AI Content Generation Tools

AI Content Generation Tools — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  International Speech Communication Association

  The International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) is a non-profit organization and one of the two main professional associations for speech communication science and technology, the other association being the IEEE Signal Processing Society. == Purpose == The purpose of the International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) is to promote the study and application of automatic speech processing, including speech recognition and synthesis, as well as related areas such as speaker recognition and speech compression. The association's activities cover all aspects of speech processing, including computational, linguistic, and theoretical aspects. The primary goal of the International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) is to advance the field of automatic speech processing and communication technology through research, education, and collaboration. By promoting the study and application of speech technologies such as speech recognition, speech synthesis, speaker recognition, and speech compression, ISCA aims to foster innovation and development in the areas of human-computer interaction, telecommunications, and multimedia applications. ISCA serves as a platform for researchers, academics, industry professionals, and students to exchange knowledge, share best practices, and foster interdisciplinary dialogue in the field of speech communication science. Through conferences, workshops, publications, and educational initiatives, ISCA seeks to enhance the understanding of speech processing mechanisms, improve the accuracy and efficiency of speech technologies, and explore new frontiers in the realm of human language communication. Furthermore, ISCA plays a crucial role in promoting international collaboration and networking among professionals in the speech communication community. By facilitating partnerships and cooperation between individuals and organizations worldwide, ISCA seeks to drive global progress in speech technology research and application, ultimately contributing to the advancement of communication systems, accessibility tools, and interactive interfaces that benefit society as a whole. == Conferences == ISCA organizes yearly the Interspeech conference. Most recent Interspeech: 2013 Lyon, France 2014 Singapore 2015 Dresden, Germany 2016 San Francisco, US 2017 Stockholm, Sweden 2018 Hyderabad, India 2019 Graz, Austria 2020 Shanghai, China (fully virtual) 2021 Brno, Czechia (hybrid) 2022 Incheon, South Korea 2023 Dublin, Ireland 2023 Kos Island, Greece Forthcoming Interspeech: 2025 Rotterdam, the Netherlands == ISCA board == The ISCA president for 2023-2025 is Odette Scharenborg. The vice president is Bhuvana Ramabhadran and the other members are professionals in the field. == History of ISCA == The precursor to Interspeech was a conference called Eurospeech, first held in 1989 and organised by Jean-Pierre Tubach. It was the conference of the European Speech Communication Association (ESCA), itself the precursor of the International Speech Communication Association (ISCA). A year later another conference on speech science and technology was started: the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), which was founded in 1990 by Hiroya Fujisaki. The first ISCA (vs. ESCA) event was the merging of Eurospeech and ICSLP to create ICSLP-Interspeech, held in Beijing, China in 2000. This was followed by Eurospeech-Interspeech, which was held in Aalborg, Denmark in 2001. In 2007, the Eurospeech and ICSLP parts of the conference names were dropped and Interspeech became the name of the yearly conference (first Interspeech location: Antwerp, Belgium).

  Read more →
• 

  Upper ontology

  In information science, an upper ontology (also known as a top-level ontology, upper model, or foundation ontology) is an ontology (in the sense used in information science) that consists of very general terms (such as "object", "property", "relation") that are common across all domains. An important function of an upper ontology is to support broad semantic interoperability among a large number of domain-specific ontologies by providing a common starting point for the formulation of definitions. Terms in the domain ontology are ranked under the terms in the upper ontology, e.g., the upper ontology classes are superclasses or supersets of all the classes in the domain ontologies. A number of upper ontologies have been proposed, each with its own proponents. Library classification systems predate upper ontology systems. Though library classifications organize and categorize knowledge using general concepts that are the same across all knowledge domains, neither system is a replacement for the other. == Development == Any standard foundational ontology is likely to be contested among different groups, each with its own idea of "what exists". One factor exacerbating the failure to arrive at a common approach has been the lack of open-source applications that would permit the testing of different ontologies in the same computational environment. The differences have thus been debated largely on theoretical grounds, or are merely the result of personal preferences. Foundational ontologies can however be compared on the basis of adoption for the purposes of supporting interoperability across domain ontologies. No particular upper ontology has yet gained widespread acceptance as a de facto standard. Different organizations have attempted to define standards for specific domains. The 'Process Specification Language' (PSL) created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is one example. Another important factor leading to the absence of wide adoption of any existing upper ontology is the complexity. Some upper ontologies—Cyc is often cited as an example in this regard—are very large, ranging up to thousands of elements (classes, relations), with complex interactions among them and with a complexity similar to that of a human natural language, and the learning process can be even longer than for a natural language because of the unfamiliar format and logical rules. The motivation to overcome this learning barrier is largely absent because of the paucity of publicly accessible examples of use. As a result, those building domain ontologies for local applications tend to create the simplest possible domain-specific ontology, not related to any upper ontology. Such domain ontologies may function adequately for the local purpose, but they are very time-consuming to relate accurately to other domain ontologies. To solve this problem, some genuinely top level ontologies have been developed, which are deliberately designed to have minimal overlap with any domain ontologies. Examples are Basic Formal Ontology and the DOLCE (see below). === Arguments for the infeasibility of an upper ontology === Historically, many attempts in many societies have been made to impose or define a single set of concepts as more primal, basic, foundational, authoritative, true or rational than all others. A common objection to such attempts points out that humans lack the sort of transcendent perspective — or God's eye view — that would be required to achieve this goal. Humans are bound by language or culture, and so lack the sort of objective perspective from which to observe the whole terrain of concepts and derive any one standard. Thomasson, under the headline "1.5 Skepticism about Category Systems", wrote: "category systems, at least as traditionally presented, seem to presuppose that there is a unique true answer to the question of what categories of entity there are – indeed the discovery of this answer is the goal of most such inquiries into ontological categories. [...] But actual category systems offered vary so much that even a short survey of past category systems like that above can undermine the belief that such a unique, true and complete system of categories may be found. Given such a diversity of answers to the question of what the ontological categories are, by what criteria could we possibly choose among them to determine which is uniquely correct?" Another objection is the problem of formulating definitions. Top level ontologies are designed to maximize support for interoperability across a large number of terms. Such ontologies must therefore consist of terms expressing very general concepts, but such concepts are so basic to our understanding that there is no way in which they can be defined, since the very process of definition implies that a less basic (and less well understood) concept is defined in terms of concepts that are more basic and so (ideally) more well understood. Very general concepts can often only be elucidated, for example by means of examples, or paraphrase. There is no self-evident way of dividing the world up into concepts, and certainly no non-controversial one There is no neutral ground that can serve as a means of translating between specialized (or "lower" or "application-specific") ontologies Human language itself is already an arbitrary approximation of just one among many possible conceptual maps. To draw any necessary correlation between English words and any number of intellectual concepts, that we might like to represent in our ontologies, is just asking for trouble. (WordNet, for instance, is successful and useful, precisely because it does not pretend to be a general-purpose upper ontology; rather, it is a tool for semantic / syntactic / linguistic disambiguation, which is richly embedded in the particulars and peculiarities of the English language.) Any hierarchical or topological representation of concepts must begin from some ontological, epistemological, linguistic, cultural, and ultimately pragmatic perspective. Such pragmatism does not allow for the exclusion of politics between persons or groups, indeed it requires they be considered as perhaps more basic primitives than any that are represented. Those who doubt the feasibility of general purpose ontologies are more inclined to ask "what specific purpose do we have in mind for this conceptual map of entities and what practical difference will this ontology make?" This pragmatic philosophical position surrenders all hope of devising the encoded ontology version of "The world is everything that is the case." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus). Finally, there are objections similar to those against artificial intelligence. Technically, the complex concept acquisition and the social / linguistic interactions of human beings suggest any axiomatic foundation of "most basic" concepts must be cognitive biological or otherwise difficult to characterize since we don't have axioms for such systems. Ethically, any general-purpose ontology could quickly become an actual tyranny by recruiting adherents into a political program designed to propagate it and its funding means, and possibly defend it by violence. Historically, inconsistent and irrational belief systems have proven capable of commanding obedience to the detriment or harm of persons both inside and outside a society that accepts them. How much more harmful would a consistent rational one be, were it to contain even one or two basic assumptions incompatible with human life? === Arguments for the feasibility of an upper ontology === Many of those who doubt the possibility of developing wide agreement on a common upper ontology fall into one of two traps: they assert that there is no possibility of universal agreement on any conceptual scheme; but they argue that a practical common ontology does not need to have universal agreement, it only needs a large enough user community (as is the case for human languages) to make it profitable for developers to use it as a means to general interoperability, and for third-party developer to develop utilities to make it easier to use; and they point out that developers of data schemes find different representations congenial for their local purposes; but they do not demonstrate that these different representations are in fact logically inconsistent. In fact, different representations of assertions about the real world (though not philosophical models), if they accurately reflect the world, must be logically consistent, even if they focus on different aspects of the same physical object or phenomenon. If any two assertions about the real world are logically inconsistent, one or both must be wrong, and that is a topic for experimental investigation, not for ontological representation. In practice, representations of the real world are created as and known to be approximations to the basic reality, and their use is circumscribed by the limits of e

