AI Assistant Vs AI Agent

AI Assistant Vs AI Agent — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Machine vision

  Machine vision is the technology and methods used to provide imaging-based automatic inspection and analysis for such applications as automatic inspection, process control, and robot guidance, usually in industry. Machine vision refers to many technologies, software and hardware products, integrated systems, actions, methods and expertise. Machine vision as a systems engineering discipline can be considered distinct from computer vision, a form of computer science. It attempts to integrate existing technologies in new ways and apply them to solve real world problems. The term is the prevalent one for these functions in industrial automation environments but is also used for these functions in other environment vehicle guidance. The overall machine vision process includes planning the details of the requirements and project, and then creating a solution. During run-time, the process starts with imaging, followed by automated analysis of the image and extraction of the required information. == Definition == Definitions of the term "Machine vision" vary, but all include the technology and methods used to extract information from an image on an automated basis, as opposed to image processing, where the output is another image. The information extracted can be a simple good-part/bad-part signal, or more a complex set of data such as the identity, position and orientation of each object in an image. The information can be used for such applications as automatic inspection and robot and process guidance in industry, for security monitoring and vehicle guidance. This field encompasses a large number of technologies, software and hardware products, integrated systems, actions, methods and expertise. Machine vision is practically the only term used for these functions in industrial automation applications; the term is less universal for these functions in other environments such as security and vehicle guidance. Machine vision as a systems engineering discipline can be considered distinct from computer vision, a form of basic computer science; machine vision attempts to integrate existing technologies in new ways and apply them to solve real world problems in a way that meets the requirements of industrial automation and similar application areas. The term is also used in a broader sense by trade shows and trade groups such as the Automated Imaging Association and the European Machine Vision Association. This broader definition also encompasses products and applications most often associated with image processing. The primary uses for machine vision are automatic inspection and industrial robot/process guidance. In more recent times the terms computer vision and machine vision have converged to a greater degree. See glossary of machine vision. == Imaging based automatic inspection and sorting == The primary uses for machine vision are imaging-based automatic inspection and sorting and robot guidance.; in this section the former is abbreviated as "automatic inspection". The overall process includes planning the details of the requirements and project, and then creating a solution. This section describes the technical process that occurs during the operation of the solution. === Methods and sequence of operation === The first step in the automatic inspection sequence of operation is acquisition of an image, typically using cameras, lenses, and lighting that has been designed to provide the differentiation required by subsequent processing. MV software packages and programs developed in them then employ various digital image processing techniques to extract the required information, and often make decisions (such as pass/fail) based on the extracted information. === Equipment === The components of an automatic inspection system usually include lighting, a camera or other imager, a processor, software, and output devices. === Imaging === The imaging device (e.g. camera) can either be separate from the main image processing unit or combined with it in which case the combination is generally called a smart camera or smart sensor. Inclusion of the full processing function into the same enclosure as the camera is often referred to as embedded processing. When separated, the connection may be made to specialized intermediate hardware, a custom processing appliance, or a frame grabber within a computer using either an analog or standardized digital interface (Camera Link, CoaXPress). MV implementations also use digital cameras capable of direct connections (without a framegrabber) to a computer via FireWire, USB or Gigabit Ethernet interfaces. While conventional (2D visible light) imaging is most commonly used in MV, alternatives include multispectral imaging, hyperspectral imaging, imaging various infrared bands, line scan imaging, 3D imaging of surfaces and X-ray imaging. Key differentiations within MV 2D visible light imaging are monochromatic vs. color, frame rate, resolution, and whether or not the imaging process is simultaneous over the entire image, making it suitable for moving processes. Though the vast majority of machine vision applications are solved using two-dimensional imaging, machine vision applications utilizing 3D imaging are a growing niche within the industry. The most commonly used method for 3D imaging is scanning based triangulation which utilizes motion of the product or image during the imaging process. A laser is projected onto the surfaces of an object. In machine vision this is accomplished with a scanning motion, either by moving the workpiece, or by moving the camera & laser imaging system. The line is viewed by a camera from a different angle; the deviation of the line represents shape variations. Lines from multiple scans are assembled into a depth map or point cloud. Stereoscopic vision is used in special cases involving unique features present in both views of a pair of cameras. Other 3D methods used for machine vision are time of flight and grid based. One method is grid array based systems using pseudorandom structured light system as employed by the Microsoft Kinect system circa 2012. === Image processing === After an image is acquired, it is processed. Central processing functions are generally done by a CPU, a GPU, a FPGA or a combination of these. Deep learning training and inference impose higher processing performance requirements. Multiple stages of processing are generally used in a sequence that ends up as a desired result. A typical sequence might start with tools such as filters which modify the image, followed by extraction of objects, then extraction (e.g. measurements, reading of codes) of data from those objects, followed by communicating that data, or comparing it against target values to create and communicate "pass/fail" results. Machine vision image processing methods include; Stitching/Registration: Combining of adjacent 2D or 3D images. Filtering (e.g. morphological filtering) Thresholding: Thresholding starts with setting or determining a gray value that will be useful for the following steps. The value is then used to separate portions of the image, and sometimes to transform each portion of the image to simply black and white based on whether it is below or above that grayscale value. Pixel counting: counts the number of light or dark pixels Segmentation: Partitioning a digital image into multiple segments to simplify and/or change the representation of an image into something that is more meaningful and easier to analyze. Edge detection: finding object edges Color Analysis: Identify parts, products and items using color, assess quality from color, and isolate features using color. Blob detection and extraction: inspecting an image for discrete blobs of connected pixels (e.g. a black hole in a grey object) as image landmarks. Neural network / deep learning / machine learning processing: weighted and self-training multi-variable decision making Circa 2019 there is a large expansion of this, using deep learning and machine learning to significantly expand machine vision capabilities. The most common result of such processing is classification. Examples of classification are object identification,"pass fail" classification of identified objects and OCR. Pattern recognition including template matching. Finding, matching, and/or counting specific patterns. This may include location of an object that may be rotated, partially hidden by another object, or varying in size. Barcode, Data Matrix and "2D barcode" reading Optical character recognition: automated reading of text such as serial numbers Gauging/Metrology: measurement of object dimensions (e.g. in pixels, inches or millimeters) Comparison against target values to determine a "pass or fail" or "go/no go" result. For example, with code or bar code verification, the read value is compared to the stored target value. For gauging, a measurement is compared against the proper value and tolerances. For verification of alpha-numberic codes, the

  Read more →
• 

  System of record

  A system of record (SOR) or source system of record (SSoR) is a data management term for an information storage system (commonly implemented on a computer system running a database management system) that is the authoritative data source for a given data element or piece of information, like for example a row (or record) in a table. In data vault it is referred to as the record source. == Background == The need to identify systems of record can become acute in organizations where management information systems have been built by taking output data from multiple source systems, re-processing this data, and then re-presenting the result for a new business use. In these cases, multiple information systems may disagree about the same piece of information. These disagreements may stem from semantic differences, differences in opinion, use of different sources, differences in the timing of the extract, transform, load processes that create the data they report against, or may simply be the result of bugs. == Use == The integrity and validity of any data set is open to question when there is no traceable connection to a good source, and listing a source system of record is a solution to this. Where the integrity of the data is vital, if there is an agreed system of record, the data element must either be linked to, or extracted directly from it. In other cases, the provenance and estimated data quality should be documented. The "system of record" approach is a good fit for environments where both: there is a single authority over all data consumers, and all consumers have similar needs == Trade-offs == In diverse environments, one instead needs to support the presence of multiple opinions. Consumers may accept different authorities or may differ on what constitutes an authoritative source—researchers may prefer carefully vetted data, while tactical military systems may require the most recent credible report.

