AI Coding Interview Questions

AI Coding Interview Questions — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Percept (artificial intelligence)

  A percept is the input that an intelligent agent is perceiving at any given moment. It is essentially the same concept as a percept in psychology, except that it is being perceived not by the brain but by the agent. A percept is detected by a sensor, often a camera, processed accordingly, and acted upon by an actuator. Each percept is added to a "percept sequence", which is a complete history of each percept ever detected. The agent's action at any instant point may depend on the entire percept sequence up to that particular instant point. An intelligent agent chooses how to act not only based on the current percept, but the percept sequence. The next action is chosen by the agent function, which maps every percept to an action. For example, if a camera were to record a gesture, the agent would process the percepts, calculate the corresponding spatial vectors, examine its percept history, and use the agent program (the application of the agent function) to act accordingly. == Examples == Examples of percepts include inputs from touch sensors, cameras, infrared sensors, sonar, microphones, mice, and keyboards. A percept can also be a higher-level feature of the data, such as lines, depth, objects, faces, or gestures.

  Read more →
• 

  Tertiary source

  A tertiary source is an index or textual consolidation of already published primary and secondary sources that does not provide additional interpretations or analysis of the sources. Some tertiary sources can be used as an aid to find key (seminal) sources, key terms, general common knowledge and established mainstream science on a topic. The exact definition of tertiary varies by academic field. Academic research standards generally do not accept tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as citations, although survey articles are frequently cited rather than the original publication. == Overlap with secondary sources == As is also the case with distinguishing primary and secondary sources in some disciplines, there is not always a clear distinguishing line between secondary and tertiary sources. Depending on the topic of research, a scholar may use a bibliography, dictionary, or encyclopedia as either a tertiary or a secondary source. This causes some difficulty in defining many sources as either one type or the other. In some academic disciplines, the differentiation between a secondary and tertiary source is relative. In the United Nations International Scientific Information System (UNISIST) model, a secondary source is a bibliography, whereas a tertiary source is a synthesis of primary sources. == Types of tertiary sources == Tertiary sources can come in book form or as an online resource. Tertiary sources in book form are frequently organised in alphabetical order, whereas an online tertiary source may be searchable by keyword. Examples of tertiary sources include; reference books, encyclopedias, dictionaries, some textbooks, abstracts, directories, factbooks, handbooks, manuals and compendia. Indexes, bibliographies, concordances, and databases are aggregates of primary and secondary sources and therefore often considered tertiary sources. They may also serve as a point of access to the full or partial text of primary and secondary sources. Almanacs, travel guides, field guides, and timelines are also examples of tertiary sources. Tertiary sources attempt to summarize, collect, and consolidate the source materials into an overview without adding analysis and synthesis of new conclusions. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.

  Read more →
• 

  Data quality

  Data quality refers to the state of qualitative or quantitative pieces of information. There are many definitions of data quality, but data is generally considered high quality if it is "fit for [its] intended uses in operations, decision making and planning". Data is deemed of high quality if it correctly represents the real-world construct to which it refers. Apart from these definitions, as the number of data sources increases, the question of internal data consistency becomes significant, regardless of fitness for use for any particular external purpose. People's views on data quality can often be in disagreement, even when discussing the same set of data used for the same purpose. When this is the case, businesses may adopt recognised international standards for data quality (See #International Standards for Data Quality below). Data governance can also be used to form agreed upon definitions and standards, including international standards, for data quality. In such cases, data cleansing, including standardization, may be required in order to ensure data quality. == Definitions == Defining data quality is difficult due to the many contexts data are used in, as well as the varying perspectives among end users, producers, and custodians of data. From a consumer perspective, data quality is: "data that are fit for use by data consumers" data "meeting or exceeding consumer expectations" data that "satisfies the requirements of its intended use" From a business perspective, data quality is: data that are "'fit for use' in their intended operational, decision-making and other roles" or that exhibits "'conformance to standards' that have been set, so that fitness for use is achieved" data that "are fit for their intended uses in operations, decision making and planning" "the capability of data to satisfy the stated business, system, and technical requirements of an enterprise" From a standards-based perspective, data quality is: the "degree to which a set of inherent characteristics (quality dimensions) of an object (data) fulfills requirements" "the usefulness, accuracy, and correctness of data for its application" Arguably, in all these cases, "data quality" is a comparison of the actual state of a particular set of data to a desired state, with the desired state being typically referred to as "fit for use," "to specification," "meeting consumer expectations," "free of defect," or "meeting requirements." These expectations, specifications, and requirements are usually defined by one or more individuals or groups, standards organizations, laws and regulations, business policies, or software development policies. == Dimensions of data quality == Drilling down further, those expectations, specifications, and requirements are stated in terms of characteristics or dimensions of the data, such as: accessibility or availability accuracy or correctness comparability completeness or comprehensiveness consistency, coherence, or clarity credibility, reliability, or reputation flexibility plausibility relevance, pertinence, or usefulness timeliness or latency uniqueness validity or reasonableness A systematic scoping review of the literature suggests that data quality dimensions and methods with real world data are not consistent in the literature, and as a result quality assessments are challenging due to the complex and heterogeneous nature of these data. == International standards for data quality == ISO 8000 is an international standard for data quality. Managed by the International Organization for Standardization, the ISO 8000 standards address and describe general aspects of data quality including principles, vocabulary and measurement data governance data quality management data quality assessment quality of master data, including exchange of characteristic data and identifiers quality of industrial data == History == Before the rise of the inexpensive computer data storage, massive mainframe computers were used to maintain name and address data for delivery services. This was so that mail could be properly routed to its destination. The mainframes used business rules to correct common misspellings and typographical errors in name and address data, as well as to track customers who had moved, died, gone to prison, married, divorced, or experienced other life-changing events. Government agencies began to make postal data available to a few service companies to cross-reference customer data with the National Change of Address registry (NCOA). This technology saved large companies millions of dollars in comparison to manual correction of customer data. Large companies saved on postage, as bills and direct marketing materials made their way to the intended customer more accurately. Initially sold as a service, data quality moved inside the walls of corporations, as low-cost and powerful server technology became available. Companies with an emphasis on marketing often focused their quality efforts on name and address information, but data quality is recognized as an important property of all types of data. Principles of data quality can be applied to supply chain data, transactional data, and nearly every other category of data found. For example, making supply chain data conform to a certain standard has value to an organization by: 1) avoiding overstocking of similar but slightly different stock; 2) avoiding false stock-out; 3) improving the understanding of vendor purchases to negotiate volume discounts; and 4) avoiding logistics costs in stocking and shipping parts across a large organization. For companies with significant research efforts, data quality can include developing protocols for research methods, reducing measurement error, bounds checking of data, cross tabulation, modeling and outlier detection, verifying data integrity, etc. == Overview == There are a number of theoretical frameworks for understanding data quality. A systems-theoretical approach influenced by American pragmatism expands the definition of data quality to include information quality, and emphasizes the inclusiveness of the fundamental dimensions of accuracy and precision on the basis of the theory of science (Ivanov, 1972). One framework, dubbed "Zero Defect Data" (Hansen, 1991) adapts the principles of statistical process control to data quality. Another framework seeks to integrate the product perspective (conformance to specifications) and the service perspective (meeting consumers' expectations) (Kahn et al. 2002). Another framework is based in semiotics to evaluate the quality of the form, meaning and use of the data (Price and Shanks, 2004). One highly theoretical approach analyzes the ontological nature of information systems to define data quality rigorously (Wand and Wang, 1996). A considerable amount of data quality research involves investigating and describing various categories of desirable attributes (or dimensions) of data. Nearly 200 such terms have been identified and there is little agreement in their nature (are these concepts, goals or criteria?), their definitions or measures (Wang et al., 1993). Software engineers may recognize this as a similar problem to "ilities". MIT has an Information Quality (MITIQ) Program, led by Professor Richard Wang, which produces a large number of publications and hosts a significant international conference in this field (International Conference on Information Quality, ICIQ). This program grew out of the work done by Hansen on the "Zero Defect Data" framework (Hansen, 1991). In practice, data quality is a concern for professionals involved with a wide range of information systems, ranging from data warehousing and business intelligence to customer relationship management and supply chain management. One industry study estimated the total cost to the U.S. economy of data quality problems at over U.S. $600 billion per annum (Eckerson, 2002). Incorrect data – which includes invalid and outdated information – can originate from different data sources – through data entry, or data migration and conversion projects. In 2002, the USPS and PricewaterhouseCoopers released a report stating that 23.6 percent of all U.S. mail sent is incorrectly addressed. One reason contact data becomes stale very quickly in the average database – more than 45 million Americans change their address every year. In fact, the problem is such a concern that companies are beginning to set up a data governance team whose sole role in the corporation is to be responsible for data quality. In some organizations, this data governance function has been established as part of a larger Regulatory Compliance function - a recognition of the importance of Data/Information Quality to organizations. Problems with data quality don't only arise from incorrect data; inconsistent data is a problem as well. Eliminating data shadow systems and centralizing data in a warehouse is one of the initiatives a company can take to ensure data consistency. En

