AI Chat List

AI Chat List — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  U-Net

  U-Net is a convolutional neural network that was developed for image segmentation. The network is based on a fully convolutional neural network whose architecture was modified and extended to work with fewer training images and to yield more precise segmentation. Segmentation of a 512 × 512 image takes less than a second on a modern (2015) GPU using the U-Net architecture. The U-Net architecture has also been employed in diffusion models for iterative image denoising. This technology underlies many modern image generation models, such as DALL-E, Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion. U-Net is also being explored for language models. Tokenization is not a separate step, allowing the model to more easily understand spelling and concurrently vectorizing / tokenizing higher level concepts. == Description == The U-Net architecture stems from the so-called "fully convolutional network". The main idea is to supplement a usual contracting network by successive layers, where pooling operations are replaced by upsampling operators. Hence these layers increase the resolution of the output. A successive convolutional layer can then learn to assemble a precise output based on this information. One important modification in U-Net is that there are a large number of feature channels in the upsampling part, which allow the network to propagate context information to higher resolution layers. As a consequence, the expansive path is more or less symmetric to the contracting part, and yields a u-shaped architecture. The network only uses the valid part of each convolution without any fully connected layers. To predict the pixels in the border region of the image, the missing context is extrapolated by mirroring the input image. This tiling strategy is important to apply the network to large images, since otherwise the resolution would be limited by the GPU memory. Recently, there had also been an interest in receptive field based U-Net models for medical image segmentation. == Network architecture == The network consists of a contracting path and an expansive path, which gives it the u-shaped architecture. The contracting path is a typical convolutional network that consists of repeated application of convolutions, each followed by a rectified linear unit (ReLU) and a max pooling operation. During the contraction, the spatial information is reduced while feature information is increased. The expansive pathway combines the feature and spatial information through a sequence of up-convolutions and concatenations with high-resolution features from the contracting path. == Applications == There are many applications of U-Net in biomedical image segmentation, such as brain image segmentation (''BRATS'') and liver image segmentation ("siliver07") as well as protein binding site prediction. U-Net implementations have also found use in the physical sciences, for example in the analysis of micrographs of materials. Variations of the U-Net have also been applied for medical image reconstruction. Here are some variants and applications of U-Net as follows: Pixel-wise regression using U-Net and its application on pansharpening; 3D U-Net: Learning Dense Volumetric Segmentation from Sparse Annotation; TernausNet: U-Net with VGG11 Encoder Pre-Trained on ImageNet for Image Segmentation. Image-to-image translation to estimate fluorescent stains In binding site prediction of protein structure. == History == U-Net was created by Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, Thomas Brox in 2015 and reported in the paper "U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation". It is an improvement and development of FCN: Evan Shelhamer, Jonathan Long, Trevor Darrell (2014). "Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation".

  Read more →
• 

  Evidence-based library and information practice

  Evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP) or evidence-based librarianship (EBL) is the use of evidence-based practices (EBP) in the field of library and information science (LIS). This means that all practical decisions made within LIS should 1) be based on research studies and 2) that these research studies are selected and interpreted according to some specific norms characteristic for EBP. Typically such norms disregard theoretical studies and qualitative studies and consider quantitative studies according to a narrow set of criteria of what counts as evidence. If such a narrow set of methodological criteria are not applied, it is better instead to speak of research based library and information practice. == Characteristics == Evidence-based practice in general has been characterised as a positivist approach; EBLIP is therefore also a positivist approach to LIS. As such, EBLIP is an approach in contrast to other approaches to LIS. The use of statistical approaches known as meta-analysis to conclude what evidence has been reported in the literature is one among other methods which is typical for the evidence-based approach. In 2002, Booth noted the three schools of EBILP had some commonalities, including the context of day-to-day decision-making, an emphasis on improving the quality of professional practice, a pragmatic focus on the 'best available evidence', incorporation of the user perspective, the acceptance of a broad range of quantitative and qualitative research designs, and access, either first-hand or second-hand, to the (process of) evidence-based practice and its products. He added one more, that EBILP is concerned with getting the best value for money. == The role of library and information science in EBP == Evidence-based practice in general is based on a very thorough search of the scientific literature and a very thorough selection and analysis of the retrieved literature. A close familiarity with database searching is needed, and library and information professionals have important roles to play in this respect. Therefore LIS professionals should be well suited to help professionals in other disciplines doing EBP. EBLIP is the application of this approach on LIS itself. It should be mentioned, however, that EBP started in medicine as evidence-based medicine (EBM) from which it spread to other fields. Only slowly and to a limited extent has EBP moved on to LIS. The EBLIP process can be applied to a variety of scenarios in LIS, including customer service, collection development, library management and information literacy instruction. In general, quantitative methods are used in LIS research. A 2010 study revealed five categories that capture the different ways library and information professionals experience evidence-based practice: Evidence-based practice is experienced as irrelevant; Evidence-based practice is experienced as learning from published research; Evidence-based practice is experienced as service improvement; Evidence-based practice is experienced as a way of being; Evidence-based practice is experienced as a weapon.