  Read more →
• 

  Certifying algorithm

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

  Read more →
• 

  Algorithmic management

  Algorithmic management is a term used to describe certain labor management practices in the contemporary digital economy. In scholarly uses, the term was initially coined in 2015 by Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Evan Metsky, and Laura Dabbish to describe the managerial role played by algorithms on the Uber and Lyft platforms, but has since been taken up by other scholars to describe more generally the managerial and organisational characteristics of platform economies. However, digital direction of labor was present in manufacturing already since the 1970s and algorithmic management is becoming increasingly widespread across a wide range of industries. The concept of algorithmic management can be broadly defined as the delegation of managerial functions to algorithmic and automated systems. Algorithmic management has been enabled by "recent advances in digital technologies" which allow for the real-time and "large-scale collection of data" which is then used to "improve learning algorithms that carry out learning and control functions traditionally performed by managers". The term does not refer to a specific underlying technology, and encompasses the design choices, organisational policies, and governance that surround the managerial use of algorithms in workplaces. In the contemporary workplace, firms employ an ecology of accounting devices, such as "rankings, lists, classifications, stars and other symbols' in order to effectively manage their operations and create value without the need for traditional forms of hierarchical control." Many of these devices fall under the label of what is called algorithmic management, and were first developed by companies operating in the sharing economy or gig economy, functioning as effective labor and cost cutting measures. The Data&Society explainer of the term, for example, describes algorithmic management as 'a diverse set of technological tools and techniques that structure the conditions of work and remotely manage workforces. Data&Society also provides a list of five typical features of algorithmic management: Prolific data collection and surveillance of workers through technology; Real-time responsiveness to data that informs management decisions; Automated or semi-automated decision-making; Transfer of performance evaluations to rating systems or other metrics; and The use of "nudges" and penalties to indirectly incentivize worker behaviors. Proponents of algorithmic management claim that it "creates new employment opportunities, better and cheaper consumer services, transparency and fairness in parts of the labour market that are characterised by inefficiency, opacity and capricious human bosses." On the other hand, critics of algorithmic management claim that the practice leads to several issues, especially as it impacts the employment status of workers managed by its new array of tools and techniques. == History of the term == "Algorithmic management" was first described by Lee, Kusbit, Metsky, and Dabbish in 2015 in their study of the Uber and Lyft platforms. In their study, Lee et al. termed "software algorithms that assume managerial functions and surrounding institutional devices that support algorithms in practice" algorithmic management. Software algorithms, it was said, are increasingly used to "allocate, optimize, and evaluate work" by platforms in managing their vast workforces. In Lee et al.'s paper on Uber and Lyft this included the use of algorithms to assign work to drivers, as mechanisms to optimise pricing for services, and as systems for evaluating driver performance. In 2016, Alex Rosenblat and Luke Stark sought to extend on this understanding of algorithmic management "to elucidate on the automated implementation of company policies on the behaviours and practices of Uber drivers." Rosenblat and Stark found in their study that algorithmic management practices contributed to a system beset by power asymmetries, where drivers had little control over "critical aspects of their work", whereas Uber had far greater control over the labor of its drivers. Since this time, studies of algorithmic management have extended the use of the term to describe the management practices of various firms, where, for example, algorithms "are taking over scheduling work in fast food restaurants and grocery stores, using various forms of performance metrics ad even mood... to assign the fastest employees to work in peak times." Algorithmic management is seen to be especially prevalent in gig work on platforms, such as on Upwork and Deliveroo, and in the sharing economy, such as in the case of Airbnb. Furthermore, recent research has defined sub-constructs that fall under the umbrella term of algorithmic management, for example, "algorithmic nudging". A Harvard Business Review article published in 2021 explains: "Companies are increasingly using algorithms to manage and control individuals not by force, but rather by nudging them into desirable behavior — in other words, learning from their personalized data and altering their choices in some subtle way." While the concept builds on nudging theory popularized by University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler and Harvard Law School professor Cass Sunstein, "due to recent advances in AI and machine learning, algorithmic nudging is much more powerful than its non-algorithmic counterpart. With so much data about workers' behavioral patterns at their fingertips, companies can now develop personalized strategies for changing individuals' decisions and behaviors at large scale. These algorithms can be adjusted in real-time, making the approach even more effective." == Relationships with other labor management practices == Algorithmic management has been compared and contrasted with other forms of management, such as Scientific management approaches, as pioneered by Frederick Taylor in the early 1900s. Henri Schildt has called algorithmic management "Scientific management 2.0", where management "is no longer a human practice, but a process embedded in technology." Similarly, Kathleen Griesbach, Adam Reich, Luke Elliott-Negri, and Ruth Milkman suggest that, while "algorithmic control over labor may be relatively new, it replicates many features of older mechanisms of labor control." On the other hand, some commentators have argued that algorithmic management is not simply a new form of Scientific management or digital Taylorism, but represents a distinct approach to labor control in platform economies. David Stark and Ivana Pais, for example, state that, "In contrast to Scientific Management at the turn of the twentieth century, in the algorithmic management of the twenty-first century there are rules but these are not bureaucratic, there are rankings but not ranks, and there is monitoring but it is not disciplinary. Algorithmic management does not automate bureaucratic structures and practices to create some new form of algorithmic bureaucracy. Whereas the devices and practices of Taylorism were part of a system of hierarchical supervision, the devices and practices of algorithmic management take place within a different economy of attention and a new regime of visibility. Triangular rather than vertical, and not as a panopticon, the lines of vision in algorithmic management are not lines of supervision." Similarly, Data&Society's explainer for algorithmic management claims that the practice represents a marked departure from earlier management structures that more strongly rely on human supervisors to direct workers. In analyzing the difference and the similarities to previous management styles, David Stark and Pieter Vanden Broeck expand the applicability of algorithmic management beyond the workplace. They develop a theory of algorithmic management in terms of broader changes in the shape and structure of organization in the 21st century, attentive to the erosion of organization's boundaries whereby heterogeneous actors, assets, and activities, are coopted regardless of their place in organizational space. Stark and Vanden Broeck propose the following means of differentiating algorithmic management from other historical managerial paradigms: == Issues == Algorithmic management can provide an effective and efficient means of workforce control and value creation in the contemporary digital economy. However, commentators have highlighted several issues that algorithmic management poses, especially for the workers it manages. Criticisms of the practice often highlight several key issues pertaining to algorithmic management practices, such as the imperfection and scope of its surveillance and control measures, which also threaten to lock workers out of key decision-making processes; its lack of transparency for users and information asymmetries; its potential for bias and discrimination; its dehumanizing tendencies; and its potential to create conditions which sidestep traditional employer-employee accountability. This last point has been especi