  Read more →
• 

  Navigational database

  A navigational database is a type of database in which records or objects are found primarily by following references from other objects. The term was popularized by the title of Charles Bachman's 1973 Turing Award paper, The Programmer as Navigator. This paper emphasized the fact that the new disk-based database systems allowed the programmer to choose arbitrary navigational routes following relationships from record to record, contrasting this with the constraints of earlier magnetic-tape and punched card systems where data access was strictly sequential. One of the earliest navigational databases was Integrated Data Store (IDS), which was developed by Bachman for General Electric in the 1960s. IDS became the basis for the CODASYL database model in 1969. Although Bachman described the concept of navigation in abstract terms, the idea of navigational access came to be associated strongly with the procedural design of the CODASYL Data Manipulation Language. Writing in 1982, for example, Tsichritzis and Lochovsky state that "The notion of currency is central to the concept of navigation." By the notion of currency, they refer to the idea that a program maintains (explicitly or implicitly) a current position in any sequence of records that it is processing, and that operations such as GET NEXT and GET PRIOR retrieve records relative to this current position, while also changing the current position to the record that is retrieved. Navigational database programming thus came to be seen as intrinsically procedural; and moreover to depend on the maintenance of an implicit set of global variables (currency indicators) holding the current state. As such, the approach was seen as diametrically opposed to the declarative programming style used by the relational model. The declarative nature of relational languages such as SQL offered better programmer productivity and a higher level of data independence (that is, the ability of programs to continue working as the database structure evolves.) Navigational interfaces, as a result, were gradually eclipsed during the 1980s by declarative query languages. During the 1990s it started becoming clear that for certain applications handling complex data (for example, spatial databases and engineering databases), the relational calculus had limitations. At that time, a reappraisal of the entire database market began, with several companies describing the new systems using the marketing term NoSQL. Many of these systems introduced data manipulation languages which, while far removed from the CODASYL DML with its currency indicators, could be understood as implementing Bachman's "navigational" vision. Some of these languages are procedural; others (such as XPath) are entirely declarative. Offshoots of the navigational concept, such as the graph database, found new uses in modern transaction processing workloads. == Description == Navigational access is traditionally associated with the network model and hierarchical model of database, and conventionally describes data manipulation APIs in which records (or objects) are processed one at a time, iteratively. The essential characteristic as described by Bachman, however, is finding records by virtue of their relationship to other records: so an interface can still be navigational if it has set-oriented features. From this viewpoint, the key difference between navigational data manipulation languages and relational languages is the use of explicit named relationships rather than value-based joins: for department with name="Sales", find all employees in set department-employees versus find employees, departments where employee.department-code = department.code and department.name="Sales". In practice, however, most navigational APIs have been procedural: the above query would be executed using procedural logic along the lines of the following pseudo-code: On this viewpoint, the key difference between navigational APIs and the relational model (implemented in relational databases) is that relational APIs use "declarative" or logic programming techniques that ask the system what to fetch, while navigational APIs instruct the system in a sequence of steps how to reach the required records. Most criticisms of navigational APIs fall into one of two categories: Usability: application code quickly becomes unreadable and difficult to debug Data independence: application code needs to change whenever the data structure changes For many years the primary defence of navigational APIs was performance. Database systems that support navigational APIs often use internal storage structures that contain physical links or pointers from one record to another. While such structures may allow very efficient navigation, they have disadvantages because it becomes difficult to reorganize the physical placement of data. It is quite possible to implement navigational APIs without low-level pointer chasing (Bachman's paper envisaged logical relationships being implemented just as in relational systems, using primary keys and foreign keys), so the two ideas should not be conflated. But without the performance benefits of low-level pointers, navigational APIs become harder to justify. Hierarchical models often construct primary keys for records by concatenating the keys that appear at each level in the hierarchy. Such composite identifiers are found in computer file names (/usr/david/docs/index.txt), in URIs, in the Dewey decimal system, and for that matter in postal addresses. Such a composite key can be considered as representing a navigational path to a record; but equally, it can be considered as a simple primary key allowing associative access. As relational systems came to prominence in the 1980s, navigational APIs (and in particular, procedural APIs) were criticized and fell out of favour. The 1990s, however, brought a new wave of object-oriented databases that often provided both declarative and procedural interfaces. One explanation for this is that they were often used to represent graph-structured information (for example spatial data and engineering data) where access is inherently recursive: the mathematics originally underpinning SQL (specifically, first-order predicate calculus) does not have sufficient power to support recursive queries, even those as simple as a transitive closure. More recent SQL implementations do support hierarchical and recursive queries. A current example of a popular navigational API can be found in the Document Object Model (DOM) often used in web browsers and closely associated with JavaScript. The DOM is essentially an in-memory hierarchical database with an API that is both procedural and navigational. By contrast, the same data (XML or HTML) can be accessed using XPath, which can be categorized as declarative and navigational: data is accessed by following relationships, but the calling program does not issue a sequence of instructions to be followed in order. Languages such as SPARQL used to retrieve Linked Data from the Semantic Web are also simultaneously declarative and navigational. == Examples == IBM Information Management System IDMS

  Read more →
• 

  MetaMask

  MetaMask is a software cryptocurrency wallet developed by ConsenSys for interacting with the Ethereum blockchain and other EVM-compatible networks. It enables users to manage Ethereum accounts and connect to decentralized applications (dApps) via a browser extension or mobile app. As of early 2026, MetaMask reports over 100 million users worldwide. == Overview == MetaMask allows users to store and manage private keys, send and receive Ethereum-based cryptocurrencies and tokens (including ERC-20 and ERC-721 standards), broadcast transactions, and interact with dApps. dApps connect to the wallet via JavaScript interfaces, prompting users to approve signatures or transactions. The wallet features MetaMask Swaps, an in-app token swap aggregator sourcing liquidity from multiple decentralized exchanges (DEXs), with a service fee of 0.875%. In 2025, MetaMask introduced the MetaMask Rewards program (initially mobile-only), where users earn points for activities such as swaps, bridging, and referrals. Season 1 (October 2025 – January 2026) distributed over $30 million in Linea tokens and other perks to participants. == History == MetaMask launched in 2016 as open-source software under the MIT license. It initially supported browser extensions for Chrome and Firefox. Mobile versions were in closed beta from 2019 and publicly released for iOS and Android in September 2020. In August 2020, the license changed to a custom proprietary one. MetaMask Swaps launched on desktop in October 2020 and on mobile in March 2021. The Rewards program launched in late 2025 with Linea integration. == Criticism == MetaMask has faced criticism over privacy, including default analytics settings that share some user data (which can be disabled). Its reliance on Infura (acquired by ConsenSys in 2019) has raised concerns about centralization in Ethereum infrastructure. The wallet regularly issues warnings about phishing scams and fake airdrops impersonating MetaMask.