  Read more →
• 

  Generalized distributive law

  The generalized distributive law (GDL) is a generalization of the distributive property which gives rise to a general message passing algorithm. It is a synthesis of the work of many authors in the information theory, digital communications, signal processing, statistics, and artificial intelligence communities. The law and algorithm were introduced in a semi-tutorial by Srinivas M. Aji and Robert J. McEliece with the same title. == Introduction == "The distributive law in mathematics is the law relating the operations of multiplication and addition, stated symbolically, a ∗ ( b + c ) = a ∗ b + a ∗ c {\displaystyle a(b+c)=ab+ac} ; that is, the monomial factor a {\displaystyle a} is distributed, or separately applied, to each term of the binomial factor b + c {\displaystyle b+c} , resulting in the product a ∗ b + a ∗ c {\displaystyle ab+ac} " – Britannica. As it can be observed from the definition, application of distributive law to an arithmetic expression reduces the number of operations in it. In the previous example the total number of operations reduced from three (two multiplications and an addition in a ∗ b + a ∗ c {\displaystyle ab+ac} ) to two (one multiplication and one addition in a ∗ ( b + c ) {\displaystyle a(b+c)} ). Generalization of distributive law leads to a large family of fast algorithms. This includes the FFT and Viterbi algorithm. This is explained in a more formal way in the example below: α ( a , b ) = d e f ∑ c , d , e ∈ A f ( a , c , b ) g ( a , d , e ) {\displaystyle \alpha (a,\,b){\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\displaystyle \sum \limits _{c,d,e\in A}f(a,\,c,\,b)\,g(a,\,d,\,e)} where f ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle f(\cdot )} and g ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle g(\cdot )} are real-valued functions, a , b , c , d , e ∈ A {\displaystyle a,b,c,d,e\in A} and | A | = q {\displaystyle |A|=q} (say) Here we are "marginalizing out" the independent variables ( c {\displaystyle c} , d {\displaystyle d} , and e {\displaystyle e} ) to obtain the result. When we are calculating the computational complexity, we can see that for each q 2 {\displaystyle q^{2}} pairs of ( a , b ) {\displaystyle (a,b)} , there are q 3 {\displaystyle q^{3}} terms due to the triplet ( c , d , e ) {\displaystyle (c,d,e)} which needs to take part in the evaluation of α ( a , b ) {\displaystyle \alpha (a,\,b)} with each step having one addition and one multiplication. Therefore, the total number of computations needed is 2 ⋅ q 2 ⋅ q 3 = 2 q 5 {\displaystyle 2\cdot q^{2}\cdot q^{3}=2q^{5}} . Hence the asymptotic complexity of the above function is O ( n 5 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{5})} . If we apply the distributive law to the RHS of the equation, we get the following: α ( a , b ) = d e f ∑ c ∈ A f ( a , c , b ) ⋅ ∑ d , e ∈ A g ( a , d , e ) {\displaystyle \alpha (a,\,b){\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\displaystyle \sum \limits _{c\in A}f(a,\,c,\,b)\cdot \sum _{d,\,e\in A}g(a,\,d,\,e)} This implies that α ( a , b ) {\displaystyle \alpha (a,\,b)} can be described as a product α 1 ( a , b ) ⋅ α 2 ( a ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{1}(a,\,b)\cdot \alpha _{2}(a)} where α 1 ( a , b ) = d e f ∑ c ∈ A f ( a , c , b ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{1}(a,b){\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\displaystyle \sum \limits _{c\in A}f(a,\,c,\,b)} and α 2 ( a ) = d e f ∑ d , e ∈ A g ( a , d , e ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{2}(a){\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\displaystyle \sum \limits _{d,\,e\in A}g(a,\,d,\,e)} Now, when we are calculating the computational complexity, we can see that there are q 3 {\displaystyle q^{3}} additions in α 1 ( a , b ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{1}(a,\,b)} and α 2 ( a ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{2}(a)} each and there are q 2 {\displaystyle q^{2}} multiplications when we are using the product α 1 ( a , b ) ⋅ α 2 ( a ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{1}(a,\,b)\cdot \alpha _{2}(a)} to evaluate α ( a , b ) {\displaystyle \alpha (a,\,b)} . Therefore, the total number of computations needed is q 3 + q 3 + q 2 = 2 q 3 + q 2 {\displaystyle q^{3}+q^{3}+q^{2}=2q^{3}+q^{2}} . Hence the asymptotic complexity of calculating α ( a , b ) {\displaystyle \alpha (a,b)} reduces to O ( n 3 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{3})} from O ( n 5 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{5})} . This shows by an example that applying distributive law reduces the computational complexity which is one of the good features of a "fast algorithm". == History == Some of the problems that used distributive law to solve can be grouped as follows: Decoding algorithms: A GDL like algorithm was used by Gallager's for decoding low density parity-check codes. Based on Gallager's work Tanner introduced the Tanner graph and expressed Gallagers work in message passing form. The tanners graph also helped explain the Viterbi algorithm. It is observed by Forney that Viterbi's maximum likelihood decoding of convolutional codes also used algorithms of GDL-like generality. Forward–backward algorithm: The forward backward algorithm helped as an algorithm for tracking the states in the Markov chain. And this also was used the algorithm of GDL like generality Artificial intelligence: The notion of junction trees has been used to solve many problems in AI. Also the concept of bucket elimination used many of the concepts. == The MPF problem == MPF or marginalize a product function is a general computational problem which as special case includes many classical problems such as computation of discrete Hadamard transform, maximum likelihood decoding of a linear code over a memory-less channel, and matrix chain multiplication. The power of the GDL lies in the fact that it applies to situations in which additions and multiplications are generalized. A commutative semiring is a good framework for explaining this behavior. It is defined over a set K {\displaystyle K} with operators " + {\displaystyle +} " and " . {\displaystyle .} " where ( K , + ) {\displaystyle (K,\,+)} and ( K , . ) {\displaystyle (K,\,.)} are a commutative monoids and the distributive law holds. Let p 1 , … , p n {\displaystyle p_{1},\ldots ,p_{n}} be variables such that p 1 ∈ A 1 , … , p n ∈ A n {\displaystyle p_{1}\in A_{1},\ldots ,p_{n}\in A_{n}} where A {\displaystyle A} is a finite set and | A i | = q i {\displaystyle |A_{i}|=q_{i}} . Here i = 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=1,\ldots ,n} . If S = { i 1 , … , i r } {\displaystyle S=\{i_{1},\ldots ,i_{r}\}} and S ⊂ { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle S\,\subset \{1,\ldots ,n\}} , let A S = A i 1 × ⋯ × A i r {\displaystyle A_{S}=A_{i_{1}}\times \cdots \times A_{i_{r}}} , p S = ( p i 1 , … , p i r ) {\displaystyle p_{S}=(p_{i_{1}},\ldots ,p_{i_{r}})} , q S = | A S | {\displaystyle q_{S}=|A_{S}|} , A = A 1 × ⋯ × A n {\displaystyle \mathbf {A} =A_{1}\times \cdots \times A_{n}} , and p = { p 1 , … , p n } {\displaystyle \mathbf {p} =\{p_{1},\ldots ,p_{n}\}} Let S = { S j } j = 1 M {\displaystyle S=\{S_{j}\}_{j=1}^{M}} where S j ⊂ { 1 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle S_{j}\subset \{1,...\,,n\}} . Suppose a function is defined as α i : A S i → R {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}:A_{S_{i}}\rightarrow R} , where R {\displaystyle R} is a commutative semiring. Also, p S i {\displaystyle p_{S_{i}}} are named the local domains and α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} as the local kernels. Now the global kernel β : A → R {\displaystyle \beta :\mathbf {A} \rightarrow R} is defined as: β ( p 1 , . . . , p n ) = ∏ i = 1 M α ( p S i ) {\displaystyle \beta (p_{1},...\,,p_{n})=\prod _{i=1}^{M}\alpha (p_{S_{i}})} Definition of MPF problem: For one or more indices i = 1 , . . . , M {\displaystyle i=1,...\,,M} , compute a table of the values of S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} -marginalization of the global kernel β {\displaystyle \beta } , which is the function β i : A S i → R {\displaystyle \beta _{i}:A_{S_{i}}\rightarrow R} defined as β i ( p S i ) = ∑ p S i c ∈ A S i c β ( p ) {\displaystyle \beta _{i}(p_{S_{i}})\,=\displaystyle \sum \limits _{p_{S_{i}^{c}}\in A_{S_{i}^{c}}}\beta (p)} Here S i c {\displaystyle S_{i}^{c}} is the complement of S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} with respect to { 1 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle \mathbf {\{} 1,...\,,n\}} and the β i ( p S i ) {\displaystyle \beta _{i}(p_{S_{i}})} is called the i t h {\displaystyle i^{th}} objective function, or the objective function at S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} . It can observed that the computation of the i t h {\displaystyle i^{th}} objective function in the obvious way needs M q 1 q 2 q 3 ⋯ q n {\displaystyle Mq_{1}q_{2}q_{3}\cdots q_{n}} operations. This is because there are q 1 q 2 ⋯ q n {\displaystyle q_{1}q_{2}\cdots q_{n}} additions and ( M − 1 ) q 1 q 2 . . . q n {\displaystyle (M-1)q_{1}q_{2}...q_{n}} multiplications needed in the computation of the i th {\displaystyle i^{\text{th}}} objective function. The GDL algorithm which is explained in the next section can reduce this computational complexity. The following is an example of the MPF problem. Let p 1 , p 2 , p 3 , p 4 , {\displaystyle p_{1},\,p_{2},\,p_{3},\,p_{4},} and p 5 {\displaystyle p_{5}} be variables such that p 1 ∈ A 1 , p 2 ∈ A 2 , p 3 ∈ A 3 , p 4 ∈ A 4 , {\displaystyle p_{1}\in