  Read more →
• 

  Higuchi dimension

  In fractal geometry, the Higuchi dimension (or Higuchi fractal dimension (HFD)) is an approximate value for the box-counting dimension of the graph of a real-valued function or time series. This value is obtained via an algorithmic approximation so one also talks about the Higuchi method. It has many applications in science and engineering and has been applied to subjects like characterizing primary waves in seismograms, clinical neurophysiology and analyzing changes in the electroencephalogram in Alzheimer's disease. == Formulation of the method == The original formulation of the method is due to T. Higuchi. Given a time series X : { 1 , … , N } → R {\displaystyle X:\{1,\dots ,N\}\to \mathbb {R} } consisting of N {\displaystyle N} data points and a parameter k m a x ≥ 2 {\displaystyle k_{\mathrm {max} }\geq 2} the Higuchi Fractal dimension (HFD) of X {\displaystyle X} is calculated in the following way: For each k ∈ { 1 , … , k m a x } {\displaystyle k\in \{1,\dots ,k_{\mathrm {max} }}\} and m ∈ { 1 , … , k } {\displaystyle m\in \{1,\dots ,k}\} define the length L m ( k ) {\displaystyle L_{m}(k)} by L m ( k ) = N − 1 ⌊ N − m k ⌋ k 2 ∑ i = 1 ⌊ N − m k ⌋ | X N ( m + i k ) − X N ( m + ( i − 1 ) k ) | . {\displaystyle L_{m}(k)={\frac {N-1}{\lfloor {\frac {N-m}{k}}\rfloor k^{2}}}\sum _{i=1}^{\lfloor {\frac {N-m}{k}}\rfloor }|X_{N}(m+ik)-X_{N}(m+(i-1)k)|.} The length L ( k ) {\displaystyle L(k)} is defined by the average value of the k {\displaystyle k} lengths L 1 ( k ) , … , L k ( k ) {\displaystyle L_{1}(k),\dots ,L_{k}(k)} , L ( k ) = 1 k ∑ m = 1 k L m ( k ) . {\displaystyle L(k)={\frac {1}{k}}\sum _{m=1}^{k}L_{m}(k).} The slope of the best-fitting linear function through the data points { ( log ⁡ 1 k , log ⁡ L ( k ) ) } {\displaystyle \left\{\left(\log {\frac {1}{k}},\log L(k)\right)\right\}} is defined to be the Higuchi fractal dimension of the time-series X {\displaystyle X} . == Application to functions == For a real-valued function f : [ 0 , 1 ] → R {\displaystyle f:[0,1]\to \mathbb {R} } one can partition the unit interval [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} into N {\displaystyle N} equidistantly intervals [ t j , t j + 1 ) {\displaystyle [t_{j},t_{j+1})} and apply the Higuchi algorithm to the times series X ( j ) = f ( t j ) {\displaystyle X(j)=f(t_{j})} . This results into the Higuchi fractal dimension of the function f {\displaystyle f} . It was shown that in this case the Higuchi method yields an approximation for the box-counting dimension of the graph of f {\displaystyle f} as it follows a geometrical approach (see Liehr & Massopust 2020). == Robustness and stability == Applications to fractional Brownian functions and the Weierstrass function reveal that the Higuchi fractal dimension can be close to the box-dimension. On the other hand, the method can be unstable in the case where the data X ( 1 ) , … , X ( N ) {\displaystyle X(1),\dots ,X(N)} are periodic or if subsets of it lie on a horizontal line (see Liehr & Massopust 2020).

  Read more →
• 

  Divide-and-conquer algorithm

  In computer science, divide and conquer is an algorithm design paradigm. A divide-and-conquer algorithm recursively breaks down a problem into two or more sub-problems of the same or related type, until these become simple enough to be solved directly. The solutions to the sub-problems are then combined to give a solution to the original problem. The divide-and-conquer technique is the basis of efficient algorithms for many problems, such as sorting (e.g., quicksort, merge sort), multiplying large numbers (e.g., the Karatsuba algorithm), finding the closest pair of points, syntactic analysis (e.g., top-down parsers), SAT solving, and computing the discrete Fourier transform (FFT). Designing efficient divide-and-conquer algorithms can be difficult. As in mathematical induction, it is often necessary to generalize the problem to make it amenable to a recursive solution. The correctness of a divide-and-conquer algorithm is usually proved by mathematical induction, and its computational cost is often determined by solving recurrence relations. == Divide and conquer == The divide-and-conquer paradigm is often used to find an optimal solution of a problem. Its basic idea is to decompose a given problem into two or more similar, but simpler, subproblems, to solve them in turn, and to compose their solutions to solve the given problem. Problems of sufficient simplicity are solved directly. For example, to sort a given list of n natural numbers, split it into two lists of about n/2 numbers each, sort each of them in turn, and interleave both results appropriately to obtain the sorted version of the given list (see the picture). This approach is known as the merge sort algorithm. The name "divide and conquer" is sometimes applied to algorithms that reduce each problem to only one sub-problem, such as the binary search algorithm for finding a record in a sorted list (or its analogue in numerical computing, the bisection algorithm for root finding). These algorithms can be implemented more efficiently than general divide-and-conquer algorithms; in particular, if they use tail recursion, they can be converted into simple loops. Under this broad definition, however, every algorithm that uses recursion or loops could be regarded as a "divide-and-conquer algorithm". Therefore, some authors consider that the name "divide and conquer" should be used only when each problem may generate two or more subproblems. The name decrease and conquer has been proposed instead for the single-subproblem class. An important application of divide and conquer is in optimization, where if the search space is reduced ("pruned") by a constant factor at each step, the overall algorithm has the same asymptotic complexity as the pruning step, with the constant depending on the pruning factor (by summing the geometric series); this is known as prune and search. == Early historical examples == Early examples of these algorithms are primarily decrease and conquer – the original problem is successively broken down into single subproblems, and indeed can be solved iteratively. Binary search, a decrease-and-conquer algorithm where the subproblems are of roughly half the original size, has a long history. While a clear description of the algorithm on computers appeared in 1946 in an article by John Mauchly, the idea of using a sorted list of items to facilitate searching dates back at least as far as Babylonia in 200 BC. Another ancient decrease-and-conquer algorithm is the Euclidean algorithm to compute the greatest common divisor of two numbers by reducing the numbers to smaller and smaller equivalent subproblems, which dates to several centuries BC. An early example of a divide-and-conquer algorithm with multiple subproblems is Gauss's 1805 description of what is now called the Cooley–Tukey fast Fourier transform (FFT) algorithm, although he did not analyze its operation count quantitatively, and FFTs did not become widespread until they were rediscovered over a century later. An early two-subproblem D&C algorithm that was specifically developed for computers and properly analyzed is the merge sort algorithm, invented by John von Neumann in 1945. Another notable example is the algorithm invented by Anatolii A. Karatsuba in 1960 that could multiply two n-digit numbers in O ( n log 2 ⁡ 3 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{\log _{2}3})} operations (in Big O notation). This algorithm disproved Andrey Kolmogorov's 1956 conjecture that Ω ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle \Omega (n^{2})} operations would be required for that task. As another example of a divide-and-conquer algorithm that did not originally involve computers, Donald Knuth gives the method a post office typically uses to route mail: letters are sorted into separate bags for different geographical areas, each of these bags is itself sorted into batches for smaller sub-regions, and so on until they are delivered. This is related to a radix sort, described for punch-card sorting machines as early as 1929. == Advantages == === Solving difficult problems === Divide and conquer is a powerful tool for solving conceptually difficult problems: all it requires is a way of breaking the problem into sub-problems, of solving the trivial cases, and of combining sub-problems to the original problem. Similarly, decrease and conquer only requires reducing the problem to a single smaller problem, such as the classic Tower of Hanoi puzzle, which reduces moving a tower of height n {\displaystyle n} to move a tower of height n − 1 {\displaystyle n-1} . === Algorithm efficiency === The divide-and-conquer paradigm often helps in the discovery of efficient algorithms. It was the key, for example, to Karatsuba's fast multiplication method, the quicksort and mergesort algorithms, the Strassen algorithm for matrix multiplication, and fast Fourier transforms. In all these examples, the D&C approach led to an improvement in the asymptotic cost of the solution. For example, if (a) the base cases have constant-bounded size, the work of splitting the problem and combining the partial solutions is proportional to the problem's size n {\displaystyle n} , and (b) there is a bounded number p {\displaystyle p} of sub-problems of size ~ n p {\displaystyle {\frac {n}{p}}} at each stage, then the cost of the divide-and-conquer algorithm will be O ( n log p ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle O(n\log _{p}n)} . For other types of divide-and-conquer approaches, running times can also be generalized. For example, when a) the work of splitting the problem and combining the partial solutions take c n {\displaystyle cn} time, where n {\displaystyle n} is the input size and c {\displaystyle c} is some constant; b) when n < 2 {\displaystyle n<2} , the algorithm takes time upper-bounded by c {\displaystyle c} , and c) there are q {\displaystyle q} subproblems where each subproblem has size ~ n 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {n}{2}}} . Then, the running times are as follows: if the number of subproblems q > 2 {\displaystyle q>2} , then the divide-and-conquer algorithm's running time is bounded by O ( n log 2 ⁡ q ) {\displaystyle O(n^{\log _{2}q})} . if the number of subproblems is exactly one, then the divide-and-conquer algorithm's running time is bounded by O ( n ) {\displaystyle O(n)} . If, instead, the work of splitting the problem and combining the partial solutions take c n 2 {\displaystyle cn^{2}} time, and there are 2 subproblems where each has size n 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {n}{2}}} , then the running time of the divide-and-conquer algorithm is bounded by O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} . === Parallelism === Divide-and-conquer algorithms are naturally adapted for execution in multi-processor machines, especially shared-memory systems where the communication of data between processors does not need to be planned in advance because distinct sub-problems can be executed on different processors. === Memory access === Divide-and-conquer algorithms naturally tend to make efficient use of memory caches. The reason is that once a sub-problem is small enough, it and all its sub-problems can, in principle, be solved within the cache, without accessing the slower main memory. An algorithm designed to exploit the cache in this way is called cache-oblivious, because it does not contain the cache size as an explicit parameter. Moreover, D&C algorithms can be designed for important algorithms (e.g., sorting, FFTs, and matrix multiplication) to be optimal cache-oblivious algorithms–they use the cache in a probably optimal way, in an asymptotic sense, regardless of the cache size. In contrast, the traditional approach to exploiting the cache is blocking, as in loop nest optimization, where the problem is explicitly divided into chunks of the appropriate size—this can also use the cache optimally, but only when the algorithm is tuned for the specific cache sizes of a particular machine. The same advantage exists with regards to other hierarchical storage systems, such as NUMA or virtual memory, as well as for multip

