a similar automated platform used in several high-rise projects in Japan in the 1990s, including the NEC Head Office in Kanagawa (1997–2000). === Progress monitoring, inspection === Boston Dynamics' Spot was used in February 2024 to inspect sections of the M5 motorway in England for National Highways. A £15,000 humanoid robot (a G1 model from Chinese manufacturer Unitree) was deployed to capture 360-degree imagery and progress reports to support health and safety monitoring and reporting for UK contractor Tilbury Douglas in April 2026. In the US, Virginia Tech's ARCADE research lab is developing MARIO (Multi-Agent Robotic system for Inspection On-site), a heterogenous robotic system deploying multiple robots capable of different locomotion to perform remote real-time construction progress monitoring in complex construction sites. === Earthmoving === === Concrete works === Obayashi Corporation developed and deployed a robotic system for placing concrete layers in dam construction in Japan. A concrete floor finishing robot was deployed by Kajima and Tokimec in Japan. The MARK series were designed in 1984 to automate the levelling and trowelling of concrete slabs on construction sites, providing consistent finishing accuracy, improved efficiency, and reduced dependence on skilled labour === Masonry === SAM100 (Semi-Automated Mason), developed by Construction Robotics, is one of the first commercially available bricklaying robots for on-site masonry construction. In 2018, it was used in the construction of the University Arts Building at the University of Nevada, Reno — a $35.5 million facility — where it laid over 60,000 of the 100,000 bricks required, reducing the brick veneer installation time by approximately 50%. Hadrian X, developed by the Australian company Fastbrick Robotics, is a fully autonomous mobile bricklaying robot. In November 2022, it completed its first commercial project — five four-bedroom houses in Wellard, Western Australia. In February 2025, PulteGroup, one of the largest homebuilders in the United States, piloted Hadrian X on a site in Florida, constructing an entire house in a single day. === 3D printing === In May 2025, a residential building in Arinaga, Gran Canaria, Spain, was completed using 3D printing construction technology, as part of broader efforts to demonstrate robotic and additive manufacturing methods in the housing sector. In 2026, a three-storey apartment block in France was constructed using concrete 3D printing technology, three months faster than conventional building methods. Finland's Hyperion Robotics has opened a UK factory and used 3D printing with concrete to produce foundations for pipelines and for electricity substation bases, reducing time-consuming and weather-dependent onsite construction processes. == Social impact == The adoption of construction robots varies significantly by region and is shaped by labour market conditions, cultural attitudes, and regulatory frameworks. In Japan, construction robots have been embraced as a response to an ageing workforce and chronic labour shortages, and are generally viewed positively by the industry. In the United States, adoption has historically been slower, partly due to resistance from labour unions concerned about job displacement. Research suggests that the impact of automation on workers is uneven: while robots can create a productivity effect that benefits some workers, displacement effects are most pronounced among younger, less-educated workers in manufacturing-heavy regions. More than 60% of construction firms now report difficulty finding skilled operators, which has increased openness to automation as a practical solution to workforce shortages rather than a replacement for workers. In the UK, during onsite deployment of a humanoid robot for monitoring purposes, there were concerns that staff might think they were being watched ("It's not there to spy on people.... So, we insist that everyone is blurred out. N
Social Media (Age-Restricted Users) Bill
The Social Media (Age-Restricted Users) Bill is a member's bill by National Party Member of Parliament Catherine Wedd that seeks to ban children under the age of 16 years from accessing social media by forcing social media companies to implement age verification measures. It is modelled after the Australian government's Online Safety Amendment. In mid October 2025, the New Zealand Parliament confirmed plans to introduce the social media age restriction bill. == Background == In late November 2024, the Albanese government of Australia, with support from the opposition Coalition parties, passed the Online Safety Amendment creating a world-first age verification regime targeting social media platforms operating in the country. The ban targets several social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X (formerly Twitter) and YouTube. These platforms were required to implement age verification systems and to remove under-age users by 10 December 2025, when the law change came into effect. == Draft provisions == The draft Social Media (Age-Restricted Users) Bill defines social media platforms as electronic platforms that enable social media interactions between two or more end-users, facilitates communication between multiple end-users and allows users to post content on the platform. The proposed bill requires social media companies to take action to prevent users under the age of 16 from creating accounts on their platforms. It also creates a framework for courts to impose fines on platforms that fail to take reasonable steps to prevent underaged users from accessing the platform. == Legislative history == === Draft legislation === On 6 May 2025, Wedd announced a private member's bill called the "Social Media (Age-Restricted Users) Bill" that would bar access to social media platforms for people under the age of 16 years. She said that she was motivated as the mother of four children to support families, parents and teachers' efforts to manage their children's online exposure and the passage of the Australian Online Safety Amendment legislation in December 2024. Since National's coalition partner ACT New Zealand had refused to support the bill, the Sixth National Government announce it as a member's bill rather than a government bill. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has confirmed that National would seek cross-party support for the legislation. ACT MP and the Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden said that the Government would watch the implementation of the Australian social media age restriction policy. In October 2025, Wedd's bill was drawn from the parliamentary ballot. In addition, Labour Reuben Davidson drafted a similar member's bill that would hold social media providers responsible for restricting "harmful content" and imposed NZ$50,000 fines for non-compliance. In November 2025, Luxon reiterated his support for social media age restriction legislation and said the New Zealand government would introduce a bill in 2026 before the 2026 New Zealand general election. He also confirmed that Education Minister Erica Stanford was leading an investigation into what lessons could be learnt from the Australian legislation. At the request of ACT MP Parmjeet Parmar, Parliament's Education and Workforce Committee held an inquiry into a proposed social media ban in early October 2025. The committee was led by National MP Carl Bates and received 430 submissions from 400 groups and individuals. The committee also heard from 87 in-person submissions. On 10 December 2025, the committee made 12 recommendations including restricting social media access to persons under the age of 16, re-evaluating existing legislation such as the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act and the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, and regulating online platforms and Internet service providers. The ACT party released a dissenting view disagreeing with the need for a law restricting social media access to under-16 year olds. In mid-May 2026, the Government confirmed that work on the proposed bill to ban under-16 year olds from social media had been paused. The New Zealand Parliament held a debate on the proposed bill on 13 May following a select committee inquiry into the harms caused by social media platforms. While the opposition Labour Party has agreed to support the member's bill, the ACT and Green parties opposed the proposed bill on the grounds that the rules were easy to circumvent, that at-risk groups could become more isolated, and that social media also harmed other age groups. == Responses == === Academia and civil society === In late July 2025, the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties (NZCCL) expressed concern that the proposed social media age restriction could infringe upon the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Privacy Act 2020 and the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child. The NZCCL also questioned the practicality of age verification software, a social media age limit and whether it would fulfil its stated goal of combating online harm. In August 2025, University of Auckland criminologist and senior lecturer Claire Meehan expressed concern that the social media age restriction legislation would cut children from their friendship and support networks. She also said that children and young people were digital natives who could use VPNs to circumvent the ban. Similar sentiments were echoed by Victoria University of Wellington media and communications lecturer Alex Beattie and "Ocean Today" Instagram social media influencer "Charlie." In October 2025, New Zealand Initiative representative Dr Eric Crampton expressed concern that a social media age restriction would involve the introduction of digital IDs. He argued that a new law was unnecessary and said that parents could limit their children's exposure to social media via Google's Family Link and Apple's equivalent. Similarly, Institute of Economic Affairs public policy fellow Matthew Lesh and the British Free Speech Union expressed concerns that young people could use VPNs to circumvent a social media ban, citing the spike in VPN usage in the United Kingdom following the passage of the Online Safety Act 2023. The advocacy group B416's co-chair Anna Curzon advocated for a social media ban on underage users, stating that social media apps "are made to be addictive" and made it difficult for parents to relate with their children. In late November 2025, B416's co-founder Anna Mowbray expressed support for the Government's social media age restriction bill but expressed disappointment that Luxon had not timed his announcement with the launch of the group's campaign. Generation-Z Aotearoa co-founder Lola Fisher has called on the New Zealand Government to consult with young people on the development of the legislation. === Government agencies and departments === In early October 2025, Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster expressed concern that social media platforms requiring users to prove their age via digital IDs could raise privacy concerns. Webster suggested that age verification systems could relay on various documents including passports. He said that age estimation technologies had high error rates and that age inference technologies relied on data mining. === Political parties === In early May 2025, the National Party government