  Read more →
• 

  Pointer jumping

  Pointer jumping or path doubling is a design technique for parallel algorithms that operate on pointer structures, such as linked lists and directed graphs. Pointer jumping allows an algorithm to follow paths with a time complexity that is logarithmic with respect to the length of the longest path. It does this by "jumping" to the end of the path computed by neighbors. The basic operation of pointer jumping is to replace each neighbor in a pointer structure with its neighbor's neighbor. In each step of the algorithm, this replacement is done for all nodes in the data structure, which can be done independently in parallel. In the next step when a neighbor's neighbor is followed, the neighbor's path already followed in the previous step is added to the node's followed path in a single step. Thus, each step effectively doubles the distance traversed by the explored paths. Pointer jumping is best understood by looking at simple examples such as list ranking and root finding. == List ranking == One of the simpler tasks that can be solved by a pointer jumping algorithm is the list ranking problem. This problem is defined as follows: given a linked list of N nodes, find the distance (measured in the number of nodes) of each node to the end of the list. The distance d(n) is defined as follows, for nodes n that point to their successor by a pointer called next: If n.next is nil, then d(n) = 0. For any other node, d(n) = d(n.next) + 1. This problem can easily be solved in linear time on a sequential machine, but a parallel algorithm can do better: given n processors, the problem can be solved in logarithmic time, O(log N), by the following pointer jumping algorithm: The pointer jumping occurs in the last line of the algorithm, where each node's next pointer is reset to skip the node's direct successor. It is assumed, as in common in the PRAM model of computation, that memory access are performed in lock-step, so that each n.next.next memory fetch is performed before each n.next memory store; otherwise, processors may clobber each other's data, producing inconsistencies. The following diagram follows how the parallel list ranking algorithm uses pointer jumping for a linked list with 11 elements. As the algorithm describes, the first iteration starts initialized with all ranks set to 1 except those with a null pointer for next. The first iteration looks at immediate neighbors. Each subsequent iteration jumps twice as far as the previous. Analyzing the algorithm yields a logarithmic running time. The initialization loop takes constant time, because each of the N processors performs a constant amount of work, all in parallel. The inner loop of the main loop also takes constant time, as does (by assumption) the termination check for the loop, so the running time is determined by how often this inner loop is executed. Since the pointer jumping in each iteration splits the list into two parts, one consisting of the "odd" elements and one of the "even" elements, the length of the list pointed to by each processor's n is halved in each iteration, which can be done at most O(log N) time before each list has a length of at most one. == Root finding == Following a path in a graph is an inherently serial operation, but pointer jumping reduces the total amount of work by following all paths simultaneously and sharing results among dependent operations. Pointer jumping iterates and finds a successor — a vertex closer to the tree root — each time. By following successors computed for other vertices, the traversal down each path can be doubled every iteration, which means that the tree roots can be found in logarithmic time. Pointer doubling operates on an array successor with an entry for every vertex in the graph. Each successor[i] is initialized with the parent index of vertex i if that vertex is not a root or to i itself if that vertex is a root. At each iteration, each successor is updated to its successor's successor. The root is found when the successor's successor points to itself. The following pseudocode demonstrates the algorithm. algorithm Input: An array parent representing a forest of trees. parent[i] is the parent of vertex i or itself for a root Output: An array containing the root ancestor for every vertex for i ← 1 to length(parent) do in parallel successor[i] ← parent[i] while true for i ← 1 to length(successor) do in parallel successor_next[i] ← successor[successor[i]] if successor_next = successor then break for i ← 1 to length(successor) do in parallel successor[i] ← successor_next[i] return successor The following image provides an example of using pointer jumping on a small forest. On each iteration the successor points to the vertex following one more successor. After two iterations, every vertex points to its root node. == History and examples == Although the name pointer jumping would come later, JáJá attributes the first uses of the technique in early parallel graph algorithms and list ranking. The technique has been described with other names such as shortcutting, but by the 1990s textbooks on parallel algorithms consistently used the term pointer jumping. Today, pointer jumping is considered a software design pattern for operating on recursive data types in parallel. As a technique for following linked paths, graph algorithms are a natural fit for pointer jumping. Consequently, several parallel graph algorithms utilizing pointer jumping have been designed. These include algorithms for finding the roots of a forest of rooted trees, connected components, minimum spanning trees, and biconnected components. However, pointer jumping has also shown to be useful in a variety of other problems including computer vision, image compression, and Bayesian inference.

  Read more →
• 

  Himmat (app)

  Himmat is a women's safety mobile application of Delhi Police. It was launched by Home Minister Rajnath Singh on 1 January 2015. The app is freely available for Android mobile phones and can be downloaded from Delhi Police website. Delhi Police plans to launch app for other platforms in future. Low registrations and other problems resulted in a parliamentary panel calling the app a failure in 2018. Himmat has gone on to be called as one of India's best safety apps for women.