  Read more →
• 

  ISPConfig

  ISPConfig is an open source hosting control panel for Linux, licensed under BSD license and developed by the company ISPConfig UG. The ISPConfig project was started in autumn 2005 by Till Brehm from the German company projektfarm GmbH. == Overview == Using the dashboard, administrators have the ability to manage websites, email addresses, MySQL and MariaDB as well as PostgreSQL (since version 3.3) databases, FTP accounts, Shell accounts and DNS records through a web-based interface. The software has 4 login levels: administrator, reseller, client, and email-user, each with a different set of permissions. == Operating Systems == ISPConfig is only available on Linux, with CentOS, Debian, and Ubuntu being among the supported distributions. == Features == The following services and features are supported: Management of a single or multiple servers from one control panel. Web server management for Apache HTTP Server and Nginx. Mail server management (with virtual mail users) with spam and antivirus filter using Postfix (software) and Dovecot (software). DNS server management (BIND, Powerdns). Configuration mirroring and clusters. Administrator, reseller, client and mail-user login. Virtual server management for OpenVZ Servers. Website statistics using Webalizer and AWStats

  Read more →
• 

  Information quality

  Information quality (IQ) is a contextual property of or a perspective to the content within information systems. There exist two complementary yet partially conflicting definitions of high-quality: firstly, information is considered high quality if it is fit for its intended purpose ; secondly, it is deemed high quality if it conforms to specified requirements . The primary distinction between these definitions is that Juran's perspective focuses on the suitability of information for its intended purpose, which can be measured by the success of its application even without direct access to or exact knowledge of the data. For example, a black-box AI with access to English Wikipedia can work well for users' purposes but using Estonian Wikipedia fails for the same purposes. Given that the AI remains the same, it can be concluded that English version data would be of higher quality in comparison to Estonian version, even without exact comparison of data contents and their properties in each version. In contrast, Crosby emphasizes adherence to predefined specifications, assuming specific criteria rather than measuring the success of its use; for instance, information in Wikipedia could be proven to be good based on criteria such as existing peer validation and academic references, even if the AI results are poor. This approach falls into problems when data is not completely accessible or all quality properties cannot be known and measured leading to false impression of quality due to lacking and misleading metrics. Numerous IQ frameworks and methodologies provide tangible approach to assess and measure DQ/IQ in a robust and rigorous manner. == Conceptual problems == Although the foundational definitions are usable for most everyday purposes, specialists often use more complex models for information quality. It has been suggested, however, that higher the quality the greater will be the confidence in meeting more general, less specific contexts. == Dimensions and metrics of information quality == "Information quality" is a measure of its fitness for use or conformance to requirements. In this way, "quality" is considered contextual and it can then vary across users and uses of the information. The exact degree of quality is often described with dimensions such as accuracy, timeliness, completeness, and similar scales. Although a huge amount of academic research has been directed to these dimensions, there does not exist consensus on their definitions or practical usefulness . Historically, Richard Wang and Diane Strong proposed a list of dimensions or elements used in assessing Information Quality is: Intrinsic IQ: accuracy, objectivity, believability, reputation Contextual IQ: relevance, value-added, timeliness, completeness, amount of information Representational IQ: interpretability, format, coherence, compatibility Accessibility IQ: accessibility, access security Other authors propose similar but different lists of dimensions for analysis, and emphasize measurement and reporting as information quality metrics. Larry English prefers the term "characteristics" to dimensions. However, a considerable amount of information quality research involves investigating and describing various categories of desirable attributes (or dimensions) of data. Research has recently shown the huge diversity of terms and classification structures used. === Quality metrics === Source: Authority/verifiability Authority refers to the expertise or recognized official status of a source. Consider the reputation of the author and publisher. When working with legal or government information, consider whether the source is the official provider of the information. Verifiability refers to the ability of a reader to verify the validity of the information irrespective of how authoritative the source is. To verify the facts is part of the duty of care of the journalistic deontology, as well as, where possible, to provide the sources of information so that they can be verified Scope of coverage Scope of coverage refers to the extent to which a source explores a topic. Consider time periods, geography or jurisdiction and coverage of related or narrower topics. Composition and organization Composition and organization has to do with the ability of the information source to present its particular message in a coherent, logically sequential manner. Objectivity Objectivity is the bias or opinion expressed when a writer interprets or analyze facts. Consider the use of persuasive language, the source's presentation of other viewpoints, its reason for providing the information and advertising. Integrity Adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character The state of being whole, entire, or undiminished Comprehensiveness Of large scope; covering or involving much; inclusive: a comprehensive study. Comprehending mentally; having an extensive mental grasp. Insurance. covering or providing broad protection against loss. Validity Validity of some information has to do with the degree of obvious truthfulness which the information carries Uniqueness As much as 'uniqueness' of a given piece of information is intuitive in meaning, it also significantly implies not only the originating point of the information but also the manner in which it is presented and thus the perception which it conjures. The essence of any piece of information we process consists to a large extent of those two elements. Timeliness Timeliness refers to information that is current at the time of publication. Consider publication, creation and revision dates. Beware of Web site scripting that automatically reflects the current day's date on a page. Reproducibility (utilized primarily when referring to instructive information) Means that documented methods are capable of being used on the same data set to achieve a consistent result. == Professional associations == IQ International—the International Association for Information and Data Quality IQ International is a not-for-profit, vendor neutral, professional association formed in 2004, dedicated to building the information and data quality profession. CDOIQ Society Chief Data Officers and Information Quality Society is a global professional society supporting data leaders with networking, meetings, best practices, experience, certification, and training. == Information quality conferences == A number of major conferences relevant to information quality are held annually: Annual MIT Chief Data Officer & Information Quality (CDOIQ) Symposium Annual conferences held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA Data Governance and Information Quality Conference Commercial conferences held each year in the USA Data Quality Asia Pacific Commercial conference held annually in Sydney or Melbourne, Australia Enterprise Data and Business Intelligence Conference Europe Commercial conferences held annually in London, England. Information and Data Quality Conference Not for profit conference run annually by IQ International (the International Association for Information and Data Quality) in the USA International Conference on Information Quality Academic Conference launched through MITIQ held annually at a University Master Data Management & Data Governance Conferences Six major conferences are run annually by the MDM Institute in venues such as London, San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Madrid, Frankfurt, Shanghai and New York City.