  Read more →
• 

  Software construction

  Software construction is the process of creating working software via coding and integration. The process includes unit and integration testing although does not include higher level testing such as system testing. Construction is an aspect of the software development lifecycle and is integrated in the various software development process models with varying focus on construction as an activity separate from other activities. In the waterfall model, a software development effort consists of sequential phases including requirements analysis, design, and planning which are prerequisites for starting construction. In an iterative model such as scrum, evolutionary prototyping, or extreme programming, construction as an activity that occurs concurrently or overlapping other activities. Construction planning may include defining the order in which components are created and integrated, the software quality management processes, and the allocation of tasks to teams and developers. To facilitate project management, numerous construction aspects can be measured; these include the amount of code developed, modified, reused, and destroyed, code complexity, code inspection statistics, faults-fixed and faults-found rates, and effort expended. These measurements can be useful for aspects such as ensuring quality and improving the process. == Activities == Construction includes many activities. === Coding === The following are a few of the key aspects of the coding activity: Naming Choice of name for each identifier. One study showed that the effort required to debug a program is minimized when variable names are between 10 and 16 characters. Logic Organization into statements and routines Highly cohesive routines proved to be less error prone than routines with lower cohesion. A study of 450 routines found that 50 percent of the highly cohesive routines were fault free compared to only 18 percent of routines with low cohesion. Another study of a different 450 routines found that routines with the highest coupling-to-cohesion ratios had 7 times as many errors as those with the lowest coupling-to-cohesion ratios and were 20 times as costly to fix. Although studies showed inconclusive results regarding the correlation between routine sizes and the rate of errors in them, but one study found that routines with fewer than 143 lines of code were 2.4 times less expensive to fix than larger routines. Another study showed that the code needed to be changed least when routines averaged 100 to 150 lines of code. Another study found that structural complexity and amount of data in a routine were correlated with errors regardless of its size. Interfaces between routines are some of the most error-prone areas of a program. One study showed that 39 percent of all errors were errors in communication between routines. Unused parameters are correlated with an increased error rate. In one study, only 17 to 29 percent of routines with more than one unreferenced variable had no errors, compared to 46 percent in routines with no unused variables. The number of parameters of a routine should be 7 at maximum as research has found that people generally cannot keep track of more than about seven chunks of information at once. One experiment showed that designs which access arrays sequentially, rather than randomly, result in fewer variables and fewer variable references. One experiment found that loops-with-exit are more comprehensible than other kinds of loops. Regarding the level of nesting in loops and conditionals, studies have shown that programmers have difficulty comprehending more than three levels of nesting. Control flow complexity has been shown to correlate with low reliability and frequent errors. Modularity Structuring and refactoring the code into classes, packages and other structures. When considering containment, the maximum number of data members in a class shouldn't exceed 7±2. Research has shown that this number is the number of discrete items a person can remember while performing other tasks. When considering inheritance, the number of levels in the inheritance tree should be limited. Deep inheritance trees have been found to be significantly associated with increased fault rates. When considering the number of routines in a class, it should be kept as small as possible. A study on C++ programs has found an association between the number of routines and the number of faults. A study by NASA showed that the putting the code into well-factored classes can double the code reusability compared to the code developed using functional design. Error handling Encoding logic to handle both planned and unplanned errors and exceptions. Resource management Managing computational resource use via exclusion mechanisms and discipline in accessing serially reusable resources, including threads or database locks. Security Prevention of code-level security breaches such as buffer overrun and array index overflow. Optimization Optimization while avoiding premature optimization. Documentation Both embedded in the code as comments and as external documents. === Integration === Integration is about combining separately constructed parts. Concerns include planning the sequence in which components will be integrated, creating scaffolding to support interim versions of the software, determining the degree of testing and quality work performed on components before they are integrated, and determining points in the project at which interim versions are tested. === Testing === Testing can reduce the time between when faulty logic is inserted in the code and when it is detected. In some cases, testing is performed after code has been written, but in test-first programming, test cases are created before code is written. Construction includes at least two forms of testing, often performed by the developer who wrote the code: unit testing and integration testing. === Reuse === Software reuse entails more than creating and using libraries. It requires formalizing the practice of reuse by integrating reuse processes and activities into the software life cycle. The tasks related to reuse in software construction during coding and testing may include: selection of the reusable code, evaluation of code or test re-usability, reporting reuse metrics. === Quality assurance === Techniques for ensuring quality as software is constructed include: Testing One study found that the average defect detection rates of Unit testing and integration testing are 30% and 35% respectively. Software inspection With respect to software inspection, one study found that the average defect detection rate of formal code inspections is 60%. Regarding the cost of finding defects, a study found that code reading detected 80% more faults per hour than testing. Another study shown that it costs six times more to detect design defects by using testing than by using inspections. A study by IBM showed that only 3.5 hours were needed to find a defect through code inspections versus 15–25 hours through testing. Microsoft has found that it takes 3 hours to find and fix a defect by using code inspections and 12 hours to find and fix a defect by using testing. In a 700 thousand lines program, it was reported that code reviews were several times as cost-effective as testing. Studies found that inspections result in 20% - 30% fewer defects per 1000 lines of code than less formal review practices and that they increase productivity by about 20%. Formal inspections will usually take 10% - 15% of the project budget and will reduce overall project cost. Researchers found that having more than 2 - 3 reviewers on a formal inspection doesn't increase the number of defects found, although the results seem to vary depending on the kind of material being inspected. Technical review With respect to technical review, one study found that the average defect detection rates of informal code reviews and desk checking are 25% and 40% respectively. Walkthroughs were found to have a defect detection rate of 20% - 40%, but were found also to be expensive especially when project pressures increase. Code reading was found by NASA to detect 3.3 defects per hour of effort versus 1.8 defects per hour for testing. It also finds 20% - 60% more errors over the life of the project than different kinds of testing. A study of 13 reviews about review meetings, found that 90% of the defects were found in preparation for the review meeting while only around 10% were found during the meeting. Static analysis With respect to Static analysis (IEEE1028), studies have shown that a combination of these techniques needs to be used to achieve a high defect detection rate. Other studies showed that different people tend to find different defects. One study found that the extreme programming practices of pair programming, desk checking, unit testing, integration testing, and regression testing can achieve a 90% defect detection rate. An experiment involving exper