  Read more →
• 

  Visual Peer Review

  == Development and history == Visual Peer Review was first described in a 2017 classroom study by Friedman and Rosen, which examined how students evaluate peer-produced data visualizations using structured rubrics. Developed within the broader fields of data visualization, information visualization, and educational technology, the system emphasized clear labeling, visual integrity, and reduction of chartjunk. Students assigned rubric scores and provided written explanations, aligning the activity with established principles of peer review. Follow-up research expanded both the methodological and analytic dimensions of the framework. Friedman and colleagues applied natural language processing (NLP) to peer-review text to analyze part-of-speech patterns, sentence complexity, and comment length. These analyses offered insight into how students expressed critique and engaged with core design principles. Later studies incorporated advanced statistical modeling to evaluate system-level behavior, including peer review networks and reviewer typologies. Between 2021 and 2024, the framework underwent iterative refinement through a series of studies that explored interface design, behavioral nudges, reviewer engagement, and social network dynamics. The system was influenced by earlier work in computer-supported peer review—particularly My Reviewers, a rubric-based writing assessment platform developed by Joe Moxley at the University of South Florida. While Moxley's platform focused on text-based feedback, Visual Peer Review adapted its core structure to support critique of DataVis and visual analytics. To guide structured analysis and feedback, Friedman and Rosen also drew on the “what, why, and how” framework introduced by Liu and Stasko (2010), which emphasizes understanding a visualization's purpose, task alignment, and encoding strategy. == Framework and components == Visual Peer Review is designed to support critique, reflection, and learning in courses focusing on data visualization, visual analytics, and related fields in educational technology. The system consists of interconnected component. Core components include: Visual Artifacts: Students generate original visualizations using software such as R (e.g., ggplot2), Tableau, Python, or Adobe Illustrator. These artifacts may include statistical graphics, dashboards, or design-oriented infographics. Rubric-Based Assessment: Peer reviewers evaluate submitted visualizations using structured rubrics grounded in visualization theory and design heuristics. Rubric dimensions typically include: Use of labeling and axis scales Minimalization of chartjunk and clutter (following Tufte's principles) Optimization of the data–ink ratio Preservation of visual integrity through accurate representation (lie factor) Written Peer Comments: In addition to scoring, reviewers provide narrative feedback explaining their reasoning. These comments aim to improve design literacy, strengthen visual reasoning, and support the learning process common to peer review across educational contexts. Instructor Analytics Dashboard: Instructors access an analytics dashboard that displays peer-review activity across the course. Metrics include comment length, rubric coverage, participation patterns, and potential indicators of disengagement. These features position the framework within the domain of learning analytics, where visualized data helps instructors monitor student progress and identify support needs. == Ongoing development == Current work focuses on enhancing rubric structure, integrating principles from human–computer interaction, DataVis and expanding learning-analytics capabilities. Ongoing studies investigate how interface design, reviewer behavior, and classroom context influence the quality of feedback and overall engagement. Continuing development positions Visual Peer Review at the intersection of data visualization education, peer assessment, and educational technology.

  Read more →
• 

  Information audit

  The information audit (IA) extends the concept of auditing from a traditional scope of accounting and finance to the organisational information management system. Information is representative of a resource which requires effective management and this led to the development of interest in the use of an IA. Prior the 1990s and the methodologies of Orna, Henczel, Wood, Buchanan and Gibb, IA approaches and methodologies focused mainly upon an identification of formal information resources (IR). Later approaches included an organisational analysis and the mapping of the information flow. This gave context to analysis within an organisation's information systems and a holistic view of their IR and as such could contribute to the development of the information systems architecture (ISA). In recent years the IA has been overlooked in favour of the systems development process which can be less expensive than the IA, yet more heavily technically focused, project specific (not holistic) and does not favour the top-down analysis of the IA. == Definition == A definition for the Information Audit cannot be universally agreed-upon amongst scholars, however the definition offered by ASLIB received positive support from a few notable scholars including Henczel, Orna and Wood; “(the IA is a) systematic examination of information use, resources and flows, with a verification by reference to both people and existing documents, in order to establish the extent to which they are contributing to an organisation’s objectives” In summary, the term audit itself implies a counting, the IA being much the same yet it counts IR and analyses how they are used and how critical they are to the success of a given task. == Role and scope of an IA == In much the same way as the IA is difficult to define, it can be utilised in a range of contexts by the information professional, from complying with freedom of information legislation to identifying any existing gaps, duplications, bottlenecks or other inefficiencies in information flows and to understand how existing channels can be used for knowledge transfer In 2007 Buchanan and Gibb developed upon their 1998 examination of the IA process by outlining a summary of its main objectives: To identify an organisation’s information resource To identify an organisation’s information needs Furthermore, Buchanan and Gibb went on to state that the IA also had to meet the following additional objectives: To identify the cost/benefits of information resources To identify the opportunities to use the information resources for strategic competitive advantage To integrate IT investment with strategic business initiatives To identify information flow and processes To develop an integrated information strategy and/or policy To create an awareness of the importance of Information Resource Management (IRM) To monitor/evaluate conformance to information related standards, legislations, policy and guidelines. == Methodology evolution == === Overview === In 1976 Riley first published a definition of IA as a way of analysing IR based on a cost-benefit model. Since Riley, scholars have outlined further developed methodologies. Henderson took a cost-benefit approach hoping to draw focus from manpower-costing to information storage and acquisition which he felt was being overlooked. In 1985 Gillman focused upon identifying the relationships which existed between various components in order to map them to one another. Neither Henderson nor Gillman’s methods offered alternative approaches beyond the existing organisational frameworks. Quinn took a hybrid-approach combining Gillman and Henderson’s methods to identify the purpose of existing IR and to position them within the organisation, as did Worlock. The differentiator between Quinn and Worlock lay in Worlock’s consideration of solutions outside of the current organisational structure. These approaches had thus far had paid little attention to the needs of the user or in making structured recommendations for the development of a corporate information strategy. Therefore, here follows a brief outline and overall comparison of four published strategic approaches in order that one might understand the development of the IA methodology. === Burk and Horton === In 1988 Burk and Horton developed InfoMap, the first IA methodology developed for widespread use. It aimed to discover, map and evaluate the IR within an organisation using a 4-stage process: Survey staff using questionnaires/interviews Measure the IR against cost/value Analyse resources Synthesise the findings and map the strengths and weaknesses of the IR against the objectives of the organisation. Although the method inventoried all IR (and therefore met standard ISO 1779) this bottom-up approach revealed limited analysis of the organisation holistically and the steps were not explicit enough. === Orna === Orna produced a top-down methodology in contrast to Burk and Horton, placing emphasis upon the importance of organisational analysis and aimed to assist in the production of a corporate information policy. Initially the method had just 4-stages, this later revised to a 10-stage process which included pre and post-audit stages as below: Conduct a preliminary review to confirm operational/strategic direction Gain support/resource from management Gain commitment from the other stakeholders (staff) Planning including the project, team, tools and techniques Identify the IR, information flow and produce a cost/value assessment Interpret findings based upon current versus desired state Produce a report to present findings Implement recommendations Monitor effects of change Repeat the IA Orna’s method introduced the need for a cyclical IA to be put in place in order for the IR to be continually tracked and improvements made regularly. Again this method was criticised for lacking some practical application and in 2004 Orna revised the methodology once more to try to rectify this problem === Buchanan and Gibb === In 1998, similarly to Orna's earlier publication, Buchanan and Gibb took a top-down approach, drawing techniques from established management disciplines to provide a framework and a level of familiarity for information professionals. This set of techniques was a notable contribution to IA methodologies and understood the need to be flexible for each organisation. Theirs was a 5-stage process: Promote benefits of the IA through seminars/surveys/CEO letter for cooperation Identify the mission objectives of the organisation, define environment (PEST), map information flow and examine organisation culture. Analyse and formulate action plan for problem areas, flow diagrams and a report of findings and recommendations Account for cost of IR and related services using Activity Based Costing (ABC) and Output Based Specification (OBS). Synthesise the whole process in final audit report and provide an information strategy (strategic direction) in relation to the organisation’s mission statement. This was the introduction of a new approach to costing the IR and had an integrated strategic direction, yet the scholars admitted that this method may be impractical for smaller organisations. === Henczel === Henczel’s methodology drew upon the strengths of Orna and Buchanan and Gibb to produce a 7-stage process: Planning and submission of business case for approval to proceed Data collection and development of an IR database and population through survey techniques Structured data analysis Data evaluation, interpretation and formulation of recommendations Communication of recommendations through a report Implementing recommendations through a devised programme The IA as a continuum-establishment of a cyclical process Focus was made once more on the strategic direction of the organisation conducting the IA. Furthermore, Henczel made examination into the use of the IA as a first-step in the development of a knowledge audit or knowledge management strategy as discussed in the later section. == Case studies == Scholars and information professionals have since tested the above methodologies with varied results. An early case study produced by Soy and Bustelo in a Spanish financial institution in 1999 aimed to identify the use of information resources for qualitative and quantitative data analysis due to the rapid expansion of the organisation within a six-year period. Although the methodology was not explicitly credited to any of the above-mentioned scholars, it did follow a strategic (post 1990's) IA process including gaining support from management, the use of questionnaires for data collection, analysis and evaluation of the data, identification and mapping of the IR, cost-analysis and outlining recommendations to assist with the establishment of an Information policy. In addition the IA report suggested that the process would need to be continual (cyclical as Orna, Henczel and Buchanan and Gibb suggest). Conclusions of this case-study stated that th