  Read more →
• 

  Maritime Informatics

  Maritime Informatics is a thematic topic within the broader discipline of informatics. It can be considered as both a field of study and domain of application. As an application domain, it is the outlet of innovations originating from data science and artificial intelligence; as a field of study, it is positioned between computer science and marine engineering. == Beginnings of maritime informatics == As a result of the increasing levels of digitalisation occurring in the maritime sector starting around 2010 and stimulated by the EU-endorsed MonaLisa project for sea traffic management (STM), a number of academics and shipping industry leaders recognised that the maritime transportation sector would benefit from a specific field of study and application to be known as Maritime Informatics - the use of information systems, data sharing and data analytics in the business and operations of maritime transportation. They considered that it would lead to improvements in efficiency, safety, resilience, and ecological sustainability - all of which are currently lacking for many aspects of sea transport. One of the first public airings of the concept of Maritime Informatics was a presentation delivered on 11 September 2014 in Gothenburg, Sweden. A proposal for an inaugural minitrack on Maritime Informatics was accepted for the 2015 Americas Conference on Information Systems in Puerto Rico where three papers were presented. Since then numerous publications has been brought forward captured at www.maritimeinformatics.org and in late 2020 the first reference book on Maritime Informatics was co-written by 81 expert contributors (47 practitioners and 34 researchers) from 20 countries. Most impactful authors and journals in the domain have been documented in a review paper. Dimitrios Zissis, Luca Cazzanti and Leonardo M. Millefiori are the top three authors; top journals and conferences include Ocean Engineering, Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Distributed and Event-based Systems, Sensors, the international Conference On Engineering, Technology And Innovation, Expert Systems With Applications, IEEE Access, and Journal of Navigation. == Background == The shipping industry has several particular organisational aspects that are recognised and taken into account in maritime informatics: It is predominantly a self-organising ecosystem Many activities are undertaken as part of episodic tight coupling There is a so-called maritime stack There is increasing pressure to balance capital productivity and energy efficiency There is the potential virtuous interplay between different types of systems == Data sharing == Digital data sharing is key to the all-important, arguably fundamental, data analytics aspects of maritime informatics because it opens the way for better access to relevant and reliable data. As in land-based commerce, digital data sharing is a growing phenomenon in maritime operations - though there is a way to go. It is enabling greater transparency for all those involved in the transportation of goods and passengers, not least being the end-customer. This leads to better and more informed decision-making and planning by all those involved. The push for digitalisation and data sharing is being pursued both by governments and the commercial sector. For example, the Member States of the IMO agreed a mandatory requirement for their governments to introduce electronic information exchange between ships and ports as from 8 April 2019. Meanwhile, commercial operators, particularly in the container lines are putting systems in place for sharing data for mutual benefit in their operations. Data sharing is an important aspect of the Port Collaborative Decision Making (PortCDM) and Port Call Optimization initiatives, both of which seek to improve the coordination, synchronization and efficiency of the port call process by enabling a common and shared situational awareness among all those involved. == Standardisation == The availability and sharing of relevant digital data underpins maritime informatics and is key to more effective and efficient coordination and synchronisation in the predominantly self-organising ecosystem that is maritime transportation. For this to occur, a high priority underpinning maritime informatics is the encouragement of standardised digital data exchange and data sharing, leading, in turn, to improvements in shipping analytics. Improved availability of data will support better historical analysis, now-casting and forecasting. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) FAL Committee is taking the lead in ensuring that the common terms used in the various standards being developed or in use in the maritime sector are compatible and therefore interoperable as far as is practicable, by creating and maintaining The IMO Compendium on Facilitation and Electronic Business. The IMO Compendium consists of an IMO Data Set and IMO Reference Data Model agreed by the main organisations involved in the development of standards for the electronic exchange of information related to the FAL Convention: the World Customs Organization (WCO), the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). There are several other prominent international governmental and non-governmental organisations actively contributing to the ongoing standardisation and harmonisation process including the UN Electronic Data Interchange for Administration, Commerce and Transport (UN EDIFACT), the Digital Container Shipping Association (DCSA), the International Harbour Masters Association (IHMA) and BIMCO - the world's largest direct-membership organisation for shipowners, charterers, shipbrokers and agents.