  Read more →
• 

  Record linkage

  Record linkage (also known as data matching, data linkage, entity resolution, and many other terms) is the task of finding records in a data set that refer to the same entity across different data sources (e.g., data files, books, websites, and databases). Record linkage is necessary when joining different data sets based on entities that may or may not share a common identifier (e.g., database key, URI, National identification number), which may be due to differences in record shape, storage location, or curator style or preference. A data set that has undergone RL-oriented reconciliation may be referred to as being cross-linked. == Naming conventions == "Record linkage" is the term used by statisticians, epidemiologists, and historians, among others, to describe the process of joining records from one data source with another that describe the same entity. However, many other terms are used for this process. Unfortunately, this profusion of terminology has led to few cross-references between these research communities. Computer scientists often refer to it as "data matching" or as the "object identity problem". Commercial mail and database applications refer to it as "merge/purge processing" or "list washing". Other names used to describe the same concept include: "coreference/entity/identity/name/record resolution", "entity disambiguation/linking", "fuzzy matching", "duplicate detection", "deduplication", "record matching", "(reference) reconciliation", "object identification", "data/information integration" and "conflation". While they share similar names, record linkage and linked data are two separate approaches to processing and structuring data. Although both involve identifying matching entities across different data sets, record linkage standardly equates "entities" with human individuals; by contrast, Linked Data is based on the possibility of interlinking any web resource across data sets, using a correspondingly broader concept of identifier, namely a URI. == History == The initial idea of record linkage goes back to Halbert L. Dunn in his 1946 article titled "Record Linkage" published in the American Journal of Public Health. Howard Borden Newcombe then laid the probabilistic foundations of modern record linkage theory in a 1959 article in Science. These were formalized in 1969 by Ivan Fellegi and Alan Sunter, in their pioneering work "A Theory For Record Linkage", where they proved that the probabilistic decision rule they described was optimal when the comparison attributes were conditionally independent. In their work they recognized the growing interest in applying advances in computing and automation to large collections of administrative data, and the Fellegi-Sunter theory remains the mathematical foundation for many record linkage applications. Since the late 1990s, various machine learning techniques have been developed that can, under favorable conditions, be used to estimate the conditional probabilities required by the Fellegi-Sunter theory. Several researchers have reported that the conditional independence assumption of the Fellegi-Sunter algorithm is often violated in practice; however, published efforts to explicitly model the conditional dependencies among the comparison attributes have not resulted in an improvement in record linkage quality. On the other hand, machine learning or neural network algorithms that do not rely on these assumptions often provide far higher accuracy, when sufficient labeled training data is available. Record linkage can be done entirely without the aid of a computer, but the primary reasons computers are often used to complete record linkages are to reduce or eliminate manual review and to make results more easily reproducible. Computer matching has the advantages of allowing central supervision of processing, better quality control, speed, consistency, and better reproducibility of results. == Methods == === Data preprocessing === Record linkage is highly sensitive to the quality of the data being linked, so all data sets under consideration (particularly their key identifier fields) should ideally undergo a data quality assessment before record linkage. Many key identifiers for the same entity can be presented quite differently between (and even within) data sets, which can greatly complicate record linkage unless understood ahead of time. For example, key identifiers for a man named William J. Smith might appear in three different data sets as follows: In this example, the different formatting styles lead to records that look different but in fact all refer to the same entity with the same logical identifier values. Most, if not all, record linkage strategies would result in more accurate linkage if these values were first normalized or standardized into a consistent format (e.g., all names are "Surname, Given name", and all dates are "YYYY/MM/DD"). Standardization can be accomplished through simple rule-based data transformations or more complex procedures such as lexicon-based tokenization and probabilistic hidden Markov models. Several of the packages listed in the Software Implementations section provide some of these features to simplify the process of data standardization. === Entity resolution === Entity resolution is an operational intelligence process, typically powered by an entity resolution engine or middleware, whereby organizations can connect disparate data sources with a view to understand possible entity matches and non-obvious relationships across multiple data silos. It analyzes all of the information relating to individuals and/or entities from multiple sources of data, and then applies likelihood and probability scoring to determine which identities are a match and what, if any, non-obvious relationships exist between those identities. Entity resolution engines are typically used to uncover risk, fraud, and conflicts of interest, but are also useful tools for use within customer data integration (CDI) and master data management (MDM) requirements. Typical uses for entity resolution engines include terrorist screening, insurance fraud detection, USA Patriot Act compliance, organized retail crime ring detection and applicant screening. For example, across different data silos – employee records, vendor data, watch lists, etc. – an organization may have several variations of an entity named ABC, which may or may not be the same individual. These entries may, in fact, appear as ABC1, ABC2, or ABC3 within those data sources. By comparing similarities between underlying attributes such as address, date of birth, or social security number, the user can eliminate some possible matches and confirm others as very likely matches. Entity resolution engines then apply rules, based on common sense logic, to identify hidden relationships across the data. In the example above, perhaps ABC1 and ABC2 are not the same individual, but rather two distinct people who share common attributes such as address or phone number. ==== Data matching ==== While entity resolution solutions include data matching technology, many data matching offerings do not fit the definition of entity resolution. Here are four factors that distinguish entity resolution from data matching, according to John Talburt, director of the UALR Center for Advanced Research in Entity Resolution and Information Quality: Works with both structured and unstructured records, and it entails the process of extracting references when the sources are unstructured or semi-structured Uses elaborate business rules and concept models to deal with missing, conflicting, and corrupted information Utilizes non-matching, asserted linking (associate) information in addition to direct matching Uncovers non-obvious relationships and association networks (i.e. who's associated with whom) In contrast to data quality products, more powerful identity resolution engines also include a rules engine and workflow process, which apply business intelligence to the resolved identities and their relationships. These advanced technologies make automated decisions and impact business processes in real time, limiting the need for human intervention. === Deterministic record linkage === The simplest kind of record linkage, called deterministic or rules-based record linkage, generates links based on the number of individual identifiers that match among the available data sets. Two records are said to match via a deterministic record linkage procedure if all or some identifiers (above a certain threshold) are identical. Deterministic record linkage is a good option when the entities in the data sets are identified by a common identifier, or when there are several representative identifiers (e.g., name, date of birth, and sex when identifying a person) whose quality of data is relatively high. As an example, consider two standardized data sets, Set A and Set B, that contain different bits of information about patients in a hospital system. T