expressed support for a social media age restriction legislation. By contrast, its coalition partner ACT has opposed such legislation. ACT leader David Seymour described the ban as hasty and unworkable since it did not involve parents. Meanwhile, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters expressed support for a social media age restriction but said the bill should be subject to a select committee inquiry. The opposition Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins has expressed interest in a social media age restriction legislation but emphasised the need for consensus. Meanwhile, Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said she wanted to learn more about the bill but described it as simplistic. Fellow Greens co-leader Marama Davidson said that the proposed bill would punish children and young people for the harm caused by big tech platforms. === Tech companies === In early October 2025, representatives of TikTok and Meta Platforms cautioned against proposed social media ban on under-16 years olds. During a one-day parliamentary inquiry, Ella Woods-Joyce, TikTok's public policy lead for Australia and New Zealand, and Mia Garlick, Meta's regional director of policy, expressed concern that the social media age restriction could send children and young people to less regulated online spaces. Woods-Joyce highlighted TikTok's policy of closing down accounts belonging to users under the age of 13 years while Garlick highlighted Meta's policy of placing users under the age of 16 in private accounts by default. In early February 2026 Meta's vice president and global head of safety, Antigone Da
Snake oil (cryptography)
In cryptography, snake oil is any cryptographic method or product considered to be bogus or fraudulent. The name derives from snake oil, one type of patent medicine widely available in the 19th century United States. Distinguishing secure cryptography from insecure cryptography can be difficult from the viewpoint of a user. Many cryptographers, such as Bruce Schneier and Phil Zimmermann, undertake to educate the public in how secure cryptography is done, as well as highlighting the misleading marketing of some cryptographic products. The Snake Oil FAQ describes itself as "a compilation of common habits of snake oil vendors. It cannot be the sole method of rating a security product, since there can be exceptions to most of these rules. [...] But if you're looking at something that exhibits several warning signs, you're probably dealing with snake oil." == Some examples of snake oil cryptography techniques == This is not an exhaustive list of snake oil signs. A more thorough list is given in the references. Secret system Some encryption systems will claim to rely on a secret algorithm, technique, or device; this is categorized as security through obscurity. Criticisms of this are twofold. First, a 19th-century rule known as Kerckhoffs's principle, later formulated as Shannon's maxim, teaches that "the enemy knows the system" and the secrecy of a cryptosystem algorithm does not provide any advantage. Second, secret methods are not open to public peer review and cryptanalysis, so potential mistakes and insecurities can go unnoticed. Technobabble Snake oil salespeople may use "technobabble" to sell their product since cryptography is a complicated subject. "Unbreakable" Claims of a system or cryptographic method being "unbreakable" are always false (or true under some limited set of conditions), and are generally considered a sure sign of snake oil. "Military grade" There is no accepted standard or criterion for "military grade" ciphers. One-time pads One-time pads are a popular cryptographic method to invoke in advertising, because it is well known that one-time pads, when implemented correctly, are genuinely unbreakable. The problem comes in implementing one-time pads, which is rarely done correctly. Cryptographic systems that claim to be based on one-time pads are considered suspect, particularly if they do not describe how the one-time pad is implemented, or they describe a flawed implementation. Unsubstantiated "bit" claims Cryptographic products are often accompanied with claims of using a high number of bits for encryption, apparently referring to the key length used. However key lengths are not directly comparable between symmetric and asymmetric systems. Furthermore, the details of implementation can render the system vulnerable. For example, in 2008 it was revealed that a number of hard drives sold with built-in "128-bit AES encryption" were actually using a simple and easily defeated "XOR" scheme. AES was only used to store the key, which was easy to recover without breaking AES.
Data verification
Data verification is a process in which different types of data are checked for accuracy and inconsistencies after data migration is done. In some domains it is referred to Source Data Verification (SDV), such as in clinical trials. Data verification helps to determine whether data was accurately translated when data is transferred from one source to another, is complete, and supports processes in the new system. During verification, there may be a need for a parallel run of both systems to identify areas of disparity and forestall erroneous data loss. Methods for data verification include double data entry, proofreading and automated verification of data. Proofreading data involves someone checking the data entered against the original document. This is also time-consuming and costly. Automated verification of data can be achieved using one way hashes locally or through use of a SaaS based service such as Q by SoLVBL to provide immutable seals to allow verification of the original data.