  Read more →
• 

  Two-phase commit protocol

  In transaction processing, databases, and computer networking, the two-phase commit protocol (2PC, tupac) is a type of atomic commitment protocol (ACP). It is a distributed algorithm that coordinates all the processes that participate in a distributed atomic transaction on whether to commit or abort (roll back) the transaction. This protocol (a specialised type of consensus protocol) achieves its goal even in many cases of temporary system failure (involving either process, network node, communication, etc. failures), and is thus widely used. However, it is not resilient to all possible failure configurations, and in rare cases, manual intervention is needed to remedy an outcome. To accommodate recovery from failure (automatic in most cases) the protocol's participants use logging of the protocol's states. Log records, which are typically slow to generate but survive failures, are used by the protocol's recovery procedures. Many protocol variants exist that primarily differ in logging strategies and recovery mechanisms. Though usually intended to be used infrequently, recovery procedures compose a substantial portion of the protocol, due to many possible failure scenarios to be considered and supported by the protocol. In a "normal execution" of any single distributed transaction (i.e., when no failure occurs, which is typically the most frequent situation), the protocol consists of two phases: The commit-request phase (or voting phase), in which a coordinator process attempts to prepare all the transaction's participating processes (named participants, cohorts, or workers) to take the necessary steps for either committing or aborting the transaction and to vote, either "Yes": commit (if the transaction participant's local portion execution has ended properly), or "No": abort (if a problem has been detected with the local portion), and The commit phase, in which, based on voting of the participants, the coordinator decides whether to commit (only if all have voted "Yes") or abort the transaction (otherwise), and notifies the result to all the participants. The participants then follow with the needed actions (commit or abort) with their local transactional resources (also called recoverable resources; e.g., database data) and their respective portions in the transaction's other output (if applicable). The two-phase commit (2PC) protocol should not be confused with the two-phase locking (2PL) protocol, a concurrency control protocol. == Assumptions == The protocol works in the following manner: one node is a designated coordinator, which is the master site, and the rest of the nodes in the network are designated the participants. The protocol assumes that: there is stable storage at each node with a write-ahead log, no node crashes forever, the data in the write-ahead log is never lost or corrupted in a crash, and any two nodes can communicate with each other. The last assumption is not too restrictive, as network communication can typically be rerouted. The first two assumptions are much stronger; if a node is totally destroyed then data can be lost. The protocol is initiated by the coordinator after the last step of the transaction has been reached. The participants then respond with an agreement message or an abort message depending on whether the transaction has been processed successfully at the participant. == Basic algorithm == === Commit request (or voting) phase === The coordinator sends a query to commit message to all participants and waits until it has received a reply from all participants. The participants execute the transaction up to the point where they will be asked to commit. They each write an entry to their undo log and an entry to their redo log. Each participant replies with: either an agreement message (participant votes Yes to commit), if the participant's actions succeeded; or an abort message (participant votes No to commit), if the participant experiences a failure that will make it impossible to commit. === Commit (or completion) phase === ==== Success ==== If the coordinator received an agreement message from all participants during the commit-request phase: The coordinator sends a commit message to all the participants. Each participant completes the operation, and releases all the locks and resources held during the transaction. Each participant sends an acknowledgement to the coordinator. The coordinator completes the transaction when all acknowledgements have been received. ==== Failure ==== If any participant votes No during the commit-request phase (or the coordinator's timeout expires): The coordinator sends a rollback message to all the participants. Each participant undoes the transaction using the undo log, and releases the resources and locks held during the transaction. Each participant sends an acknowledgement to the coordinator. The coordinator undoes the transaction when all acknowledgements have been received. ==== Message flow ==== Coordinator Participant QUERY TO COMMIT --------------------------------> VOTE YES/NO prepare/abort <------------------------------- commit/abort COMMIT/ROLLBACK --------------------------------> ACKNOWLEDGEMENT commit/abort <-------------------------------- end An next to the record type means that the record is forced to stable storage. == Disadvantages == The greatest disadvantage of the two-phase commit protocol is that it is a blocking protocol. If the coordinator fails permanently, some participants will never resolve their transactions: After a participant has sent an agreement message as a response to the commit-request message from the coordinator, it will block until a commit or rollback is received. A two-phase commit protocol cannot dependably recover from a failure of both the coordinator and a cohort member during the commit phase. If only the coordinator had failed, and no cohort members had received a commit message, it could safely be inferred that no commit had happened. If, however, both the coordinator and a cohort member failed, it is possible that the failed cohort member was the first to be notified, and had actually done the commit. Even if a new coordinator is selected, it cannot confidently proceed with the operation until it has received an agreement from all cohort members, and hence must block until all cohort members respond. == Implementing the two-phase commit protocol == === Common architecture === In many cases the 2PC protocol is distributed in a computer network. It is easily distributed by implementing multiple dedicated 2PC components similar to each other, typically named transaction managers (TMs; also referred to as 2PC agents or Transaction Processing Monitors), that carry out the protocol's execution for each transaction (e.g., The Open Group's X/Open XA). The databases involved with a distributed transaction, the participants, both the coordinator and participants, register to close TMs (typically residing on respective same network nodes as the participants) for terminating that transaction using 2PC. Each distributed transaction has an ad hoc set of TMs, the TMs to which the transaction participants register. A leader, the coordinator TM, exists for each transaction to coordinate 2PC for it, typically the TM of the coordinator database. However, the coordinator role can be transferred to another TM for performance or reliability reasons. Rather than exchanging 2PC messages among themselves, the participants exchange the messages with their respective TMs. The relevant TMs communicate among themselves to execute the 2PC protocol schema above, "representing" the respective participants, for terminating that transaction. With this architecture the protocol is fully distributed (does not need any central processing component or data structure), and scales up with number of network nodes (network size) effectively. This common architecture is also effective for the distribution of other atomic commitment protocols besides 2PC, since all such protocols use the same voting mechanism and outcome propagation to protocol participants. === Protocol optimizations === Database research has been done on ways to get most of the benefits of the two-phase commit protocol while reducing costs by protocol optimizations and protocol operations saving under certain system's behavior assumptions. ==== Presumed abort and presumed commit ==== Presumed abort or Presumed commit are common such optimizations. An assumption about the outcome of transactions, either commit, or abort, can save both messages and logging operations by the participants during the 2PC protocol's execution. For example, when presumed abort, if during system recovery from failure no logged evidence for commit of some transaction is found by the recovery procedure, then it assumes that the transaction has been aborted, and acts accordingly. This means that it does not matter if aborts are logged at all, and such logging can be saved under this assumption. Typical

  Read more →
• 

  Ontology merging

  Ontology merging defines the act of bringing together two conceptually divergent ontologies or the instance data associated to two ontologies. This is similar to work in database merging (schema matching). This merging process can be performed in a number of ways, manually, semi automatically, or automatically. Manual ontology merging although ideal is extremely labour-intensive and current research attempts to find semi or entirely automated techniques to merge ontologies. These techniques are statistically driven often taking into account similarity of concepts and raw similarity of instances through textual string metrics and semantic knowledge. These techniques are similar to those used in information integration employing string metrics from open source similarity libraries.

  Read more →
• 

  ShowDocument

  ShowDocument is an online web application that allows multiple users to conduct web meetings, upload, share and review documents from remote locations. The service was developed by the HBR Labs company, established in 2007. == Features == Users can collaborate on and review documents in real time, with annotations and text being visible to all users and accessible for co-editing. The idea of every user being able to annotate can cause conflicts within the sessions, and so main navigation options are under the "presenter"'s control - which can be given to a different user as well. An earlier version of the application, by contrast, had allowed all users to navigate and edit at once, causing the system to drop all incomplete edits. It is possible to draw and write on a virtual whiteboard, and to stream a YouTube video to a group in full synchronization. A feature also exists for co-browsing of Google Maps. Entering an open session in the application can be done with a given code number, or by receiving a link through an Email message. Different file formats can be uploaded and saved either online or offline, such as PDF. A PDF file's text cannot be edited - text is edited through the separate text editor. Although the platform contains a text chat, it is not intended to replace instant messaging software, as there are no extensive messaging features. The application has a paid and free version, with the free version having a few limitations: audio and video options are disabled, number of participants is limited and sessions are time-limited. == Development == ShowDocument was first developed in 2007. On September 8, 2009, HBR labs released a new update which included features such as secure online document storage and mobile device support.