  Read more →
• 

  Organizational metacognition

  Organizational metacognition is knowing what an organization knows, a concept related to metacognition, organizational learning, the learning organization and sensemaking. It is used to describe how organizations and teams develop an awareness of their own thinking, learning how to learn, where awareness of ignorance can motivate learning. The organizational deutero-learning concept identified by Argyris and Schon defines when organizations learn how to carry out single-loop and double-loop learning. It has also been described as learning how to learn through a process of collaborative inquiry and reflection (evaluative inquiry). "When an organization engages in deutero-learning its members learn about the previous context for learning. They reflect on and inquire into previous episodes of organizational learning, or failure to learn. They discover what they did that facilitated or inhibited learning, they invent new strategies for learning, they produce these strategies, and they evaluate and generalize what they have produced" Learning what facilitates and inhibits learning enables organizations to develop new strategies to develop their knowledge. For example, identification of a gap between perceived performance (such as satisfaction) and actual performance (outcomes) creates an awareness that makes the organization understand that learning needs to occur, driving appropriate changes to the environment and processes. == Learning prototypes == Wijnhoven (2001) grouped four learning prototypes that best meet learning needs, the match between these needs and learning norms dictating an organization's learning capabilities; deutero-learning is the acquisition of these capabilities. knowledge gap analysis classification of problems to select operationally required knowledge and skills coping with organizational tremors and jolts by anticipation, response and adjustments of behavioural repertoires decisional uncertainty measurement == Terminological ambiguities == Organizational metacognition and organizational deutero-learning have both been described as the concept or phenomenon where organizations learn how to learn. Argyris and Schon (1978) place deutero-learning into their cognitive theory of action framework, neglecting aspects of adaptive behaviour and context core to Bateson's (1972) original definitions. In order to resolve terminological ambiguities, Visser (2007) reviewed and reformulated the concept of deutero-learning as, "the behavioral adaptation to patterns of conditioning in relationships in organizational contexts, distinguishing it from meta-learning and planned learning" (pg. 659). == Significance == Organizational metacognition is considered a key norm to the prescriptive concept of the learning organization. Its significance has been recognized by industry, the military and in disaster response. == Examples in practice == Examples of poor metacognition (deutero-learning) have been described in knowledge network environments, "Knowledge networking is important to most competitive enterprises today. Enterprise knowledge is becoming ever more specialized in nature, so no single person or organization can know everything in detail. Hence addressing complex, multidisciplinary problems requires developing and accessing a network of knowledgeable people and organizations. The problem is, many otherwise knowledgeable people and organizations are not fully aware of their knowledge networks, and even more problematic, they are not aware that they are not aware. This focuses our attention toward organizational metacognition."