Highway network
In machine learning, the Highway Network was the first working very deep feedforward neural network with hundreds of layers, much deeper than previous neural networks. It uses skip connections modulated by learned gating mechanisms to regulate information flow, inspired by long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural networks. The advantage of the Highway Network over other deep learning architectures is its ability to overcome or partially prevent the vanishing gradient problem, thus improving its optimization. Gating mechanisms are used to facilitate information flow across the many layers ("information highways"). Highway Networks have found use in text sequence labeling and speech recognition tasks. In 2014, the state of the art was training deep neural networks with 20 to 30 layers. Stacking too many layers led to a steep reduction in training accuracy, known as the "degradation" problem. In 2015, two techniques were developed to train such networks: the Highway Network (published in May), and the residual neural network, or ResNet (December). ResNet behaves like an open-gated Highway Net. == Model == The model has two gates in addition to the H ( W H , x ) {\displaystyle H(W_{H},x)} gate: the transform gate T ( W T , x ) {\displaystyle T(W_{T},x)} and the carry gate C ( W C , x ) {\displaystyle C(W_{C},x)} . The latter two gates are non-linear transfer functions (specifically sigmoid by convention). The function H {\displaystyle H} can be any desired transfer function. The carry gate is defined as: C ( W C , x ) = 1 − T ( W T , x ) {\displaystyle C(W_{C},x)=1-T(W_{T},x)} while the transform gate is just a gate with a sigmoid transfer function. == Structure == The structure of a hidden layer in the Highway Network follows the equation: y = H ( x , W H ) ⋅ T ( x , W T ) + x ⋅ C ( x , W C ) = H ( x , W H ) ⋅ T ( x , W T ) + x ⋅ ( 1 − T ( x , W T ) ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}y=H(x,W_{H})\cdot T(x,W_{T})+x\cdot C(x,W_{C})\\=H(x,W_{H})\cdot T(x,W_{T})+x\cdot (1-T(x,W_{T}))\end{aligned}}} == Related work == Sepp Hochreiter analyzed the vanishing gradient problem in 1991 and attributed to it the reason why deep learning did not work well. To overcome this problem, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) recurrent neural networks have residual connections with a weight of 1.0 in every LSTM cell (called the constant error carrousel) to compute y t + 1 = F ( x t ) + x t {\textstyle y_{t+1}=F(x_{t})+x_{t}} . During backpropagation through time, this becomes the residual formula y = F ( x ) + x {\textstyle y=F(x)+x} for feedforward neural networks. This enables training very deep recurrent neural networks with a very long time span t. A later LSTM version published in 2000 modulates the identity LSTM connections by so-called "forget gates" such that their weights are not fixed to 1.0 but can be learned. In experiments, the forget gates were initialized with positive bias weights, thus being opened, addressing the vanishing gradient problem. As long as the forget gates of the 2000 LSTM are open, it behaves like the 1997 LSTM. The Highway Network of May 2015 applies these principles to feedforward neural networks. It was reported to be "the first very deep feedforward network with hundreds of layers". It is like a 2000 LSTM with forget gates unfolded in time, while the later Residual Nets have no equivalent of forget gates and are like the unfolded original 1997 LSTM. If the skip connections in Highway Networks are "without gates," or if their gates are kept open (activation 1.0), they become Residual Networks. The residual connection is a special case of the "short-cut connection" or "skip connection" by Rosenblatt (1961) and Lang & Witbrock (1988) which has the form x ↦ F ( x ) + A x {\displaystyle x\mapsto F(x)+Ax} . Here the randomly initialized weight matrix A does not have to be the identity mapping. Every residual connection is a skip connection, but almost all skip connections are not residual connections. The original Highway Network paper not only introduced the basic principle for very deep feedforward networks, but also included experimental results with 20, 50, and 100 layers networks, and mentioned ongoing experiments with up to 900 layers. Networks with 50 or 100 layers had lower training error than their plain network counterparts, but no lower training error than their 20 layers counterpart (on the MNIST dataset, Figure 1 in ). No improvement on test accuracy was reported with networks deeper than 19 layers (on the CIFAR-10 dataset; Table 1 in ). The ResNet paper, however, provided strong experimental evidence of the benefits of going deeper than 20 layers. It argued that the identity mapping without modulation is crucial and mentioned that modulation in the skip connection can still lead to vanishing signals in forward and backward propagation (Section 3 in ). This is also why the forget gates of the 2000 LSTM were initially opened through positive bias weights: as long as the gates are open, it behaves like the 1997 LSTM. Similarly, a Highway Net whose gates are opened through strongly positive bias weights behaves like a ResNet. The skip connections used in modern neural networks (e.g., Transformers) are dominantly identity mappings.
Data custodian
In data governance groups, responsibilities for data management are increasingly divided between the business process owners and information technology (IT) departments. Two functional titles commonly used for these roles are data steward and data custodian. Data Stewards are commonly responsible for data content, context, and associated business rules. Data custodians are responsible for the safe custody, transport, storage of the data and implementation of business rules. Simply put, Data Stewards are responsible for what is stored in a data field, while data custodians are responsible for the technical environment and database structure. Common job titles for data custodians are database administrator (DBA), data modeler, ETL developer and data engineer. == Data custodian responsibilities == A data custodian ensures: Access to the data is authorized and controlled Data stewards are identified for each data set Technical processes sustain data integrity Processes exist for data quality issue resolution in partnership with data stewards Technical controls safeguard data Data added to data sets are consistent with the common data model Versions of master data are maintained along with the history of changes Change management practices are applied in maintenance of the database Data content and changes can be audited