  Read more →
• 

  Berlekamp–Rabin algorithm

  In number theory, Berlekamp's root finding algorithm, also called the Berlekamp–Rabin algorithm, is the probabilistic method of finding roots of polynomials over the field F p {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}} with p {\displaystyle p} elements. The method was discovered by Elwyn Berlekamp in 1970 as an auxiliary to the algorithm for polynomial factorization over finite fields. The algorithm was later modified by Rabin for arbitrary finite fields in 1979. The method was also independently discovered before Berlekamp by other researchers. == History == The method was proposed by Elwyn Berlekamp in his 1970 work on polynomial factorization over finite fields. His original work lacked a formal correctness proof and was later refined and modified for arbitrary finite fields by Michael Rabin. In 1986 René Peralta proposed a similar algorithm for finding square roots in F p {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}} . In 2000 Peralta's method was generalized for cubic equations. == Statement of problem == Let p {\displaystyle p} be an odd prime number. Consider the polynomial f ( x ) = a 0 + a 1 x + ⋯ + a n x n {\textstyle f(x)=a_{0}+a_{1}x+\cdots +a_{n}x^{n}} over the field F p ≃ Z / p Z {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}\simeq \mathbb {Z} /p\mathbb {Z} } of remainders modulo p {\displaystyle p} . The algorithm should find all λ {\displaystyle \lambda } in F p {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}} such that f ( λ ) = 0 {\textstyle f(\lambda )=0} in F p {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}} . == Algorithm == === Randomization === Let f ( x ) = ( x − λ 1 ) ( x − λ 2 ) ⋯ ( x − λ n ) {\textstyle f(x)=(x-\lambda _{1})(x-\lambda _{2})\cdots (x-\lambda _{n})} . Finding all roots of this polynomial is equivalent to finding its factorization into linear factors. To find such factorization it is sufficient to split the polynomial into any two non-trivial divisors and factorize them recursively. To do this, consider the polynomial f z ( x ) = f ( x − z ) = ( x − λ 1 − z ) ( x − λ 2 − z ) ⋯ ( x − λ n − z ) {\textstyle f_{z}(x)=f(x-z)=(x-\lambda _{1}-z)(x-\lambda _{2}-z)\cdots (x-\lambda _{n}-z)} where z {\displaystyle z} is some element of F p {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}} . If one can represent this polynomial as the product f z ( x ) = p 0 ( x ) p 1 ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)=p_{0}(x)p_{1}(x)} then in terms of the initial polynomial it means that f ( x ) = p 0 ( x + z ) p 1 ( x + z ) {\displaystyle f(x)=p_{0}(x+z)p_{1}(x+z)} , which provides needed factorization of f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} . === Classification of === F p {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}} elements Due to Euler's criterion, for every monomial ( x − λ ) {\displaystyle (x-\lambda )} exactly one of following properties holds: The monomial is equal to x {\displaystyle x} if λ = 0 {\displaystyle \lambda =0} , The monomial divides g 0 ( x ) = ( x ( p − 1 ) / 2 − 1 ) {\textstyle g_{0}(x)=(x^{(p-1)/2}-1)} if λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is quadratic residue modulo p {\displaystyle p} , The monomial divides g 1 ( x ) = ( x ( p − 1 ) / 2 + 1 ) {\textstyle g_{1}(x)=(x^{(p-1)/2}+1)} if λ {\displaystyle \lambda } is quadratic non-residual modulo p {\displaystyle p} . Thus if f z ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)} is not divisible by x {\displaystyle x} , which may be checked separately, then f z ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)} is equal to the product of greatest common divisors gcd ( f z ( x ) ; g 0 ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \gcd(f_{z}(x);g_{0}(x))} and gcd ( f z ( x ) ; g 1 ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \gcd(f_{z}(x);g_{1}(x))} . === Berlekamp's method === The property above leads to the following algorithm: Explicitly calculate coefficients of f z ( x ) = f ( x − z ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)=f(x-z)} , Calculate remainders of x , x 2 , x 2 2 , x 2 3 , x 2 4 , … , x 2 ⌊ log 2 ⁡ p ⌋ {\textstyle x,x^{2},x^{2^{2}},x^{2^{3}},x^{2^{4}},\ldots ,x^{2^{\lfloor \log _{2}p\rfloor }}} modulo f z ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)} by squaring the current polynomial and taking remainder modulo f z ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)} , Using exponentiation by squaring and polynomials calculated on the previous steps calculate the remainder of x ( p − 1 ) / 2 {\textstyle x^{(p-1)/2}} modulo f z ( x ) {\textstyle f_{z}(x)} , If x ( p − 1 ) / 2 ≢ ± 1 ( mod f z ( x ) ) {\textstyle x^{(p-1)/2}\not \equiv \pm 1{\pmod {f_{z}(x)}}} then gcd {\displaystyle \gcd } mentioned below provide a non-trivial factorization of f z ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)} , Otherwise all roots of f z ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)} are either residues or non-residues simultaneously and one has to choose another z {\displaystyle z} . If f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} is divisible by some non-linear primitive polynomial g ( x ) {\displaystyle g(x)} over F p {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}} then when calculating gcd {\displaystyle \gcd } with g 0 ( x ) {\displaystyle g_{0}(x)} and g 1 ( x ) {\displaystyle g_{1}(x)} one will obtain a non-trivial factorization of f z ( x ) / g z ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)/g_{z}(x)} , thus algorithm allows to find all roots of arbitrary polynomials over F p {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}} . === Modular square root === Consider equation x 2 ≡ a ( mod p ) {\textstyle x^{2}\equiv a{\pmod {p}}} having elements β {\displaystyle \beta } and − β {\displaystyle -\beta } as its roots. Solution of this equation is equivalent to factorization of polynomial f ( x ) = x 2 − a = ( x − β ) ( x + β ) {\textstyle f(x)=x^{2}-a=(x-\beta )(x+\beta )} over F p {\displaystyle \mathbb {F} _{p}} . In this particular case problem it is sufficient to calculate only gcd ( f z ( x ) ; g 0 ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \gcd(f_{z}(x);g_{0}(x))} . For this polynomial exactly one of the following properties will hold: GCD is equal to 1 {\displaystyle 1} which means that z + β {\displaystyle z+\beta } and z − β {\displaystyle z-\beta } are both quadratic non-residues, GCD is equal to f z ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)} which means that both numbers are quadratic residues, GCD is equal to ( x − t ) {\displaystyle (x-t)} which means that exactly one of these numbers is quadratic residue. In the third case GCD is equal to either ( x − z − β ) {\displaystyle (x-z-\beta )} or ( x − z + β ) {\displaystyle (x-z+\beta )} . It allows to write the solution as β = ( t − z ) ( mod p ) {\textstyle \beta =(t-z){\pmod {p}}} . === Example === Assume we need to solve the equation x 2 ≡ 5 ( mod 11 ) {\textstyle x^{2}\equiv 5{\pmod {11}}} . For this we need to factorize f ( x ) = x 2 − 5 = ( x − β ) ( x + β ) {\displaystyle f(x)=x^{2}-5=(x-\beta )(x+\beta )} . Consider some possible values of z {\displaystyle z} : Let z = 3 {\displaystyle z=3} . Then f z ( x ) = ( x − 3 ) 2 − 5 = x 2 − 6 x + 4 {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)=(x-3)^{2}-5=x^{2}-6x+4} , thus gcd ( x 2 − 6 x + 4 ; x 5 − 1 ) = 1 {\displaystyle \gcd(x^{2}-6x+4;x^{5}-1)=1} . Both numbers 3 ± β {\displaystyle 3\pm \beta } are quadratic non-residues, so we need to take some other z {\displaystyle z} . Let z = 2 {\displaystyle z=2} . Then f z ( x ) = ( x − 2 ) 2 − 5 = x 2 − 4 x − 1 {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)=(x-2)^{2}-5=x^{2}-4x-1} , thus gcd ( x 2 − 4 x − 1 ; x 5 − 1 ) ≡ x − 9 ( mod 11 ) {\textstyle \gcd(x^{2}-4x-1;x^{5}-1)\equiv x-9{\pmod {11}}} . From this follows x − 9 = x − 2 − β {\textstyle x-9=x-2-\beta } , so β ≡ 7 ( mod 11 ) {\displaystyle \beta \equiv 7{\pmod {11}}} and − β ≡ − 7 ≡ 4 ( mod 11 ) {\textstyle -\beta \equiv -7\equiv 4{\pmod {11}}} . A manual check shows that, indeed, 7 2 ≡ 49 ≡ 5 ( mod 11 ) {\textstyle 7^{2}\equiv 49\equiv 5{\pmod {11}}} and 4 2 ≡ 16 ≡ 5 ( mod 11 ) {\textstyle 4^{2}\equiv 16\equiv 5{\pmod {11}}} . == Correctness proof == The algorithm finds factorization of f z ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{z}(x)} in all cases except for ones when all numbers z + λ 1 , z + λ 2 , … , z + λ n {\displaystyle z+\lambda _{1},z+\lambda _{2},\ldots ,z+\lambda _{n}} are quadratic residues or non-residues simultaneously. According to theory of cyclotomy, the probability of such an event for the case when λ 1 , … , λ n {\displaystyle \lambda _{1},\ldots ,\lambda _{n}} are all residues or non-residues simultaneously (that is, when z = 0 {\displaystyle z=0} would fail) may be estimated as 2 − k {\displaystyle 2^{-k}} where k {\displaystyle k} is the number of distinct values in λ 1 , … , λ n {\displaystyle \lambda _{1},\ldots ,\lambda _{n}} . In this way even for the worst case of k = 1 {\displaystyle k=1} and f ( x ) = ( x − λ ) n {\displaystyle f(x)=(x-\lambda )^{n}} , the probability of error may be estimated as 1 / 2 {\displaystyle 1/2} and for modular square root case error probability is at most 1 / 4 {\displaystyle 1/4} . == Complexity == Let a polynomial have degree n {\displaystyle n} . We derive the algorithm's complexity as follows: Due to the binomial theorem ( x − z ) k = ∑ i = 0 k ( k i ) ( − z ) k − i x i {\textstyle (x-z)^{k}=\sum \limits _{i=0}^{k}{\binom {k}{i}}(-z)^{k-i}x^{i}} , we may transition from f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} to f ( x − z ) {\displaystyle f(x-z)} in O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} time. Polynomial multiplication a