  Read more →
• 

  Morphing

  Morphing is a special effect in motion pictures and animations that changes (or morphs) one image or shape into another through a seamless transition. Traditionally such a depiction would be achieved through dissolving techniques on film. Since the early 1990s, this has been replaced by computer software to create more realistic transitions. A similar method is applied to audio recordings, for example, by changing voices or vocal lines. == Early transformation techniques == Long before digital morphing, several techniques were used for similar image transformations. Some of those techniques are closer to a matched dissolve – a gradual change between two pictures without warping the shapes in the images – while others did change the shapes in between the start and end phases of the transformation. === Tabula scalata === Known since at least the end of the 16th century, Tabula scalata is a type of painting with two images divided over a corrugated surface. Each image is only correctly visible from a certain angle. If the pictures are matched properly, a primitive type of morphing effect occurs when changing from one viewing angle to the other. === Mechanical transformations === Around 1790 French shadow play showman François Dominique Séraphin used a metal shadow figure with jointed parts to have the face of a young woman changing into that of a witch. Some 19th century mechanical magic lantern slides produced changes to the appearance of figures. For instance a nose could grow to enormous size, simply by slowly sliding away a piece of glass with black paint that masked part of another glass plate with the picture. === Matched dissolves === In the first half of the 19th century "dissolving views" were a popular type of magic lantern show, mostly showing landscapes gradually dissolving from a day to night version or from summer to winter. Other uses are known, for instance Henry Langdon Childe showed groves transforming into cathedrals. The 1910 short film Narren-grappen shows a dissolve transformation of the clothing of a female character. Maurice Tourneur's 1915 film Alias Jimmy Valentine featured a subtle dissolve transformation of the main character from respected citizen Lee Randall into his criminal alter ego Jimmy Valentine. The Peter Tchaikovsky Story in a 1959 TV-series episode of Disneyland features a swan automaton transforming into a real ballet dancer. In 1985, Godley & Creme created a "morph" effect using analogue cross-fades on parts of different faces in the video for "Cry". === Animation === In animation, the morphing effect was created long before the introduction of cinema. A phenakistiscope designed by its inventor Joseph Plateau was printed around 1835 and shows the head of a woman changing into a witch and then into a monster. Émile Cohl's 1908 animated film Fantasmagorie featured much morphing of characters and objects drawn in simple outlines. == Digital morphing == In the early 1990s, computer techniques capable of more convincing results saw increasing use. These involved distorting one image at the same time that it faded into another through marking corresponding points and vectors on the "before" and "after" images used in the morph. For example, one would morph one face into another by marking key points on the first face, such as the contour of the nose or location of an eye, and mark where these same points existed on the second face. The computer would then distort the first face to have the shape of the second face at the same time that it faded the two faces. To compute the transformation of image coordinates required for the distortion, the algorithm of Beier and Neely can be used. === Concerns === In 1993 concerns were raised about the authenticity of digitally altered images arising from morphing. Images of fake "tween" people found half way between two morphed people created a skeptical media long before AI. === Early examples === In or before 1986, computer graphics company Omnibus created a digital animation for a Tide commercial with a Tide detergent bottle smoothly morphing into the shape of the United States. The effect was programmed by Bob Hoffman. Omnibus re-used the technique in the movie Flight of the Navigator (1986). It featured scenes with a computer generated spaceship that appeared to change shape. The plaster cast of a model of the spaceship was scanned and digitally modified with techniques that included a reflection mapping technique that was also developed by programmer Bob Hoffman. The 1986 movie The Golden Child implemented early digital morphing effects from animal to human and back. Willow (1988) featured a more detailed digital morphing sequence with a person changing into different animals. A similar process was used a year later in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade to create Walter Donovan's gruesome demise. Both effects were created by Industrial Light & Magic, using software developed by Tom Brigham and Doug Smythe (AMPAS). In 1991, morphing appeared notably in the Michael Jackson music video "Black or White" and in the movies Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. The first application for personal computers to offer morphing was Gryphon Software Morph on the Macintosh. Other early morphing systems included ImageMaster, MorphPlus and CineMorph, all of which premiered for the Amiga in 1992. Other programs became widely available within a year, and for a time the effect became common to the point of cliché. For high-end use, Elastic Reality (based on MorphPlus) saw its first feature film use in In The Line of Fire (1993) and was used in Quantum Leap (work performed by the Post Group). At VisionArt Ted Fay used Elastic Reality to morph Odo for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. The Snoop Dogg music video "Who Am I? (What's My Name?)", where Snoop Dogg and the others morph into dogs. Elastic Reality was later purchased by Avid, having already become the de facto system of choice, used in many hundreds of films. The technology behind Elastic Reality earned two Academy Awards in 1996 for Scientific and Technical Achievement going to Garth Dickie and Perry Kivolowitz. The effect is technically called a "spatially warped cross-dissolve". The first social network designed for user-generated morph examples to be posted online was Galleries by Morpheus. In late 1991 Yeti Productions employed a young Stephen Regelous to run it's 486 computer graphics system in Wellington New Zealand. After producer Barry Thomas showed him Michael Jackson's "Black or White", Regelous wrote 10,000 lines of C++ code of triangle-based digital morphing software. Together they created morphing based TV commercials for The NZ Cancer Society, Fit food, Salvation Army and others. The Fit food commercial employed morphing with 35mm, pin registered, digitally controlled motion control designed and made by Russell Collins with software by Stephen Regelous. In Taiwan, Aderans, a hair loss solutions provider, did a TV commercial featuring a morphing sequence in which people with lush, thick hair morph into one another, reminiscent of the end sequence of the "Black or White" video. === Present use === Morphing algorithms continue to advance and programs can automatically morph images that correspond closely enough with relatively little instruction from the user. This has led to the use of morphing techniques to create convincing slow-motion effects where none existed in the original film or video footage by morphing between each individual frame using optical flow technology. Morphing has also appeared as a transition technique between one scene and another in television shows, even if the contents of the two images are entirely unrelated. The algorithm in this case attempts to find corresponding points between the images and distort one into the other as they crossfade. While perhaps less obvious than in the past, morphing is used heavily today. Whereas the effect was initially a novelty, today, morphing effects are most often designed to be seamless and invisible to the eye. A particular use for morphing effects is modern digital font design. Using morphing technology, called interpolation or multiple master tech, a designer can create an intermediate between two styles, for example generating a semibold font by compromising between a bold and regular style, or extend a trend to create an ultra-light or ultra-bold. The technique is commonly used by font design studios. == Software == After Effects Animate Elastic Reality FantaMorph Gryphon Software Morph Morph Age Morpheus Nuke SilhouetteFX

  Read more →
• 

  Personal, Inc.

  Personal (also referred to as Personal.com or Personal, Inc.) was a consumer personal data service and identity management system for individuals to aggregate, manage and reuse their own data. It merged with digi.me in August 2017, a business in Europe that has the same business model. The combined company is called digi.me. One of its product lines, a collaborative data management and information security solution for the workplace called TeamData, was spun off as a new company as a result of the merger. == History == Personal was founded in 2009 in Washington, DC by the management team that built The Map Network, a location data and mapping platform that was acquired by Nokia/NAVTEQ in 2006. Personal was the first online consumer-facing company to be named an Ambassador for Privacy by Design for its technical, business and legal commitments to providing users with control over the data they store in Personal's service. Called a “life management platform” by The Economist and a “personal encrypted cloud service” by TIME for its user-centric approach to data, the company has been associated with both the Infomediary model originated in 1999 by John Hagel III and Mark Singer, as well as the vendor relationship management (VRM) model developed by Doc Searls. Personal raised $30m in funding to develop its platform and products from such leading investors as Steve Case's Revolution Ventures, Grotech Ventures, Allen & Company, Ted Leonsis, Neil Ashe, Jonathan Miller, Bill Miller of Legg Mason, Esther Dyson of EDventures, and Eric C. Anderson. The company received recognition for its user agreement, called the Owner Data Agreement, which acted like a reverse license agreement when data was shared between registered parties and emphasized that data ownership resides with the user. Doc Searls wrote in The Intention Economy: When Customers Take Charge that the Owner Data Agreement “had no precedent and modeled a new legal position, both for vendors and for intermediaries.” Personal was early to embrace “small data,” which it defines as “big data for the benefit of individuals.” The term “small data” may have been originally coined by Jeremie Miller of Sing.ly, who mentioned it in a talk at the Web 2.0 Summit in November 2011 and is cited in The Intention Economy. In 2011, Personal was a part of the first group of companies to join the Personal Data Ecosystem Consortium's Startup Circle. A Small Data Meetup group has also formed in New York City, bringing together technology, legal and business experts to exchange ideas about user-centric and user-driven models for internet products and services. Personal has been included in case studies by Ctrl-Shift and Forrester regarding Personal Data Stores and Personal Identity Management. In 2011, Personal received the Innovator Spotlight Award at Privacy Identity Innovation Conference (pii2011) and participated in the Technology Showcase at pii2012. In 2012, TechHive named Personal as one of the top five apps or web services of SXSW. Personal won the 2013 Campus Technology Innovators Award with Lone Star College in July 2013. Personal was included in a list of Executive Travel Magazine's favorite travel apps for 2013 in its May/June issue. In 2013, Personal was also included as part of NYU GovLab's Open Data 500 and was named by J. Walter Thompson as one of 100 things to watch for in 2014. In 2015, the National Law Journal named Company Chief Policy Officer and General Counsel, Joshua P. Galper, as one of their 50 "Cybersecurity & Privacy Trailblazers." == Products and services == === Overview === The Personal Platform was a privacy- and security-by-design platform for individuals to manage and reuse their own data and information. The Fill It app was a 1-click form-filling solution for web and mobile logins, checkouts and forms, and the Data Vault app served as the main cloud-based repository for a user's data. Personal helped individuals take control and benefit from their information while knowing that the information in their Data Vault remained legally theirs and could not be used without their permission. === Data Vault with Cloud Sync === Personal spent two years building the Personal Platform before launching its Data Vault product in beta in November 2011. Following Privacy by Design principles, Personal only enabled users to see or share the sensitive data and all the files they stored in their Data Vault. Such information was encrypted, and could only be decrypted with a user's password. Only users could choose and know their passwords to their vault because Personal did not store user passwords – and therefore could not reset them without deleting a user's sensitive data and all files stored in their vault. All Personal apps and services were linked to a user's private Data Vault. The Data Vault featured automatic synchronization of data and files added on any device logged into Personal. It also featured a “Secure Share” function that created a live, private network, allowing registered users to share access to data and files through an exchange of encrypted keys without the risk of transmitting the data or files through non-secure, direct means. It also allowed users to immediately update data across their own network and revoke access to it when they choose. Fast Company called the Data Vault “a tool that will simplify our lives.” Personal launched its Android app on November 30, 2011. The iOS Data Vault app was released on May 7, 2012. Personal officially launched its application programming interface (APIs) on October 2, 2012 at the Mashery Business of APIs Conference. A review by CNET highlighted the challenges of getting people to trust such a new service with their sensitive data and spending the time required entering enough data to make it useful. === Fill It App and Form Index === When the Data Vault was launched in November 2011, Mashable posed the question: “Never Fill Out a Form Again?” The World Economic Forum in its February 2013 report highlighted the possibility of saving 10 billion hours globally “and improv[ing] the delivery of public and private sector services” through automated form-filling tools, specifically citing Personal's Fill It app. In January 2013, Personal launched Fill It in beta as a web bookmarklet for automatic form-filling. On June 11, 2014, Personal released Fill It as a web extension and announced that it was publishing an index of over 140,000 1-click online forms at www.fillit.com. The company also announced that a mobile version of the product will launch later in the year. According to a story in Tech Cocktail about the launch, Personal's “web extension and mobile app are able to support over 1,200 different types of reusable data, even enabling them to unlock more confidential information so they can complete longer forms, including patient registrations, job applications, event registrations, school admissions, insurance and bank applications, and government forms.” In November 2014, a mobile version of Fill It was launched that could autofill mobile forms using APIs. Personal's form portal ultimately indexed more than 500,000 forms with three components, which, together, allowed data to be captured and reused across any of the forms: (1) a form graph, which mapped individual form fields to the Personal ontology; (2) a semantic layer, which determined how data was required on a form (e.g. one field vs. three fields for a U.S. telephone number); and (3) a correlations graph, which helped individuals match their specific data to a form without looking at the data value (e.g. knowing which phone number is a mobile phone number, which address is a billing address, or that a person uses their middle name as a first name on most forms). === Monetizing personal data === With the initial public offering of Facebook in May 2012, there was media interest in the question of the monetary value of personal data and whether tools and services might emerge to help consumers monetize their own data. Personal was frequently cited as a company that could potentially offer such a service. Articles and pieces focusing on this subject have appeared in The New York Times, AdWeek, the MIT Technology Review, and on CNN and National Public Radio. Company Co-founder and CEO Shane Green was quoted as saying that “the average American consumer would soon be able to realize over $1,000 per year” by granting limited, anonymous access to their data to marketers, but that figure was never supported by Green or the company. === Launch of TeamData === In May 2016, Personal shifted its product focus to TeamData, which focuses on the problem of securing and collaboratively managing data in the workplace. It is now a separate business.