  Read more →
• 

  EdgeRank

  EdgeRank is the name commonly given to the algorithm that Facebook uses to determine what articles should be displayed in a user's News Feed. As of 2011, Facebook has stopped using the EdgeRank system and uses a machine learning algorithm that, as of 2013, takes more than 100,000 factors into account. EdgeRank was developed and implemented by Serkan Piantino. == Formula and factors == In 2010, a simplified version of the EdgeRank algorithm was presented as: ∑ e d g e s e u e w e d e {\displaystyle \sum _{\mathrm {edges\,} e}u_{e}w_{e}d_{e}} where: u e {\displaystyle u_{e}} is user affinity. w e {\displaystyle w_{e}} is how the content is weighted. d e {\displaystyle d_{e}} is a time-based decay parameter. User Affinity: The User Affinity part of the algorithm in Facebook's EdgeRank looks at the relationship and proximity of the user and the content (post/status update). Content Weight: What action was taken by the user on the content. Time-Based Decay Parameter: New or old. Newer posts tend to hold a higher place than older posts. Some of the methods that Facebook uses to adjust the parameters are proprietary and not available to the public. A study has shown that it is possible to hypothesize a disadvantage of the "like" reaction and advantages of other interactions (e.g., the "haha" reaction or "comments") in content algorithmic ranking on Facebook. The "like" button can decrease the organic reach as a "brake effect of viral reach". The "haha" reaction, "comments" and the "love" reaction could achieve the highest increase in total organic reach. == Impact == EdgeRank and its successors have a broad impact on what users actually see out of what they ostensibly follow: for instance, the selection can produce a filter bubble (if users are exposed to updates which confirm their opinions etc.) or alter people's mood (if users are shown a disproportionate amount of positive or negative updates). As a result, for Facebook pages, the typical engagement rate is less than 1% (or less than 0.1% for the bigger ones), and organic reach 10% or less for most non-profits. As a consequence, for pages, it may be nearly impossible to reach any significant audience without paying to promote their content.

  Read more →
• 

  AI-driven design automation

  AI-driven design automation is the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to automate and improve different parts of the electronic design automation (EDA) process. It is particularly important in the design of integrated circuits (chips) and complex electronic systems, where it can potentially increase productivity, decrease costs, and speed up design cycles. AI Driven Design Automation uses several methods, including machine learning, expert systems, and reinforcement learning. These are used for many tasks, from planning a chip's architecture and logic synthesis to its physical design and final verification. == History == === 1980s–1990s: Expert systems and early experiments === The use of AI for design automation originated in the 1980s and 1990s, mainly with the creation of expert systems. These systems tried to capture the knowledge and practical rules used by human design experts, and used these rules, along with reasoning engines, to direct the design process. A notable early project was the ULYSSES system from Carnegie Mellon University. ULYSSES was a CAD tool integration environment that let expert designers turn their design methods into scripts that could be run automatically. It treated design tools as sources of knowledge that a scheduler could manage. Another example was the ADAM (Advanced Design AutoMation) system at the University of Southern California, which used an expert system called the Design Planning Engine. This engine figured out design strategies on the fly and handled different design jobs by organizing specialized knowledge into structured formats called frames. Other systems like DAA (Design Automation Assistant) used a rule-based approach for specific jobs, such as register transfer level (RTL) design for systems like the IBM 370. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University also created TALIB, an expert system for mask layout that used over 1200 rules, and EMUCS/DAA for CPU architectural design which used about 70 rules. These projects showed that AI worked better for problems where relatively few rules were required to describe much larger amounts of data. At the same time, there was a surge of tools called silicon compilers like MacPitts, Arsenic, and Palladio. They used algorithms and search techniques to explore different design paradigms. This was another way to automate design, even if it was not always based on expert systems. Early tests with neural networks in VLSI design also happened during this time, although they were not as common as systems based on rules. === 2000s: Introduction of machine learning === In the 2000s, interest in AI for design automation increased. This was mostly because of better machine learning (ML) algorithms and more available data from design and manufacturing. For example, they were used to model and reduce the effects of small manufacturing differences in semiconductor devices. This became very important as the size of components on chips became smaller. The large amount of data created during chip design provided the foundation needed to train smarter ML models. This allowed for predicting outcomes and optimizing in areas that were hard to automate before. === 2016–2020: Reinforcement learning and large scale initiatives === A major turning point happened in the mid to late 2010s, sparked by successes in other areas of AI. The success of DeepMind's AlphaGo in mastering the game of Go inspired researchers. They began to apply reinforcement learning (RL) to difficult EDA problems. These problems often require searching through many options and making a series of decisions. In 2018, the U.S. DARPA started the Intelligent Design of Electronic Assets (IDEA) program. A main goal of IDEA was to create a fully automated layout generator that required no human intervention, able to produce a chip design ready for manufacturing from RTL specifications in 24 hours. Another big initiative was the OpenROAD project, a large effort under IDEA led by UC San Diego with industry and university partners, aimed to build an open source, independent toolchain. It used machine learning, parallelization and divide and conquer approaches. A much-publicized but controversial demonstration of RL's potential came from Google researchers between 2020 and 2021. They created a deep reinforcement learning method for planning the layout of a chip, known as floorplanning. They reported that this method created layouts that were as good as or better than those made by human experts, and it did so in less than six hours. This method used a type of network called a graph convolutional neural network. It showed that it could learn general patterns that could be applied to new problems, getting better as it saw more chip designs. The technology was later used to design Google's Tensor Processing Unit (TPU) accelerators. However, in the original paper, the improvement (if any) from AI was not demonstrated. There was no comparison with existing non-AI tools performing the same task, and since the data is proprietary, no ability for anyone else to perform this comparison. Various efforts to reproduce the AI algorithm, and compare its results with various commercial and academic tools, have yielded mixed results with no conclusive advantage to AI. === 2020s: Autonomous systems and agents === Entering the 2020s, the industry saw the commercial launch of autonomous AI driven EDA systems. For example, Synopsys launched DSO.ai (Design Space Optimization AI) in early 2020, calling it the first autonomous artificial intelligence application for chip design in the industry. This system uses reinforcement learning to search for the best ways to optimize a design within the huge number of possible solutions, trying to improve power, performance, and area (PPA). By 2023, DSO.ai had been used to produce over 100 commercial chips, showing mainstream adoption. Synopsys later grew its AI tools into a suite called Synopsys.ai. The goal was to use AI in the entire EDA workflow, including verification and testing. These advancements, which combine modern AI methods with cloud computing and large data resources, have led to talks about a new phase in EDA. Industry experts and participants sometimes call this 'EDA 4.0'. This new era is defined by the widespread use of AI and machine learning to deal with growing design complexity, automate more of the design process, and help engineers handle the huge amounts of data that EDA tools create. The purpose of EDA 4.0 is to optimize product performance, get products to market faster and make development and manufacturing smoother through intelligent automation. == Applications == Artificial intelligence (AI) is now used in many stages of the electronic design workflow. It aims to improve productivity, get better results, and handle the growing complexity of modern integrated circuits. AI helps designers from the very first ideas about architecture all the way to manufacturing and testing. === High level synthesis and architectural exploration === In the first phases of chip design, AI helps with High Level Synthesis (HLS) and exploring different system level design options (DSE). These processes are key for turning general ideas into detailed hardware plans. AI algorithms, often using supervised learning, are used to build simpler, substitute models. These models can quickly guess important design measurements like area, performance, and power for many different architectural options or HLS settings. For example, the Ithemal tool uses deep neural networks to estimate how fast basic code blocks will run, which helps in making processor architecture decisions. Similarly, PRIMAL uses machine learning estimate power use at the register transfer level (RTL), giving early information about how much power the chip will use. Reinforcement learning (RL) and Bayesian optimization are also used to guide the DSE process. They help search through the many parameters to find the best HLS settings or architectural details like cache sizes. LLMs are also being tested for creating architectural plans or initial C code for HLS, as seen with GPT4AIGChip. === Logic synthesis and optimization === Logic synthesis starts from a high level hardware description and generates an optimized list of electronic gates, known as a gate level netlist, that is ready for placement, routing, and then construction in a specific manufacturing process. AI methods help with different parts of this process, including logic optimization, technology mapping, and making improvements after mapping. Supervised learning, especially with Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), is good at handling data or problems that can be represented as graphs. Since circuit diagrams are instances of directed graphs, supervised learning can help create models that predict design properties like power or error rates in circuits. In logic synthesis and optimization reinforcement learning is used to perform logic optimization directly. In some cases ag