  Read more →
• 

  Parchive

  Parchive (a portmanteau of parity archive, and formally known as Parity Volume Set Specification) is an erasure code system that produces par files for checksum verification of data integrity, with the capability to perform data recovery operations that can repair or regenerate corrupted or missing data. Parchive was originally written to solve the problem of reliable file sharing on Usenet, but it can be used for protecting any kind of data from data corruption, disc rot, bit rot, and accidental or malicious damage. Despite the name, Parchive uses more advanced techniques (specifically error correction codes) than simplistic parity methods of error detection. As of 2015, PAR1 is obsolete, PAR2 is mature for widespread use, and PAR3 is a discontinued experimental version developed by MultiPar author Yutaka Sawada. The original SourceForge Parchive project has been inactive since April 30, 2015. A new PAR3 specification has been worked on since April 28, 2019 by PAR2 specification author Michael Nahas. An alpha version of the PAR3 specification has been published on January 29, 2022 while the program itself is being developed. == History == Parchive was intended to increase the reliability of transferring files via Usenet newsgroups. Usenet was originally designed for informal conversations, and the underlying protocol, NNTP was not designed to transmit arbitrary binary data. Another limitation, which was acceptable for conversations but not for files, was that messages were normally fairly short in length and limited to 7-bit ASCII text. Various techniques were devised to send files over Usenet, such as uuencoding and Base64. Later Usenet software allowed 8 bit Extended ASCII, which permitted new techniques like yEnc. Large files were broken up to reduce the effect of a corrupted download, but the unreliable nature of Usenet remained. With the introduction of Parchive, parity files could be created that were then uploaded along with the original data files. If any of the data files were damaged or lost while being propagated between Usenet servers, users could download parity files and use them to reconstruct the damaged or missing files. Parchive included the construction of small index files (.par in version 1 and .par2 in version 2) that do not contain any recovery data. These indexes contain file hashes that can be used to quickly identify the target files and verify their integrity. Because the index files were so small, they minimized the amount of extra data that had to be downloaded from Usenet to verify that the data files were all present and undamaged, or to determine how many parity volumes were required to repair any damage or reconstruct any missing files. They were most useful in version 1 where the parity volumes were much larger than the short index files. These larger parity volumes contain the actual recovery data along with a duplicate copy of the information in the index files (which allows them to be used on their own to verify the integrity of the data files if there is no small index file available). In July 2001, Tobias Rieper and Stefan Wehlus proposed the Parity Volume Set specification, and with the assistance of other project members, version 1.0 of the specification was published in October 2001. Par1 used Reed–Solomon error correction to create new recovery files. Any of the recovery files can be used to rebuild a missing file from an incomplete download. Version 1 became widely used on Usenet, but it did suffer some limitations: It was restricted to handle at most 255 files. The recovery files had to be the size of the largest input file, so it did not work well when the input files were of various sizes. (This limited its usefulness when not paired with the proprietary RAR compression tool.) The recovery algorithm had a bug, due to a flaw in the academic paper on which it was based. It was strongly tied to Usenet and it was felt that a more general tool might have a wider audience. In January 2002, Howard Fukada proposed that a new Par2 specification should be devised with the significant changes that data verification and repair should work on blocks of data rather than whole files, and that the algorithm should switch to using 16 bit numbers rather than the 8 bit numbers that PAR1 used. Michael Nahas and Peter Clements took up these ideas in July 2002, with additional input from Paul Nettle and Ryan Gallagher (who both wrote Par1 clients). Version 2.0 of the Parchive specification was published by Michael Nahas in September 2002. Peter Clements then went on to write the first two Par2 implementations, QuickPar and par2cmdline. Abandoned since 2004, Paul Houle created phpar2 to supersede par2cmdline. Yutaka Sawada created MultiPar to supersede QuickPar. MultiPar uses par2j.exe (which is partially based on par2cmdline's optimization techniques) to use as MultiPar's backend engine. == Versions == Versions 1 and 2 of the file format are incompatible. (However, many clients support both.) === Par1 === For Par1, the files f1, f2, ..., fn, the Parchive consists of an index file (f.par), which is CRC type file with no recovery blocks, and a number of "parity volumes" (f.p01, f.p02, etc.). Given all of the original files except for one (for example, f2), it is possible to create the missing f2 given all of the other original files and any one of the parity volumes. Alternatively, it is possible to recreate two missing files from any two of the parity volumes and so forth. Par1 supports up to a total of 256 source and recovery files. === Par2 === Par2 files generally use this naming/extension system: filename.vol000+01.PAR2, filename.vol001+02.PAR2, filename.vol003+04.PAR2, filename.vol007+06.PAR2, etc. The number after the "+" in the filename indicates how many blocks it contains, and the number after "vol" indicates the number of the first recovery block within the PAR2 file. If an index file of a download states that 4 blocks are missing, the easiest way to repair the files would be by downloading filename.vol003+04.PAR2. However, due to the redundancy, filename.vol007+06.PAR2 is also acceptable. There is also an index file filename.PAR2, it is identical in function to the small index file used in PAR1. Par2 specification supports up to 32,768 source blocks and up to 65,535 recovery blocks. Input files are split into multiple equal-sized blocks so that recovery files do not need to be the size of the largest input file. Although Unicode is mentioned in the PAR2 specification as an option, most PAR2 implementations do not support Unicode. Directory support is included in the PAR2 specification, but most or all implementations do not support it. === Par3 === The Par3 specification was originally planned to be published as an enhancement over the Par2 specification. However, to date, it has remained closed source by specification owner Yutaka Sawada. A discussion on a new format started in the GitHub issue section of the maintained fork par2cmdline on January 29, 2019. The discussion led to a new format which is also named as Par3. The new Par3 format's specification is published on GitHub, but remains being an alpha draft as of January 28, 2022. The specification is written by Michael Nahas, the author of Par2 specification, with the help from Yutaka Sawada, animetosho and malaire. The new format claims to have multiple advantages over the Par2 format, including support for: More than 216 files and more than 216 blocks. Packing small files into one block, as well as deduplication when a block appears in multiple files. UTF-8 file names. File permissions, hard links, symbolic/soft links, and empty directories. Embedding PAR data inside other formats, like ZIP archives or ISO disk images. "Incremental backups", where a user creates recovery files for some file or folder, change some data, and create new recovery files reusing some of the older files. More error correction code algorithms (such as LDPC and sparse random matrix). BLAKE3 hashes, dropping support for the MD5 hashes used in PAR2. == Software == === Multi-platform === par2+tbb (GPLv2) — a concurrent (multithreaded) version of par2cmdline 0.4 using TBB. Only compatible with x86 based CPUs. It is available in the FreeBSD Ports system as par2cmdline-tbb. Original par2cmdline — (obsolete). Available in the FreeBSD Ports system as par2cmdline. par2cmdline maintained fork by BlackIkeEagle. par2cmdline-mt is another multithreaded version of par2cmdline using OpenMP, GPLv2, or later. Currently merged into BlackIkeEagle's fork and maintained there. ParPar (CC0) is a high performance, multithreaded PAR2 client and Node.js library. Does not support verifying or repair, it can currently only create PAR2 archives. par2deep (LGPL-3.0) — Produce, verify and repair par2 files recursively, both on the command line as well as with the aid of a graphical user interface. It is available in the Python Package Index system as par2deep. par2cron (MIT License) is an o