  Read more →
• 

  KiSAO

  The Kinetic Simulation Algorithm Ontology (KiSAO) supplies information about existing algorithms available for the simulation of systems biology models, their characterization and interrelationships. KiSAO is part of the BioModels.net project and of the COMBINE initiative. == Structure == KiSAO consists of three main branches: simulation algorithm simulation algorithm characteristic simulation algorithm parameter The elements of each algorithm branch are linked to characteristic and parameter branches using has characteristic and has parameter relationships accordingly. The algorithm branch itself is hierarchically structured using relationships which denote that the descendant algorithms were derived from, or specify, more general ancestors.

  Read more →
• 

  Certifying algorithm

  In theoretical computer science, a certifying algorithm is an algorithm that outputs, together with a solution to the problem it solves, a proof that the solution is correct. A certifying algorithm is said to be efficient if the combined runtime of the algorithm and a proof checker is slower by at most a constant factor than the best known non-certifying algorithm for the same problem. The proof produced by a certifying algorithm should be in some sense simpler than the algorithm itself, for otherwise any algorithm could be considered certifying (with its output verified by running the same algorithm again). Sometimes this is formalized by requiring that a verification of the proof take less time than the original algorithm, while for other problems (in particular those for which the solution can be found in linear time) simplicity of the output proof is considered in a less formal sense. For instance, the validity of the output proof may be more apparent to human users than the correctness of the algorithm, or a checker for the proof may be more amenable to formal verification. Implementations of certifying algorithms that also include a checker for the proof generated by the algorithm may be considered to be more reliable than non-certifying algorithms. For, whenever the algorithm is run, one of three things happens: it produces a correct output (the desired case), it detects a bug in the algorithm or its implication (undesired, but generally preferable to continuing without detecting the bug), or both the algorithm and the checker are faulty in a way that masks the bug and prevents it from being detected (undesired, but unlikely as it depends on the existence of two independent bugs). == Examples == Many examples of problems with checkable algorithms come from graph theory. For instance, a classical algorithm for testing whether a graph is bipartite would simply output a Boolean value: true if the graph is bipartite, false otherwise. In contrast, a certifying algorithm might output a 2-coloring of the graph in the case that it is bipartite, or a cycle of odd length if it is not. Any graph is bipartite if and only if it can be 2-colored, and non-bipartite if and only if it contains an odd cycle. Both checking whether a 2-coloring is valid and checking whether a given odd-length sequence of vertices is a cycle may be performed more simply than testing bipartiteness. Analogously, it is possible to test whether a given directed graph is acyclic by a certifying algorithm that outputs either a topological order or a directed cycle. It is possible to test whether an undirected graph is a chordal graph by a certifying algorithm that outputs either an elimination ordering (an ordering of all vertices such that, for every vertex, the neighbors that are later in the ordering form a clique) or a chordless cycle. And it is possible to test whether a graph is planar by a certifying algorithm that outputs either a planar embedding or a Kuratowski subgraph. The extended Euclidean algorithm for the greatest common divisor of two integers x and y is certifying: it outputs three integers g (the divisor), a, and b, such that ax + by = g. This equation can only be true of multiples of the greatest common divisor, so testing that g is the greatest common divisor may be performed by checking that g divides both x and y and that this equation is correct.

  Read more →
• 

  Inductive bias

  The inductive bias (also known as learning bias) of a learning algorithm is the set of assumptions that the learner uses to predict outputs of given inputs that it has not encountered. Inductive bias is anything which makes the algorithm learn one pattern instead of another pattern (e.g., step-functions in decision trees instead of continuous functions in linear regression models). Learning involves searching a space of solutions for a solution that provides a good explanation of the data. However, in many cases, there may be multiple equally appropriate solutions. An inductive bias allows a learning algorithm to prioritize one solution (or interpretation) over another, independently of the observed data. In machine learning, the aim is to construct algorithms that are able to learn to predict a certain target output. To achieve this, the learning algorithm is presented some training examples that demonstrate the intended relation of input and output values. Then the learner is supposed to approximate the correct output, even for examples that have not been shown during training. Without any additional assumptions, this problem cannot be solved since unseen situations might have an arbitrary output value. The kind of necessary assumptions about the nature of the target function are subsumed in the phrase inductive bias. A classical example of an inductive bias is Occam's razor, assuming that the simplest consistent hypothesis about the target function is actually the best. Here, consistent means that the hypothesis of the learner yields correct outputs for all of the examples that have been given to the algorithm. Approaches to a more formal definition of inductive bias are based on mathematical logic. Here, the inductive bias is a logical formula that, together with the training data, logically entails the hypothesis generated by the learner. However, this strict formalism fails in many practical cases in which the inductive bias can only be given as a rough description (e.g., in the case of artificial neural networks), or not at all. == Types == The following is a list of common inductive biases in machine learning algorithms. Maximum conditional independence: if the hypothesis can be cast in a Bayesian framework, try to maximize conditional independence. This is the bias used in the Naive Bayes classifier. Minimum cross-validation error: when trying to choose among hypotheses, select the hypothesis with the lowest cross-validation error. Although cross-validation may seem to be free of bias, the "no free lunch" theorems show that cross-validation must be biased, for example assuming that there is no information encoded in the ordering of the data. Maximum margin: when drawing a boundary between two classes, attempt to maximize the width of the boundary. This is the bias used in support vector machines. The assumption is that distinct classes tend to be separated by wide boundaries. Minimum description length: when forming a hypothesis, attempt to minimize the length of the description of the hypothesis. Minimum features: unless there is good evidence that a feature is useful, it should be deleted. This is the assumption behind feature selection algorithms. Nearest neighbors: assume that most of the cases in a small neighborhood in feature space belong to the same class. Given a case for which the class is unknown, guess that it belongs to the same class as the majority in its immediate neighborhood. This is the bias used in the k-nearest neighbors algorithm. The assumption is that cases that are near each other tend to belong to the same class. == Shift of bias == Although most learning algorithms have a static bias, some algorithms are designed to shift their bias as they acquire more data. This does not avoid bias, since the bias shifting process itself must have a bias.