  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 →
• 

  Class activation mapping

  Class activation mapping methods are explainable AI (XAI) techniques used to visualize the regions of an input image that are the most relevant for a particular task, especially image classification, in convolutional neural networks (CNNs). These methods generate heatmaps by weighting the feature maps from a convolutional layer according to their relevance to the target class. In the field of artificial intelligence, generically defined as "the effort to automate intellectual tasks normally performed by humans", machine learning and deep learning were created. They both use statistical and computational methods to learn patterns from data, reducing the need for manually coded rules. Machine learning models are trained on input data and the known respective answers, learning the underlying patterns or structures present in the data. Traditional Machine learning algorithms employ manually designed feature sets, posing a direct link between machine learning designers and employed features. Deep learning is a subfield of machine learning, based on the concept of successive layers of representation, in which the data is progressively unfolded in different ways, to extract relevant and informative patterns in data analysis. Deep learning algorithms are defined as feature learning algorithms automatically learning hierarchical feature representations from raw data, extracting increasingly abstract features through multiple layers. CNNs are a specific architecture of deep learning models, designed to process spatially structured data, such as images, exploiting a series of convolution, non-linear activation and pooling operations to extract relevant features, contained in the so-called feature maps from input data. CNNs have demonstrated to be highly effective in a variety of computer vision and image processing tasks. CNNs (and deep learning models more broadly) are described as black boxes due to their complex and non-transparent internal layers of representation. The need for clearer indications on its internal working and decision-making process gave birth to XAI techniques. Among the proposed XAI techniques for computer vision tasks, Class activation mapping methods can show which pixels in an input image are important to the predicted logit for a class of interest, in a classification task. Class activation mapping methods were originally developed for class-discriminative scenarios to visualize which parts of the input image influenced the classification decision, namely to visually highlight the regions of those feature maps that contribute most strongly to the prediction of a given class. More advanced versions of these methods are not limited to image classification tasks, but have been extended also to several vision-related tasks, such as object detection, image captioning, visual question answering and image segmentation. == Background == The following methods laid the groundwork for the class activation maps approaches, forming the conceptual basis of using gradients to highlight class-discriminative regions. === Class model visualization and saliency maps for convolutional neural networks === The class model visualization and image-specific saliency maps approaches have been presented in the foundational work "Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Maps" by Karen Simonyan, Andrea Vedaldi, and Andrew Zisserman and it generalizes the deconvnet method by Zeiler and Fergus. Class model visualization synthesizes an artificial input image that strongly activates the output neurons associated with a target class. Given a trained, fixed model, this method starts with a zero-initialized image, backpropagates the gradients from the class score to the image pixels, updates the image pixels increasing the specific class scores and it repeats the pixel updating process, showing an encoded (idealized version) prototype of the class of interest. Image-specific class saliency visualization method provides a visual explanation by highlighting the most relevant pixels in an image for predicting a certain class C of interest. This is done by computing the gradient of the class score with respect to the input image, I 0 , {\displaystyle I_{0},} w = ∂ S C ∂ I | I 0 {\displaystyle w=\left.{\frac {\partial S_{C}}{\partial I}}\right|_{I_{0}}} approximating the model locally (around I 0 {\displaystyle I_{0}} ) as linear, using a first-order Taylor expansion: S C ( I ) ≈ w C T I + b {\displaystyle S_{C}(I)\approx w_{C}^{T}I+b} . The magnitude of w C {\displaystyle w_{C}} , the gradient, indicates the importancy of the pixels: larger gradients suggest greater influence on the prediction. Once the gradient is known, the saliency map is defined as the maximum absolute gradient across the color channels: M i j = m a x C | ∂ S C ∂ I i j C | {\displaystyle M_{ij}=max_{C}\left|{\frac {\partial S_{C}}{\partial I_{ij}^{C}}}\right|} resulting in an saliency map (i.e. heatmap). === Guided backpropagation === The concept of guided backpropagation can be traced for the first time in the paper by Springenberg et al. "Striving For Simplicity: The All Convolutional Net" and also this method builds upon the work by Zeiler and Fergus "Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networks". Guided backpropagation core is to understand what a CNN is learning, by visualizing the patterns that activate more strongly individual neurons (or filters), in architectures which do not rely on max-pooling layer. When propagating gradients back through a rectified linear unit (ReLU), guided backpropagation passes the gradient if and only if the input to the ReLU was positive (forward pass) and the output gradient is positive (backward signal), tackling both inactive neurons, negative gradients and suppressing the noise. The result displays sharper, high-resolution visualizations of what each neuron is responding to. Guided backpropagation represents a simple and practical method for model interpretability, helping understand how and where neural networks detect semantic concepts across layers. Moreover, it can be applied to any network architecture, due to its working principle. == Base versions == Class activation mapping and gradient-weighted class activation mapping are the original and most widely used methods for visual explanations in convolutional neural networks. These methods serve as the foundation for many later developments in explainable AI. Notation: In this article, the symbols i and j represent integer indices that disappear inside sums or averages, while x and y are the continuous (or up-sampled integer) coordinates of the final heat-map that is plotted. === Class activation mapping (CAM) === Class activation mapping (CAM) was the first, and the original, version of CAM methods, and it gave the name to the whole category. The approach was firstly introduced by Zhou et al. in their seminal work "Learning Deep Features for Discriminative Localization". This approach achieves class-specific heatmaps by modifying image classification CNN architectures, replacing fully-connected layers with convolutional layers and a final global average pooling layer. Its main scope is to localize and highlight discriminative regions of an input image that a CNN uses to identify a particular class, without needing explicit bounding box annotations. ==== Global average pooling (GAP) ==== Global average pooling (GAP) represents the key element in the original CAM approach. It is a dimensionality reduction technique