  Read more →
• 

  Project workforce management

  Project workforce management is the practice of combining the coordination of all logistic elements of a project through a single software application (or workflow engine). This includes planning and tracking of schedules and mileposts, cost and revenue, resource allocation, as well as overall management of these project elements. Efficiency is improved by eliminating manual processes, like spreadsheet tracking to monitor project progress. It also allows for at-a-glance status updates and ideally integrates with existing legacy applications in order to unify ongoing projects, enterprise resource planning (ERP) and broader organizational goals. There are a lot of logistic elements in a project. Different team members are responsible for managing each element and often, the organisation may have a mechanism to manage some logistic areas as well. By coordinating these various components of project management, workforce management and financials through a single solution, the process of configuring and changing project and workforce details is simplified. == Introduction == A project workforce management system defines project tasks, project positions, and assigns personnel to the project positions. The project tasks and positions are correlated to assign a responsible project position or even multiple positions to complete each project task. Because each project position may be assigned to a specific person, the qualifications and availabilities of that person can be taken into account when determining the assignment. By associating project tasks and project positions, a manager can better control the assignment of the workforce and complete the project more efficiently. When it comes to project workforce management, it is all about managing all the logistic aspects of a project or an organisation through a software application. Usually, this software has a workflow engine defined. Therefore, all the logistic processes take place in the workflow engine. == About == === Technical field === This invention relates to project management systems and methods, more particularly to a software-based system and method for project and workforce management. === Software usage === Due to the software usage, all the project workflow management tasks can be fully automated without leaving many tasks for the project managers. This returns high efficiency to the project management when it comes to project tracking proposes. In addition to different tracking mechanisms, project workforce management software also offer a dashboard for the project team. Through the dashboard, the project team has a glance view of the overall progress of the project elements. Most of the times, project workforce management software can work with the existing legacy software systems such as ERP (enterprise resource planning) systems. This easy integration allows the organisation to use a combination of software systems for management purposes. === Background === Good project management is an important factor for the success of a project. A project may be thought of as a collection of activities and tasks designed to achieve a specific goal of the organisation, with specific performance or quality requirements while meeting any subject time and cost constraints. Project management refers to managing the activities that lead to the successful completion of a project. Furthermore, it focuses on finite deadlines and objectives. A number of tools may be used to assist with this as well as with assessment. Project management may be used when planning personnel resources and capabilities. The project may be linked to the objects in a professional services life cycle and may accompany the objects from the opportunity over quotation, contract, time and expense recording, billing, period-end-activities to the final reporting. Naturally the project gets even more detailed when moving through this cycle. For any given project, several project tasks should be defined. Project tasks describe the activities and phases that have to be performed in the project such as writing of layouts, customising, testing. What is needed is a system that allows project positions to be correlated with project tasks. Project positions describe project roles like project manager, consultant, tester, etc. Project-positions are typically arranged linearly within the project. By correlating project tasks with project positions, the qualifications and availability of personnel assigned to the project positions may be considered. == Benefits of project management == Good project management should: Reduce the chance of a project failing Ensure a minimum level of quality and that results meet requirements and expectations Free up other staff members to get on with their area of work and increase efficiency both on the project and within the business Make things simpler and easier for staff with a single point of contact running the overall project Encourage consistent communications amongst staff and suppliers Keep costs, timeframes and resources to budget == Workflow engine == When it comes to project workforce management, it is all about managing all the logistic aspects of a project or an organisation through a software application. Usually, this software has a workflow engine defined in them. So, all the logistic processes take place in the workflow engine. The regular and most common types of tasks handled by project workforce management software or a similar workflow engine are: === Planning and monitoring project schedules and milestones === Regularly monitoring your project's schedule performance can provide early indications of possible activity-coordination problems, resource conflicts, and possible cost overruns. To monitor schedule performance. Collecting information and evaluating it ensure a project accuracy. The project schedule outlines the intended result of the project and what's required to bring it to completion. In the schedule, we need to include all the resources involved and cost and time constraints through a work breakdown structure (WBS). The WBS outlines all the tasks and breaks them down into specific deliverables. === Tracking the cost and revenue aspects of projects === The importance of tracking actual costs and resource usage in projects depends upon the project situation. Tracking actual costs and resource usage is an essential aspect of the project control function. === Resource utilisation and monitoring === Organisational profitability is directly connected to project management efficiency and optimal resource utilisation. To sum up, organisations that struggle with either or both of these core competencies typically experience cost overruns, schedule delays and unhappy customers. The focus for project management is the analysis of project performance to determine whether a change is needed in the plan for the remaining project activities to achieve the project goals. == Other management aspects of project management == === Project risk management === Risk identification consists of determining which risks are likely to affect the project and documenting the characteristics of each. === Project communication management === Project communication management is about how communication is carried out during the course of the project === Project quality management === It is of no use completing a project within the set time and budget if the final product is of poor quality. The project manager has to ensure that the final product meets the quality expectations of the stakeholders. This is done by good: Quality planning: Identifying what quality standards are relevant to the project and determining how to meet them. Quality assurance: Evaluating overall project performance on a regular basis to provide confidence that the project will satisfy the relevant quality standards. Quality control: Monitoring specific project results to determine if they comply with relevant quality standards and identifying ways to remove causes of poor performance. == Project workforce management vs. traditional management == There are three main differences between Project Workforce Management and traditional project management and workforce management disciplines and solutions: === Workflow-driven === All project and workforce processes are designed, controlled and audited using a built-in graphical workflow engine. Users can design, control and audit the different processes involved in the project. The graphical workflow is quite attractive for the users of the system and allows the users to have a clear idea of the workflow engine. === Organisation and work breakdown structures === Project Workforce Management provides organization and work breakdown structures to create, manage and report on functional and approval hierarchies, and to track information at any level of detail. Users can create, manage, edit and report work breakdown structures. Work breakdown structures have different abstraction