  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 →
• 

  Integrated writing environment

  An integrated writing environment (IWE) is software that provides comprehensive writing and knowledge management functionality for writers and information workers. IWEs enable writers and information workers to perform a variety of tasks related to the document in the IWE in a single environment. This provides a distraction-free workspace and streamlined writing experience. IWEs provide similar efficiency and functionality benefits to writers and information professionals that integrated development environments (IDEs) provide to software developers. == Overview == IWEs are designed to maximize productivity and help improve the quality of written work by integrating together tools that allow users to work effectively in a single application. The IWE features may include integrated content search, reversion management, outlining, note management, and reference management, as may be suitable for the target field of use. == List of IWEs == Celtx This IWE is intended for screenplay writers and has screenplay writing and management tools. Celtex provides tools for the pre-production work phase, story development, storyboarding, script breakdowns, production scheduling, and reports. Scrivener This IWE targets novel, research paper, and script writing. Scrivener provides tools to organize notes and research documents for easy access and referencing. After completing the writing, Scrivener allows the user to export the document to formats supported by common word processors, such as Microsoft Word. TeXstudio This IWE targets LaTeX documents and provides interactive spelling checker, code folding, and syntax highlighting.

  Read more →
• 

  FAIR data

  FAIR data is data which meets the 2016 FAIR principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR). The FAIR principles emphasize machine-actionability (i.e., the capacity of computational systems to find, access, interoperate, and reuse data with none or minimal human intervention) because humans increasingly rely on computational support to deal with data as a result of the increase in the volume, complexity, and rate of production of data. The abbreviation FAIR/O data is sometimes used to indicate that the dataset or database in question complies with the FAIR principles and also carries an explicit data‑capable open license. == FAIR principles published by GO FAIR == Findable The first step in (re)using data is to find them. Metadata and data should be easy to find for both humans and computers. Machine-readable metadata are essential for automatic discovery of datasets and services, so this is an essential component of the FAIRification process. F1. (Meta)data are assigned a globally unique and persistent identifier F2. Data are described with rich metadata (defined by R1 below) F3. Metadata clearly and explicitly include the identifier of the data they describe F4. (Meta)data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource Accessible Once the user finds the required data, they need to know how they can be accessed, possibly including authentication and authorisation. A1. (Meta)data are retrievable by their identifier using a standardised communications protocol A1.1 The protocol is open, free, and universally implementable A1.2 The protocol allows for an authentication and authorisation procedure, where necessary A2. Metadata are accessible, even when the data are no longer available Interoperable The data usually need to be integrated with other data. In addition, the data need to interoperate with applications or workflows for analysis, storage, and processing. I1. (Meta)data use a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation I2. (Meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles I3. (Meta)data include qualified references to other (meta)data Reusable The ultimate goal of FAIR is to optimise the reuse of data. To achieve this, metadata and data should be well-described so that they can be replicated and/or combined in different settings. R1. (Meta)data are richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attributes R1.1. (Meta)data are released with a clear and accessible data usage license R1.2. (Meta)data are associated with detailed provenance R1.3. (Meta)data meet domain-relevant community standards The principles refer to three types of entities: data (or any digital object), metadata (information about that digital object), and infrastructure. For instance, principle F4 defines that both metadata and data are registered or indexed in a searchable resource (the infrastructure component). === Acceptance and implementation === Before FAIR, a 2007 OECD report was the most influential paper discussing similar ideas related to data accessibility. In January 2014, the Lorentz Centre at Leiden University hosted a workshop entitled "Jointly designing a data FAIRPORT" where the participants first formulated the FAIR principles. After further discussions, they were published in the March 2016 issue of Scientific Data. At the 2016 G20 Hangzhou summit, the G20 leaders issued a statement endorsing the application of FAIR principles to research. Also in 2016, a group of Australian organisations developed a Statement on FAIR Access to Australia's Research Outputs, which aimed to extend the principles to research outputs more generally. In 2017, Germany, Netherlands and France agreed to establish an international office to support the FAIR initiative, the GO FAIR International Support and Coordination Office. Other international organisations active in the research data ecosystem, such as CODATA or Research Data Alliance (RDA) also support FAIR implementations by their communities. FAIR principles implementation assessment is being explored by FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group of RDA, CODATA's strategic Decadal Programme "Data for Planet: Making data work for cross-domain challenges" mentions FAIR data principles as a fundamental enabler of data driven science. The Association of European Research Libraries recommends the use of FAIR principles. A 2017 paper by advocates of FAIR data reported that awareness of the FAIR concept was increasing among various researchers and institutes, but also, understanding of the concept was becoming confused as different people apply their own differing perspectives to it. Guides on implementing FAIR data practices state that the cost of a data management plan in compliance with FAIR data practices should be 5% of the total research budget. In 2019 the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA) released the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance as a complementary guide. The CARE principles extend principles outlined in FAIR data to include Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics to ensure data guidelines address historical contexts and power differentials. The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance were drafted at the International Data Week and Research Data Alliance Plenary co-hosted event, "Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles for the Governance of Indigenous Data Workshop", held 8 November 2018, in Gaborone, Botswana. The lack of information on how to implement the guidelines have led to inconsistent interpretations of them. In January 2020, representatives of nine groups of universities around the world produced the Sorbonne declaration on research data rights, which included a commitment to FAIR data, and called on governments to provide support to enable it. In 2021, researchers identified the FAIR principles as a conceptual component of data catalog software tools, with the other components being metadata management, business context and data responsibility roles. In April 2022, Matthias Scheffler and colleagues argued in Nature that FAIR principles are "a must" so that data mining and artificial intelligence can extract useful scientific information from the data. There have been moves in the geosciences to establish FAIR data by use of decimal georeferencing However, making data (and research outcomes) FAIR is a challenging task, and it is challenging to assess the FAIRness. In 2020, the FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group published a set of guidelines for assessing "FAIRness".