and, similarly to other pooling layers, it allows the downsampling of the feature maps, calculating representative values for a specific region of the feature map. The particularity of GAP is that it calculates a single value for an entire feature map, significantly reducing the model dimensions. ==== Mathematical description ==== The mathematical description considers as its key the combination of convolutional and GAP layers. In CAM, it is mandatory to have the GAP layer after the last convolutional layer and before the final linear classifier layer. This last element of the architecture connects the output logits (the network predictions) y C {\displaystyle y^{C}} , to the GAP values, with its respective fine-tuned weights, w k C {\displaystyle w_{k}^{C}} . Considering A k {\displaystyle A^{k}} as the last feature maps of the last convolutional layer, GAP produces one value for each feature map, by averaging all the matrix elements (i, j) of the feature map: F k = 1 m n ∑ i = 1 m ∑ j = 1 n A i j k {\displaystyle F^{k}={\frac {1}{mn}}\sum _{i=1}^{m}\sum _{j=1}^{n}A_{ij}^{k}} with A k = [ A 11 k A 12 k ⋯ A 1 n k A 21 k A 22 k ⋯ A 2 n k ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ A m 1 k A m 2 k ⋯ A m n k ] = { A i j k ∣ 1 ≤ i ≤ m , 1 ≤ j ≤ n } {\displaystyle A^{k}={\begin{bmatrix}A_{11}^{k}&A_{12}^{k}&\cdots &A_{1n}^{k}\\A_{21}^{k}&A_{22}^{k}&\cdots &A_{2n}^{k}\\\vdots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\A_{m1}^{k}&A_{m2}^{k}&\cdots &A_{mn}^{k}\end{bmatrix}}=\left\{A_{

  Read more →
• 

  Single-source publishing

  Single-source publishing, also known as single-sourcing publishing, is a content management method which allows the same source content to be used across different forms of media and more than one time. The labor-intensive and expensive work of editing need only be carried out once, on only one document; that source document (the single source of truth) can then be stored in one place and reused. This reduces the potential for error, as corrections are only made one time in the source document. The benefits of single-source publishing primarily relate to the editor rather than the user. The user benefits from the consistency that single-sourcing brings to terminology and information. This assumes the content manager has applied an organized conceptualization to the underlying content (A poor conceptualization can make single-source publishing less useful). Single-source publishing is sometimes used synonymously with multi-channel publishing though whether or not the two terms are synonymous is a matter of discussion. == Definition == While there is a general definition of single-source publishing, there is no single official delineation between single-source publishing and multi-channel publishing, nor are there any official governing bodies to provide such a delineation. Single-source publishing is most often understood as the creation of one source document in an authoring tool and converting that document into different file formats or human languages (or both) multiple times with minimal effort. Multi-channel publishing can either be seen as synonymous with single-source publishing, or similar in that there is one source document but the process itself results in more than a mere reproduction of that source. == History == The origins of single-source publishing lie, indirectly, with the release of Windows 3.0 in 1990. With the eclipsing of MS-DOS by graphical user interfaces, help files went from being unreadable text along the bottom of the screen to hypertext systems such as WinHelp. On-screen help interfaces allowed software companies to cease the printing of large, expensive help manuals with their products, reducing costs for both producer and consumer. This system raised opportunities as well, and many developers fundamentally changed the way they thought about publishing. Writers of software documentation did not simply move from being writers of traditional bound books to writers of electronic publishing, but rather they became authors of central documents which could be reused multiple times across multiple formats. The first single-source publishing project was started in 1993 by Cornelia Hofmann at Schneider Electric in Seligenstadt, using software based on Interleaf to automatically create paper documentation in multiple languages based on a single original source file. XML, developed during the mid- to late-1990s, was also significant to the development of single-source publishing as a method. XML, a markup language, allows developers to separate their documentation into two layers: a shell-like layer based on presentation and a core-like layer based on the actual written content. This method allows developers to write the content only one time while switching it in and out of multiple different formats and delivery methods. In the mid-1990s, several firms began creating and using single-source content for technical documentation (Boeing Helicopter, Sikorsky Aviation and Pratt & Whitney Canada) and user manuals (Ford owners manuals) based on tagged SGML and XML content generated using the Arbortext Epic editor with add-on functions developed by a contractor. The concept behind this usage was that complex, hierarchical content that did not lend itself to discrete componentization could be used across a variety of requirements by tagging the differences within a single document using the capabilities built into SGML and XML. Ford, for example, was able to tag its single owner's manual files so that 12 model years could be generated via a resolution script running on the single completed file. Pratt & Whitney, likewise, was able to tag up to 20 subsets of its jet engine manuals in single-source files, calling out the desired version at publication time. World Book Encyclopedia also used the concept to tag its articles for American and British versions of English. Starting from the early 2000s, single-source publishing was used with an increasing frequency in the field of technical translation. It is still regarded as the most efficient method of publishing the same material in different languages. Once a printed manual was translated, for example, the online help for the software program which the manual accompanies could be automatically generated using the method. Metadata could be created for an entire manual and individual pages or files could then be translated from that metadata with only one step, removing the need to recreate information or even database structures. Although single-source publishing is now decades old, its importance has increased urgently as of the 2010s. As consumption of information products rises and the number of target audiences expands, so does the work of developers and content creators. Within the industry of software and its documentation, there is a perception that the choice is to embrace single-source publishing or render one's operations obsolete. == Criticism == Editors using single-source publishing have been criticized for below-standard work quality, leading some critics to describe single-source publishing as the "conveyor belt assembly" of content creation. While heavily used in technical translation, there are risks of error in regard to indexing. While two words might be synonyms in English, they may not be synonyms in another language. In a document produced via single-sourcing, the index will be translated automatically and the two words will be rendered as synonyms. This is because they are synonyms in the source language, while in the target language they are not.