  Read more →
• 

  Documentalist

  A documentalist is a professional, trained in documentation science and specializing in assisting researchers in their search for scientific and technical documentation. With the development of bibliographical databases such as MEDLINE, documentalists were professionals who searched such databases on the behalf of users. When the field of documentation changed its name to information science, the terms information specialist or information professional often replaced the term documentalist.

  Read more →
• 

  Pseudonymization

  Pseudonymization is a data management and de-identification procedure by which personally identifiable information fields within a data record are replaced by one or more artificial identifiers, or pseudonyms. A single pseudonym for each replaced field or collection of replaced fields makes the data record less identifiable while remaining suitable for data analysis and data processing. Pseudonymization (or pseudonymisation, the spelling under European guidelines) is one way to comply with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) demands for secure data storage of personal information. Pseudonymized data can be restored to its original state with the addition of information which allows individuals to be re-identified. In contrast, anonymization is intended to prevent re-identification of individuals within the dataset. Clause 18, Module Four, footnote 2 of the Adoption by the European Commission of the Implementing Decisions (EU) 2021/914 "requires rendering the data anonymous in such a way that the individual is no longer identifiable by anyone ... and that this process is irreversible." == Impact of Schrems II ruling == The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on 9 December 2021 highlighted pseudonymization as the top technical supplementary measure for Schrems II compliance. Less than two weeks later, the EU Commission highlighted pseudonymization as an essential element of the equivalency decision for South Korea, which is the status that was lost by the United States under the Schrems II ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The importance of GDPR-compliant pseudonymization increased dramatically in June 2021 when the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Commission highlighted GDPR-compliant pseudonymization as the state-of-the-art technical supplementary measure for the ongoing lawful use of EU personal data when using third country (i.e., non-EU) cloud processors or remote service providers under the "Schrems II" ruling by the CJEU. Under the GDPR and final EDPB Schrems II Guidance, the term pseudonymization requires a new protected "state" of data, producing a protected outcome that: Protects direct, indirect, and quasi-identifiers, together with characteristics and behaviors; Protects at the record and data set level versus only the field level so that the protection travels wherever the data goes, including when it is in use; and Protects against unauthorized re-identification via the mosaic effect by generating high entropy (uncertainty) levels by dynamically assigning different tokens at different times for various purposes. The combination of these protections is necessary to prevent the re-identification of data subjects without the use of additional information kept separately, as required under GDPR Article 4(5) and as further underscored by paragraph 85(4) of the final EDPB Schrems II guidance: Article 4(5) "Definitions" of the GDPR defines pseudonymization as "the processing of personal data in such a manner that the personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information, provided that such additional information is kept separately and is subject to technical and organisational measures to ensure that the personal data are not attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person." "Use Case 2: Transfer of pseudonymised Data Paragraph 85(4)" of the final EDPB Schrems II Guidance requires that “the controller has established by means of a thorough analysis of the data in question – taking into account any information that the public authorities of the recipient country may be expected to possess and use – that the pseudonymised personal data cannot be attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person even if cross-referenced with such information." GDPR-compliant pseudonymization requires that data is "anonymous" in the strictest EU sense of the word – globally anonymous – but for the additional information held separately and made available under controlled conditions as authorized by the data controller for permitted re-identification of individual data subjects. Clause 18, Module Four, footnote 2 of the Adoption by the European Commission of the Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/914 "requires rendering the data anonymous in such a way that the individual is no longer identifiable by anyone, in line with recital 26 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and that this process is irreversible." Before the Schrems II ruling, pseudonymization was a technique used by security experts or government officials to hide personally identifiable information to maintain data structure and privacy of information. Some common examples of sensitive information include postal code, location of individuals, names of individuals, race and gender, etc. After the Schrems II ruling, GDPR-compliant pseudonymization must satisfy the above-noted elements as an "outcome" versus merely a technique. == Data fields == The choice of which data fields are to be pseudonymized is partly subjective. Less selective fields, such as birth date or postal code are often also included because they are usually available from other sources and therefore make a record easier to identify. Pseudonymizing these less identifying fields removes most of their analytic value and is therefore normally accompanied by the introduction of new derived and less identifying forms, such as year of birth or a larger postal code region. Data fields that are less identifying, such as date of attendance, are usually not pseudonymized. This is because too much statistical utility is lost in doing so, not because the data cannot be identified. For example, given prior knowledge of a few attendance dates it is easy to identify someone's data in a pseudonymized dataset by selecting only those people with that pattern of dates. This is an example of an inference attack. The weakness of pre-GDPR pseudonymized data to inference attacks is commonly overlooked. A famous example is the AOL search data scandal. The AOL example of unauthorized re-identification did not require access to separately kept "additional information" that was under the control of the data controller as is now required for GDPR-compliant pseudonymization, outlined below under the section "New Definition for Pseudonymization Under GDPR". Protecting statistically useful pseudonymized data from re-identification requires: a sound information security base controlling the risk that the analysts, researchers or other data workers cause a privacy breach The pseudonym allows tracking back of data to its origins, which distinguishes pseudonymization from anonymization, where all person-related data that could allow backtracking has been purged. Pseudonymization is an issue in, for example, patient-related data that has to be passed on securely between clinical centers. The application of pseudonymization to e-health intends to preserve the patient's privacy and data confidentiality. It allows primary use of medical records by authorized health care providers and privacy preserving secondary use by researchers. In the US, HIPAA provides guidelines on how health care data must be handled and data de-identification or pseudonymization is one way to simplify HIPAA compliance. However, plain pseudonymization for privacy preservation often reaches its limits when genetic data are involved (see also genetic privacy). Due to the identifying nature of genetic data, depersonalization is often not sufficient to hide the corresponding person. Potential solutions are the combination of pseudonymization with fragmentation and encryption. An example of application of pseudonymization procedure is creation of datasets for de-identification research by replacing identifying words with words from the same category (e.g. replacing a name with a random name from the names dictionary), however, in this case it is in general not possible to track data back to its origins. == New definition under GDPR == Effective as of May 25, 2018, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) defines pseudonymization for the very first time at the EU level in Article 4(5). Under Article 4(5) definitional requirements, data is pseudonymized if it cannot be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of separately kept "additional information". Pseudonymized data embodies the state of the art in Data Protection by Design and by Default because it requires protection of both direct and indirect identifiers (not just direct). GDPR Data Protection by Design and by Default principles as embodied in pseudonymization require protection of both direct and indirect identifiers so that personal data is not cross-referenceable (or re-identifiable) via the "mosaic effect" without access to "additional information" that is kept separately by the controller. Because access to separately kept "additional information" is required

  Read more →