  Read more →
• 

  Vocabulary-based transformation

  In metadata, a vocabulary-based transformation (VBT) is a transformation aided by the use of a semantic equivalence statements within a controlled vocabulary. Many organizations today require communication between two or more computers. Although many standards exist to exchange data between computers such as HTML or email, there is still much structured information that needs to be exchanged between computers that is not standardized. The process of mapping one source of data into another is often a slow and labor-intensive process. VBT is a possible way to avoid much of the time and cost of manual data mapping using traditional extract, transform, load technologies. == History == The term vocabulary-based transformation was first defined by Roy Shulte of the Gartner Group around May 2003 and appeared in annual "hype-cycle" for integration. == Application == VBT allows computer systems integrators to more automatically "look up" the definitions of data elements in a centralized data dictionary and use that definition and the equivalent mappings to transform that data element into a foreign namespace. The Web Ontology Language (OWL) language also support three semantic equivalence statements. == Companies or products == IONA Technologies Contivo and Delta by Liaison Technologies enLeague Systems ItemField Unicorn Solutions Vitria Technology Zonar

  Read more →
• 

  Friendly artificial intelligence

  Friendly artificial intelligence (friendly AI or FAI) is hypothetical artificial general intelligence (AGI) that would have a positive (benign) effect on humanity or at least align with human interests such as fostering the improvement of the human species. It is a part of the ethics of artificial intelligence and is closely related to machine ethics. While machine ethics is concerned with how an artificially intelligent agent should behave, friendly artificial intelligence research is focused on how to practically bring about this behavior and ensuring it is adequately constrained. == Etymology and usage == The term was coined by Eliezer Yudkowsky, who is best known for popularizing the idea, to discuss superintelligent artificial agents that reliably implement human values. Stuart J. Russell and Peter Norvig's leading artificial intelligence textbook, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, describes the idea: Yudkowsky (2008) goes into more detail about how to design a Friendly AI. He asserts that friendliness (a desire not to harm humans) should be designed in from the start, but that the designers should recognize both that their own designs may be flawed, and that the robot will learn and evolve over time. Thus the challenge is one of mechanism design—to define a mechanism for evolving AI systems under a system of checks and balances, and to give the systems utility functions that will remain friendly in the face of such changes. "Friendly" is used in this context as technical terminology, and picks out agents that are safe and useful, not necessarily ones that are "friendly" in the colloquial sense. The concept is primarily invoked in the context of discussions of recursively self-improving artificial agents that rapidly explode in intelligence, on the grounds that this hypothetical technology would have a large, rapid, and difficult-to-control impact on human society. == Risks of unfriendly AI == The roots of concern about artificial intelligence are very old. Kevin LaGrandeur showed that the dangers specific to AI can be seen in ancient literature concerning artificial humanoid servants such as the golem, or the proto-robots of Gerbert of Aurillac and Roger Bacon. In those stories, the extreme intelligence and power of these humanoid creations clash with their status as slaves (which by nature are seen as sub-human), and cause disastrous conflict. By 1942 these themes prompted Isaac Asimov to create the "Three Laws of Robotics"—principles hard-wired into all the robots in his fiction, intended to prevent them from turning on their creators, or allowing them to come to harm. In modern times as the prospect of superintelligent AI looms nearer, philosopher Nick Bostrom has said that superintelligent AI systems with goals that are not aligned with human ethics are intrinsically dangerous unless extreme measures are taken to ensure the safety of humanity. He put it this way: Basically we should assume that a 'superintelligence' would be able to achieve whatever goals it has. Therefore, it is extremely important that the goals we endow it with, and its entire motivation system, is 'human friendly.' In 2008, Eliezer Yudkowsky called for the creation of "friendly AI" to mitigate existential risk from advanced artificial intelligence. He explains: "The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else." Steve Omohundro says that a sufficiently advanced AI system will, unless explicitly counteracted, exhibit a number of basic "drives", such as resource acquisition, self-preservation, and continuous self-improvement, because of the intrinsic nature of any goal-driven systems and that these drives will, "without special precautions", cause the AI to exhibit undesired behavior. Alexander Wissner-Gross says that AIs driven to maximize their future freedom of action (or causal path entropy) might be considered friendly if their planning horizon is longer than a certain threshold, and unfriendly if their planning horizon is shorter than that threshold. Luke Muehlhauser, writing for the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, recommends that machine ethics researchers adopt what Bruce Schneier has called the "security mindset": Rather than thinking about how a system will work, imagine how it could fail. For instance, he suggests even an AI that only makes accurate predictions and communicates via a text interface might cause unintended harm. In 2014, Luke Muehlhauser and Nick Bostrom underlined the need for 'friendly AI'; nonetheless, the difficulties in designing a 'friendly' superintelligence, for instance via programming counterfactual moral thinking, are considerable. == Coherent extrapolated volition == Yudkowsky advances the Coherent Extrapolated Volition (CEV) model. According to him, our coherent extrapolated volition is "our wish if we knew more, thought faster, were more the people we wished we were, had grown up farther together; where the extrapolation converges rather than diverges, where our wishes cohere rather than interfere; extrapolated as we wish that extrapolated, interpreted as we wish that interpreted". Rather than a Friendly AI being designed directly by human programmers, it is to be designed by a "seed AI" programmed to first study human nature and then produce the AI that humanity would want, given sufficient time and insight, to arrive at a satisfactory answer. The appeal to an objective through contingent human nature (perhaps expressed, for mathematical purposes, in the form of a utility function or other decision-theoretic formalism), as providing the ultimate criterion of "Friendliness", is an answer to the meta-ethical problem of defining an objective morality; extrapolated volition is intended to be what humanity objectively would want, all things considered, but it can only be defined relative to the psychological and cognitive qualities of present-day, unextrapolated humanity. == Other approaches == Steve Omohundro has proposed a "scaffolding" approach to AI safety, in which one provably safe AI generation helps build the next provably safe generation. Seth Baum argues that the development of safe, socially beneficial artificial intelligence or artificial general intelligence is a function of the social psychology of AI research communities and so can be constrained by extrinsic measures and motivated by intrinsic measures. Intrinsic motivations can be strengthened when messages resonate with AI developers; Baum argues that, in contrast, "existing messages about beneficial AI are not always framed well". Baum advocates for "cooperative relationships, and positive framing of AI researchers" and cautions against characterizing AI researchers as "not want(ing) to pursue beneficial designs". In his book Human Compatible, AI researcher Stuart J. Russell lists three principles to guide the development of beneficial machines. He emphasizes that these principles are not meant to be explicitly coded into the machines; rather, they are intended for the human developers. The principles are as follows: The machine's only objective is to maximize the realization of human preferences. The machine is initially uncertain about what those preferences are. The ultimate source of information about human preferences is human behavior. The "preferences" Russell refers to "are all-encompassing; they cover everything you might care about, arbitrarily far into the future." Similarly, "behavior" includes any choice between options, and the uncertainty is such that some probability, which may be quite small, must be assigned to every logically possible human preference. == Public policy == James Barrat, author of Our Final Invention, suggested that "a public-private partnership has to be created to bring A.I.-makers together to share ideas about security—something like the International Atomic Energy Agency, but in partnership with corporations." He urges AI researchers to convene a meeting similar to the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA, which discussed risks of biotechnology. John McGinnis encourages governments to accelerate friendly AI research. Because the goalposts of friendly AI are not necessarily eminent, he suggests a model similar to the National Institutes of Health, where "Peer review panels of computer and cognitive scientists would sift through projects and choose those that are designed both to advance AI and assure that such advances would be accompanied by appropriate safeguards." McGinnis feels that peer review is better "than regulation to address technical issues that are not possible to capture through bureaucratic mandates". McGinnis notes that his proposal stands in contrast to that of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, which generally aims to avoid government involvement in friendly AI. == Criticism == Some critics believe that both human-level AI and superintelligence are unlikely and that, therefore, friendly AI is unlik