  Read more →
• 

  Conceptions of Library and Information Science

  Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS) is a series of conferences about historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives in Library and Information Science. == CoLIS conferences == CoLIS 1 1991 in Tampere, Finland CoLIS 2 1996 in Copenhagen, Denmark CoLIS 3 1999 in Dubrovnik, Croatia CoLIS 4 2002 in Seattle, US CoLIS 5 2005 in Glasgow, Scotland CoLIS 6 2007 in Borås, Sweden CoLIS 7 June 2010 in London, at City University London. CoLIS 8 August 19–22, 2013, in Copenhagen, Denmark, at The Royal School of Library and Information Science. CoLIS 9 June 27–29, 2016, in Uppsala, Sweden, at Uppsala University. CoLIS 10 June 16–19, 2019, in Ljubljana, Slovenia, Faculty of Arts CoLIS 11 May 29–June 1, 2022, in Oslo, Norway, Oslo Metropolitan University.

  Read more →
• 

  The Citation Project

  The Citation Project is a series of studies that measure and analyze first-year college writing students' source use and their ability to understand and implement sources within their own writing. The Citation Project reveals students' source-use habits and the issues that can be seen based on their lack of proper citation skills, such as the prevalence of plagiarism, institution policies, and the results of current writing pedagogy. The Citation Project's central findings were first presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication in 2012. Although The Citation Project originally referred to this single 2012 study, the feedback received led to the conception of the Project as a broader initiative and as a place to gather and publish studies and data relating to student writing habits for the usage of other researches. == Method == The Citation Project's data comes from the work of 20 researchers analyzing 174 first-year composition students' research papers. The student papers studied originated from 16 institutions across the United States of America, including community colleges, public and private universities, denominational colleges, and Ivy Leagues. Researchers used bibliographic coding to aggregate data regarding the type, length, reading level, and usage of students' sources. == Findings == === Student source assessment and use === This study found that students were capable of identifying, locating, and accessing librarian-approved academic sources, most commonly accessing them with the internet. Despite students demonstrating their ability to find appropriate sources, they tend to exclusively cite the first few pages of their sources. Students' use and analysis of their citations are often limited, frequently resorting to patchwriting, directly restating their source's points, and omitting their own interpretations of their reference's ideas. The Citation Project also highlights students' struggle to accurately determine, address, and value their sources' bias, authority, and credibility. According to the Project's researchers' analysis, these habits demonstrate that first-year college writing students minimally engage with their sources and the academic conversations between them. One researcher from the Citation Project, Rebecca Moore Howard, believes these findings do not point towards students being lazy, but is rather a result of a writing pedagogy that prioritizes efficient, product-focused writing. Another interpretation offered by Sandra Jamieson, another researcher from the Citation Project explains their findings as a result of a lack of adherence to Information Learning (IL) Standards. === Pedagogy === A significant focus of The Citation Project is the development of pedagogical practices intended to equip students with writing and research techniques that will set them up for future success. Writers associated with The Citation Project, such as Tricia Serviss, believe that the practices of teachers surrounding academic integrity and writing practices are what form the foundation of how students think about writing and how to engage with assignments throughout their academic career. They also stress the importance of teaching students to effectively engage with sources rather than simply how to correctly cite them. The Citation Project asserts that endowing students with the ability to read, understand, and synthesize a variety of sources in their writing is a skill that will benefit them throughout their academic careers, and that the surface level typographical focus that many writing programs utilize is inadequate. == Plagiarism == One of the areas that The Citation Project also looks at is how students commit plagiarism throughout their writing. Plagiarism tends to be a checkpoint that gives instructors a sense where students' citation skills stand. Findings from The Citation Project reveal that the most common type of plagiarism is patchwriting which is the act of using the same sentence with only changing a couple of words. These types of issues can be seen as a learning curve due to lack of proper training. Student's that commit plagiarism are often unaware. === Policies === Another issue found is that academic plagiarism policies may not benefit a student's growth but may instead obstruct it. Policies against plagiarism tend to be harsh on the student that committed of offense. Even though student plagiarism is often unintentional academic institutions see this behavior as intentional. Student may then face harsh consequences as a result from their lack of citation knowledge. Additionally, higher level institutions assume that new students already have the skill set to avoid plagiarism which may be an unrealistic expectation. == Legacy == === Inspired studies === ==== Parrott and Napier ==== In one study, "Critical Reading and Student Self-Selected Texts: Results of a Collaborative, Explicit Curricular Approach," Jill Parrot and Trenia Napier quoted the Citation Project's findings as evidence that current collegiate writing curriculums are an ineffective means of teaching students how to properly write academic research papers. The researchers accredited current writing pedagogy's lack of emphasis on teaching critical reading skills. Parrott and Napier tested their thesis by seeing if students would produce more academic writing if they partook in a writing course that taught critical reading. Their results mostly went against this hypothesis, finding students who received additional critical reading training only significantly improved in how they integrated their sources. ==== Kocatepe ==== In May Mehtap Kocatep's study, "Reconceptualising the notion of finding information: How undergraduate students construct information as they read-to-write in an academic writing class," Kocatep expresses that she believes current conversations around writing pedagogy, including the Citation Project, operate with the underlying misconception that information is an easily discoverable static entity and its retrieval is an objective, unbiased decision. Kocatepe instead offers the analysis of what students view as valuable information and if it is worth using is influenced by the socially constructed meanings available to writers at the moment. To further examine students' source engagement, Kocatepe did a study on how female university students from the United Arab Emirates find, retrieve, use, and value sources. Kocatepe's results mainly noted students' almost exclusive reliance on using Google to find sources, as well as how students' navigated mainly English-speaking academic conversations as non-native English speakers. ==== Dahlen, Nordstrom-Sanchez, and Graff ==== Dahlen, Nordstrom-Sanchez, and Graff built their study off The Citation Project research in order to explore the attitudes and practices of students in an undergraduate writing course. As the researchers acknowledge, data collected by the Citation Project was the subject of the bulk of their analysis. This study sought to examine undergraduate writing practices tied to source-usage and elucidate any relevant trends. Dahlen, Nordstrom-Sanchez and Graff found that undergraduate writing students were not engaging with outside sources properly. Key issues discussed include lack of engagement with broad source ideas (in favor of picking out quotes), lack of paraphrasing, and inability to link information between multiple sources. ==== Davis ==== Phillip M. Davis based much of the analysis in his study on data gathered by the Citation Project. This study aimed to examine the particular effects web-based research and study had on undergraduate's papers and the replicability of their bibliographies. Davis sought to see how the shift from physical in-person library based research to online, often at-home research changed the function and usability of the bibliography as a form of documenting source usage in a given work. The primary method of analysis involved examining students' bibliographies to see where they were finding information online and how these sources were accessed. A main issue Davis found was "persistency" of URLs used for online citations. He found that only 18% of URL-based citations continued to function (the others either no longer pointing to the correct document or ceasing to exist altogether) within 3 years of their usage by students, and more than half of claimed online citations could not be found in any form. He suggests that this result brings up questions about how web-based citations should be dealt with in a university context.