  Read more →
• 

  Loebner Prize

  The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt

  Read more →
• 

  Randomized rounding

  In computer science and operations research, randomized rounding is a widely used approach for designing and analyzing approximation algorithms. Many combinatorial optimization problems are computationally intractable to solve exactly (to optimality). For such problems, randomized rounding can be used to design fast (polynomial time) approximation algorithms—that is, algorithms that are guaranteed to return an approximately optimal solution given any input. The basic idea of randomized rounding is to convert an optimal solution of a relaxation of the problem into an approximately-optimal solution to the original problem. The resulting algorithm is usually analyzed using the probabilistic method. == Overview == The basic approach has three steps: Formulate the problem to be solved as an integer linear program (ILP). Compute an optimal fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} to the linear programming relaxation (LP) of the ILP. Round the fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} of the LP to an integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of the ILP. (Although the approach is most commonly applied with linear programs, other kinds of relaxations are sometimes used. For example, see Goemans' and Williamson's semidefinite programming-based Max-Cut approximation algorithm.) In the first step, the challenge is to choose a suitable integer linear program. Familiarity with linear programming, in particular modelling using linear programs and integer linear programs, is required. For many problems, there is a natural integer linear program that works well, such as in the Set Cover example below. (The integer linear program should have a small integrality gap; indeed randomized rounding is often used to prove bounds on integrality gaps.) In the second step, the optimal fractional solution can typically be computed in polynomial time using any standard linear programming algorithm. In the third step, the fractional solution must be converted into an integer solution (and thus a solution to the original problem). This is called rounding the fractional solution. The resulting integer solution should (provably) have cost not much larger than the cost of the fractional solution. This will ensure that the cost of the integer solution is not much larger than the cost of the optimal integer solution. The main technique used to do the third step (rounding) is to use randomization, and then to use probabilistic arguments to bound the increase in cost due to the rounding (following the probabilistic method from combinatorics). Therein, probabilistic arguments are used to show the existence of discrete structures with desired properties. In this context, one uses such arguments to show the following: Given any fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} of the LP, with positive probability the randomized rounding process produces an integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} that approximates x {\displaystyle x} according to some desired criterion. Finally, to make the third step computationally efficient, one either shows that x ′ {\displaystyle x'} approximates x {\displaystyle x} with high probability (so that the step can remain randomized) or one derandomizes the rounding step, typically using the method of conditional probabilities. The latter method converts the randomized rounding process into an efficient deterministic process that is guaranteed to reach a good outcome. == Example: the set cover problem == The following example illustrates how randomized rounding can be used to design an approximation algorithm for the set cover problem. Fix any instance ⟨ c , S ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle c,{\mathcal {S}}\rangle } of set cover over a universe U {\displaystyle {\mathcal {U}}} . === Computing the fractional solution === For step 1, let IP be the standard integer linear program for set cover for this instance. For step 2, let LP be the linear programming relaxation of IP, and compute an optimal solution x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} to LP using any standard linear programming algorithm. This takes time polynomial in the input size. The feasible solutions to LP are the vectors x {\displaystyle x} that assign each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} a non-negative weight x s {\displaystyle x_{s}} , such that, for each element e ∈ U {\displaystyle e\in {\mathcal {U}}} , x ′ {\displaystyle x'} covers e {\displaystyle e} —the total weight assigned to the sets containing e {\displaystyle e} is at least 1, that is, ∑ s ∋ e x s ≥ 1. {\displaystyle \sum _{s\ni e}x_{s}\geq 1.} The optimal solution x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a feasible solution whose cost ∑ s ∈ S c ( S ) x s ∗ {\displaystyle \sum _{s\in {\mathcal {S}}}c(S)x_{s}^{}} is as small as possible. Note that any set cover C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} for S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} gives a feasible solution x {\displaystyle x} (where x s = 1 {\displaystyle x_{s}=1} for s ∈ C {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {C}}} , x s = 0 {\displaystyle x_{s}=0} otherwise). The cost of this C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} equals the cost of x {\displaystyle x} , that is, ∑ s ∈ C c ( s ) = ∑ s ∈ S c ( s ) x s . {\displaystyle \sum _{s\in {\mathcal {C}}}c(s)=\sum _{s\in {\mathcal {S}}}c(s)x_{s}.} In other words, the linear program LP is a relaxation of the given set-cover problem. Since x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} has minimum cost among feasible solutions to the LP, the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a lower bound on the cost of the optimal set cover. === Randomized rounding step === In step 3, we must convert the minimum-cost fractional set cover x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} into a feasible integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} (corresponding to a true set cover). The rounding step should produce an x ′ {\displaystyle x'} that, with positive probability, has cost within a small factor of the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} .Then (since the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a lower bound on the cost of the optimal set cover), the cost of x ′ {\displaystyle x'} will be within a small factor of the optimal cost. As a starting point, consider the most natural rounding scheme: For each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} in turn, take x s ′ = 1 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=1} with probability min ( 1 , x s ∗ ) {\displaystyle \min(1,x_{s}^{})} , otherwise take x s ′ = 0 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=0} . With this rounding scheme, the expected cost of the chosen sets is at most ∑ s c ( s ) x s ∗ {\displaystyle \sum _{s}c(s)x_{s}^{}} , the cost of the fractional cover. This is good. Unfortunately the coverage is not good. When the variables x s ∗ {\displaystyle x_{s}^{}} are small, the probability that an element e {\displaystyle e} is not covered is about ∏ s ∋ e 1 − x s ∗ ≈ ∏ s ∋ e exp ⁡ ( − x s ∗ ) = exp ⁡ ( − ∑ s ∋ e x s ∗ ) ≈ exp ⁡ ( − 1 ) . {\displaystyle \prod _{s\ni e}1-x_{s}^{}\approx \prod _{s\ni e}\exp(-x_{s}^{})=\exp {\Big (}-\sum _{s\ni e}x_{s}^{}{\Big )}\approx \exp(-1).} So only a constant fraction of the elements will be covered in expectation. To make x ′ {\displaystyle x'} cover every element with high probability, the standard rounding scheme first scales up the rounding probabilities by an appropriate factor λ > 1 {\displaystyle \lambda >1} . Here is the standard rounding scheme: Fix a parameter λ ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \lambda \geq 1} . For each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} in turn, take x s ′ = 1 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=1} with probability min ( λ x s ∗ , 1 ) {\displaystyle \min(\lambda x_{s}^{},1)} , otherwise take x s ′ = 0 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=0} . Scaling the probabilities up by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } increases the expected cost by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } , but makes coverage of all elements likely. The idea is to choose λ {\displaystyle \lambda } as small as possible so that all elements are provably covered with non-zero probability. Here is a detailed analysis. ==== Lemma (approximation guarantee for rounding scheme) ==== Fix λ = ln ⁡ ( 2 | U | ) {\displaystyle \lambda =\ln(2|{\mathcal {U}}|)} . With positive probability, the rounding scheme returns a set cover x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of cost at most 2 ln ⁡ ( 2 | U | ) c ⋅ x ∗ {\displaystyle 2\ln(2|{\mathcal {U}}|)c\cdot x^{}} (and thus of cost O ( log ⁡ | U | ) {\displaystyle O(\log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} times the cost of the optimal set cover). (Note: with care the O ( log ⁡ | U | ) {\displaystyle O(\log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} can be reduced to ln ⁡ ( | U | ) + O ( log ⁡ log ⁡ | U | ) {\displaystyle \ln(|{\mathcal {U}}|)+O(\log \log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} .) ==== Proof ==== The output x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of the random rounding scheme has the desired properties as long as none of the following "bad" events occur: the cost c ⋅ x ′ {\displaystyle c\cdot x'} of x ′ {\displaystyle x'} exceeds 2 λ c ⋅ x ∗ {\displaystyle 2\lambda c\cdot x^{}} , or for some element e {\displaystyle e} , x ′ {\displaystyle x'} fails to cover e {\displaystyle e} . The expectation of each x s ′ {\displaystyle x'_{s}} is at most λ x s ∗ {\displaystyle \lambda x_{s

  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 →