  Read more →
• 

  Neural network Gaussian process

  A Neural Network Gaussian Process (NNGP) is a Gaussian process (GP) obtained as the limit of a certain type of sequence of neural networks. Specifically, a wide variety of network architectures converges to a GP in the infinitely wide limit, in the sense of distribution. The concept constitutes an intensional definition, i.e., a NNGP is just a GP, but distinguished by how it is obtained. == Motivation == Bayesian networks are a modeling tool for assigning probabilities to events, and thereby characterizing the uncertainty in a model's predictions. Deep learning and artificial neural networks are approaches used in machine learning to build computational models which learn from training examples. Bayesian neural networks merge these fields. They are a type of neural network whose parameters and predictions are both probabilistic. While standard neural networks often assign high confidence even to incorrect predictions, Bayesian neural networks can more accurately evaluate how likely their predictions are to be correct. Computation in artificial neural networks is usually organized into sequential layers of artificial neurons. The number of neurons in a layer is called the layer width. When we consider a sequence of Bayesian neural networks with increasingly wide layers (see figure), they converge in distribution to a NNGP. This large width limit is of practical interest, since the networks often improve as layers get wider. And the process may give a closed form way to evaluate networks. NNGPs also appears in several other contexts: It describes the distribution over predictions made by wide non-Bayesian artificial neural networks after random initialization of their parameters, but before training; it appears as a term in neural tangent kernel prediction equations; it is used in deep information propagation to characterize whether hyperparameters and architectures will be trainable. It is related to other large width limits of neural networks. === Scope === The first correspondence result had been established in the 1995 PhD thesis of Radford M. Neal, then supervised by Geoffrey Hinton at University of Toronto. Neal cites David J. C. MacKay as inspiration, who worked in Bayesian learning. Today the correspondence is proven for: Single hidden layer Bayesian neural networks; deep fully connected networks as the number of units per layer is taken to infinity; convolutional neural networks as the number of channels is taken to infinity; transformer networks as the number of attention heads is taken to infinity; recurrent networks as the number of units is taken to infinity. In fact, this NNGP correspondence holds for almost any architecture: Generally, if an architecture can be expressed solely via matrix multiplication and coordinatewise nonlinearities (i.e., a tensor program), then it has an infinite-width GP. This in particular includes all feedforward or recurrent neural networks composed of multilayer perceptron, recurrent neural networks (e.g., LSTMs, GRUs), (nD or graph) convolution, pooling, skip connection, attention, batch normalization, and/or layer normalization. === Illustration === Every setting of a neural network's parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } corresponds to a specific function computed by the neural network. A prior distribution p ( θ ) {\displaystyle p(\theta )} over neural network parameters therefore corresponds to a prior distribution over functions computed by the network. As neural networks are made infinitely wide, this distribution over functions converges to a Gaussian process for many architectures. The notation used in this section is the same as the notation used below to derive the correspondence between NNGPs and fully connected networks, and more details can be found there. The figure to the right plots the one-dimensional outputs z L ( ⋅ ; θ ) {\displaystyle z^{L}(\cdot ;\theta )} of a neural network for two inputs x {\displaystyle x} and x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} against each other. The black dots show the function computed by the neural network on these inputs for random draws of the parameters from p ( θ ) {\displaystyle p(\theta )} . The red lines are iso-probability contours for the joint distribution over network outputs z L ( x ; θ ) {\displaystyle z^{L}(x;\theta )} and z L ( x ∗ ; θ ) {\displaystyle z^{L}(x^{};\theta )} induced by p ( θ ) {\displaystyle p(\theta )} . This is the distribution in function space corresponding to the distribution p ( θ ) {\displaystyle p(\theta )} in parameter space, and the black dots are samples from this distribution. For infinitely wide neural networks, since the distribution over functions computed by the neural network is a Gaussian process, the joint distribution over network outputs is a multivariate Gaussian for any finite set of network inputs. == Discussion == === Infinitely wide fully connected network === This section expands on the correspondence between infinitely wide neural networks and Gaussian processes for the specific case of a fully connected architecture. It provides a proof sketch outlining why the correspondence holds, and introduces the specific functional form of the NNGP for fully connected networks. The proof sketch closely follows the approach by Novak and coauthors. ==== Network architecture specification ==== Consider a fully connected artificial neural network with inputs x {\displaystyle x} , parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } consisting of weights W l {\displaystyle W^{l}} and biases b l {\displaystyle b^{l}} for each layer l {\displaystyle l} in the network, pre-activations (pre-nonlinearity) z l {\displaystyle z^{l}} , activations (post-nonlinearity) y l {\displaystyle y^{l}} , pointwise nonlinearity ϕ ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle \phi (\cdot )} , and layer widths n l {\displaystyle n^{l}} . For simplicity, the width n L + 1 {\displaystyle n^{L+1}} of the readout vector z L {\displaystyle z^{L}} is taken to be 1. The parameters of this network have a prior distribution p ( θ ) {\displaystyle p(\theta )} , which consists of an isotropic Gaussian for each weight and bias, with the variance of the weights scaled inversely with layer width. This network is illustrated in the figure to the right, and described by the following set of equations: x ≡ input y l ( x ) = { x l = 0 ϕ ( z l − 1 ( x ) ) l > 0 z i l ( x ) = ∑ j W i j l y j l ( x ) + b i l W i j l ∼ N ( 0 , σ w 2 n l ) b i l ∼ N ( 0 , σ b 2 ) ϕ ( ⋅ ) ≡ nonlinearity y l ( x ) , z l − 1 ( x ) ∈ R n l × 1 n L + 1 = 1 θ = { W 0 , b 0 , … , W L , b L } {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}x&\equiv {\text{input}}\\y^{l}(x)&=\left\{{\begin{array}{lcl}x&&l=0\\\phi \left(z^{l-1}(x)\right)&&l>0\end{array}}\right.