  Read more →
• 

  Structural synthesis of programs

  Structural synthesis of programs (SSP) is a special form of (automatic) program synthesis that is based on propositional calculus. More precisely, it uses intuitionistic logic for describing the structure of a program in such a detail that the program can be automatically composed from pieces like subroutines or even computer commands. It is assumed that these pieces have been implemented correctly, hence no correctness verification of these pieces is needed. SSP is well suited for automatic composition of services for service-oriented architectures and for synthesis of large simulation programs. == History == Automatic program synthesis began in the artificial intelligence field, with software intended for automatic problem solving. The first program synthesizer was developed by Cordell Green in 1969. At about the same time, mathematicians including R. Constable, Z. Manna, and R. Waldinger explained the possible use of formal logic for automatic program synthesis. Practically applicable program synthesizers appeared considerably later. The idea of structural synthesis of programs was introduced at a conference on algorithms in modern mathematics and computer science organized by Andrey Ershov and Donald Knuth in 1979. The idea originated from G. Pólya’s well-known book on problem solving. The method for devising a plan for solving a problem in SSP was presented as a formal system. The inference rules of the system were restructured and justified in logic by G. Mints and E. Tyugu in 1982. A programming tool PRIZ that uses SSP was developed in the 1980s. A recent Integrated development environment that supports SSP is CoCoViLa — a model-based software development platform for implementing domain specific languages and developing large Java programs. == The logic of SSP == Structural synthesis of programs is a method for composing programs from already implemented components (e.g. from computer commands or software object methods) that can be considered as functions. A specification for synthesis is given in intuitionistic propositional logic by writing axioms about the applicability of functions. An axiom about the applicability of a function f is a logical implication X1 ∧ X2 ∧ ... ∧ Xm → Y1 ∧ Y2 ... Yn, where X1, X2, ... Xm are preconditions and Y1, Y2, ... Yn are postconditions of the application of the function f. In intuitionistic logic, the function f is called a realization of this formula. A precondition can be a proposition stating that input data exists, e.g. Xi may have the meaning “variable xi has received a value”, but it may denote also some other condition, e.g. that resources needed for using the function f are available, etc. A precondition may also be an implication of the same form as the axiom given above; then it is called a subtask. A subtask denotes a function that must be available as an input when the function f is applied. This function itself must be synthesized in the process of SSP. In this case, realization of the axiom is a higher order function, i.e., a function that uses another function as an input. For instance, the formula (state → nextState) ∧ initialState → result can specify a higher order function with two inputs and an output result. The first input is a function that has to be synthesized for computing nextState from state, and the second input is initialState. Higher order functions give generality to the SSP – any control structure needed in a synthesized program can be preprogrammed and used then automatically with a respective specification. In particular, the last axiom presented here is a specification of a complex program – a simulation engine for simulating dynamic systems on models where nextState can be computed from state of the system.

  Read more →
• 

  Proof of authority

  Proof of authority (PoA) is a category of consensus protocols used with blockchains based on reputation and identity as a stake that delivers comparatively fast and efficient transactions (compared to proof-of-work and proof-of-stake). The most notable platforms using PoA are VeChain, Bitgert, Palm Network and Xodex. == Description == Proof-of-authority is a category of consensus protocols for networks and blockchains where transactions and blocks are built and validated by approved entities known as validators. Their permissions are often granted through a centralized authority, but they can also be granted through a council or decentralized organization. The term "proof-of-authority" was coined by Gavin Wood, co-founder of Ethereum and Parity Technologies. With PoA, validators are incentivized to maintain good behavior and honesty when validating blocks to avoid developing a negative reputation. PoA can have higher security than PoW and even PoS due to validators wanting to avoid damaging their reputation. Because PoA is permissioned, it is not fully trustless. Validators without good reputation may risk having their validator permissions removed. PoA is generally more efficient than PoW and PoS because it operates with fewer nodes and validators, thus requiring fewer duplicated resources.

  Read more →
• 

  Explore-then-commit algorithm

  Explore Then Commit (ETC) is an algorithm for the multi-armed bandit problem foc,used on finding the best trade-off between exploration and exploitation. == Multi-armed bandit problem == The multi-armed bandit problem is a sequential game where one player has to choose at each turn between K {\displaystyle K} actions (arms). Behind every arm a {\displaystyle a} is an unknown distribution ν a {\displaystyle \nu _{a}} that lies in a set D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} known by the player (for example, D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} can be the set of Gaussian distributions or Bernoulli distributions). At each turn t {\displaystyle t} the player chooses (pulls) an arm a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} , they then get an observation X t {\displaystyle X_{t}} of the distribution ν a t {\displaystyle \nu _{a_{t}}} . === Regret minimization === The goal is to minimize the regret at time T {\displaystyle T} that is defined as R T := ∑ a = 1 K Δ a E [ N a ( T ) ] {\displaystyle R_{T}:=\sum _{a=1}^{K}\Delta _{a}\mathbb {E} [N_{a}(T)]} where μ a := E [ ν a ] {\displaystyle \mu _{a}:=\mathbb {E} [\nu _{a}]} is the mean of arm a {\displaystyle a} μ ∗ := max a μ a {\displaystyle \mu ^{}:=\max _{a}\mu _{a}} is the highest mean Δ a := μ ∗ − μ a {\displaystyle \Delta _{a}:=\mu ^{}-\mu _{a}} N a ( t ) {\displaystyle N_{a}(t)} is the number of pulls of arm a {\displaystyle a} up to turn t {\displaystyle t} The player has to find an algorithm that chooses at each turn t {\displaystyle t} which arm to pull based on the previous actions and observations ( a s , X s ) s < t {\displaystyle (a_{s},X_{s})_{s Read more →