\\z_{i}^{l}(x)&=\sum _{j}W_{ij}^{l}y_{j}^{l}(x)+b_{i}^{l}\\W_{ij}^{l}&\sim {\mathcal {N}}\left(0,{\frac {\sigma _{w}^{2}}{n^{l}}}\right)\\b_{i}^{l}&\sim {\mathcal {N}}\left(0,\sigma _{b}^{2}\right)\\\phi (\cdot )&\equiv {\text{nonlinearity}}\\y^{l}(x),z^{l-1}(x)&\in \mathbb {R} ^{n^{l}\times 1}\\n^{L+1}&=1\\\theta &=\left\{W^{0},b^{0},\dots ,W^{L},b^{L}\right\}\end{aligned}}} ==== ==== z l | y l {\displaystyle z^{l}|y^{l}} is a Gaussian process We first observe that the pre-activations z l {\displaystyle z^{l}} are described by a Gaussian process conditioned on the preceding activations y l {\displaystyle y^{l}} . This result holds even at finite width. Each pre-activation z i l {\displaystyle z_{i}^{l}} is a weighted sum of Gaussian random variables, corresponding to the weights W i j l {\displaystyle W_{ij}^{l}} and biases b i l {\displaystyle b_{i}^{l}} , where the coefficients for each of those Gaussian variables are the preceding activations y j l {\displaystyle y_{j}^{l}} . Because they are a weighted sum of zero-mean Gaussians, the z i l {\displaystyle z_{i}^{l}} are themselves zero-mean Gaussians (conditioned on the coefficients y j l {\displaystyle y_{j}^{l}} ). Since the z l {\displaystyle z^{l}} are jointly Gaussian for any set of y l {\displaystyle y^{l}} , they are described by a Gaussian process conditioned on the preceding activations y l {\displaystyle y^{l}} . The covariance or kernel of this Gaussian process depends on the weight and bias variances σ w 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{w}^{2}} and σ b 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{b}^{2}} , as well as the second moment matrix K l {\displaystyle K^{l}} of the preceding activations y l {\displaystyle y^{l}} , z i l ∣ y l ∼ G P ( 0 , σ w 2 K l + σ b 2 ) K l ( x , x ′ ) = 1 n l ∑ i y i l ( x ) y i l ( x ′ ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}z_{i}^{l}\mid y^{l}&\sim {\mathcal {GP}}\left(0,\sigma _{w}^{2}K^{l}+\sigma _{b}^{2}\right)\\K^{l}(x,x')&={\frac {1}{n^{l}}}\sum _{i}y_{i}^{l}(x)y_{i}^{l}(x')\end{aligned}}} The effect of the weight scale σ w 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{w}^{2}} is to rescale the contribution to the covariance matrix from K l {\displaystyle K^{l}} , while the bias is shared for all inputs, and so σ b 2 {\displaystyle \sigma _{b}^{2}} makes the z i l {\displaystyle z_{i}^{l}} for different datapoints more similar and

  Read more →
• 

  Reverse data management

  Reverse data management describes a branch and set of research questions in relational database theory that aim to reverse the common focus of standard data management. Instead of focusing on the "forward" transformation of an input databases (a set of relational tables) to an output table, which is the main focus of standard query evaluation, reverse data management reverses that focus and studies the possible input database transformations that would achieve a desired output. Usually the objective is to find an intervention (a deletion, addition, or change of tuples) of minimal size, in order to achieve a particular change in the output. The problem has been studied at least since the 1980s, but has received renewed attention due to an influential paper in the early 2000s that made a connection between provenance and view propagation. The term was coined in a VLDB 2011 vision paper. The problem has been receiving significant attention in recent years due to its connection to computational fairness. == Topics in reverse data management problems == Example topics in reverse data management include: Deletion propagation with source side-effects: Find a minimal number of tuples to delete in the database in order to delete a particular tuple in the output. Deletion propagation with view side-effects: Find a set of tuples to delete in the database in order to delete a particular tuple in the output, while removing the minimal number of other output tuples. Causal responsibility: Find a minimal number of tuples to delete in the database in order to make a particular input tuple counterfactual. This notion is inspired by the notions of actual cause and causal responsibility from the work of Halpern and Pearl. Resilience: Find a minimal number of tuples to delete in the database in order to make a Boolean query false. The complexity of this problem is identical to the problem of deletion propagation with source-side effects over a different database. Smallest witness problem: Find a minimal number of tuples to keep in the a database (or equivalently, delete a maximal number of tuples) while keeping a particular tuple in the output. Minimum repair: Given a database that violates certain integrity constraints, find a minimal number of tuples to delete in the database in order to fulfill all constraints (also called to "repair" the database).

  Read more →
• 

  Run-to-completion scheduling

  Run-to-completion scheduling or nonpreemptive scheduling is a scheduling model in which each task runs until it either finishes, or explicitly yields control back to the scheduler. Run-to-completion systems typically have an event queue which is serviced either in strict order of admission by an event loop, or by an admission scheduler which is capable of scheduling events out of order, based on other constraints such as deadlines. Some preemptive multitasking scheduling systems behave as run-to-completion schedulers in regard to scheduling tasks at one particular process priority level, at the same time as those processes still preempt other lower priority tasks and are themselves preempted by higher priority tasks.

  Read more →