AI Content Improver

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

• 

  DocuWare

  DocuWare is cloud-based Software as a Service (SaaS) provider. DocuWare software provides document management, repository, and workflow automation functions (also referred to as enterprise content management (ECM) or content services). The company is headquartered in Germany and the United States. DocuWare is also the name of the flagship product offered by the company. == Company history == On October 27, 1988, DOCUNET GmbH was founded in Germering, Germany (near Munich) by President Jürgen Biffar. Since 1990, Biffar has been managing the company with his colleague, Thomas Schneck. DOCUNET AG has since been renamed and is now known as DocuWare. Since 1999, DocuWare has outsourced parts of its development to Sofia, Bulgaria. As of 2016, Nemetschek OOD had 42 employees working on the DocuWare product. DocuWare GmbH holds a 20 percent stake in Nemetschek OOD. In April 2012, an investment agreement was signed between the company and Morgan Stanley Expansion Capital LP, a Morgan Stanley Investment Management private equity fund. Its aim was promoting and accelerating the global growth of DocuWare. The legal form, AG (Public Holding Company) changed to GmbH (limited liability corporation). The company acquired U.S.-based Westbrook Technologies Inc., developer of Fortis ECM software in August 2013. In 2014, Westbrook Technologies Inc. was merged into DocuWare Corporation. At the beginning of 2016, DocuWare appointed Dr. Michael Berger as its Chief Technology Officer (CTO). Dr. Berger joined the company in 2008 as Vice President Research & Development. On January 1, 2019, Jürgen Biffar and Thomas Schneck stepped back from their operational roles after 30 years, and Dr. Michael Berger and Max Ertl started their new roles as co-presidents. On August 6, 2019, DocuWare was acquired by Ricoh. DocuWare continues to operate as a standalone subsidiary of Ricoh. In 2020, the company received approval to move its U.S. headquarters from New Windsor to Beacon, New York. === Subsidiaries === DocuWare Corporation (Beacon, NY), founded January 1, 2001 DocuWare Ltd (Nottinghamshire), founded April 1, 2005 DocuWare SARL (Paris), founded September 1, 2008 DocuWare S.L. (Barcelona), founded July 1, 2009

  Read more →
• 

  Authoritative Legal Entity Identifier

  An Authoritative Legal Entity Identifier (ALEI) is the identifier assigned by a government jurisdiction authorized by statute or decree to create a legal entity and to maintain the authoritative registries of legal entities. ALEIs are used within supply chain data, ERP applications and master data management systems to support accurate and consistent identification of entities in digital records, supply chains, and government databases. ALEIs are described in the international standard ISO 8000-116, which outlines a structured format that makes the locally unique identifier into a globally unique one and ensures global interoperability and data quality. == Structure == An ALEI is composed of three main components: a prefix that identifies the jurisdiction and register, a subdomain element (optional), and the local registration number of the entity. For example, the identifier "US-DE.BER:3031657" refers to an entity registered in the Delaware Business Entity Register in the United States. The standardization of this structure is governed by ISO 8000-116, which is designed to ensure each ALEI is globally unique and resolvable. == Comparison with other identifiers == ALEIs differ from proxy identifiers such as the DUNS number, NCAGE code, or the Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) managed by GLEIF. While proxy identifiers can be issued by institutions that do not create legal entities, ALEIs are created and maintained by public bodies with the authority to form and register legal entities. This authoritative origin makes ALEIs particularly suitable for applications involving legal traceability, government regulation, and international transparency efforts. == Usage == ALEIs are increasingly utilized to identify legal entities in public and private datasets. The identifiers support supply chain accuracy, regulatory compliance, and the unification of master data. The first practical implementation of an ALEI was the International Business Registration Number (IBRN), developed to provide globally unique identifiers for registered business entities. IBRNs are issued by authorized government jurisdictions and are used to verify entities across borders, particularly in the context of trade facilitation and data exchange systems. For instance, business directories and registration systems in U.S. states like Connecticut provide structured registration documents that can be used to verify the ALEIs they issue. The use of ALEIs has been recommended by international organizations such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and Open ownership to improve beneficial ownership registries. == Policy and regulation == ALEIs have been referenced in policy consultations such as those related to the U.S. Financial Data Transparency Act. Federal institutions including the Federal Reserve and FDIC have examined the potential for ALEIs to unify entity identification across regulatory databases.

  Read more →
• 

  In-place algorithm

  In computer science, an in-place algorithm is an algorithm that operates directly on the input data structure without requiring extra space proportional to the input size. In other words, it modifies the input in place, without creating a separate copy of the data structure. An algorithm which is not in-place is sometimes called not-in-place or out-of-place. In-place can have slightly different meanings. In its strictest form, the algorithm can only have a constant amount of extra space, counting everything including function calls and pointers. However, this form is very limited as simply having an index to a length n array requires O(log n) bits. More broadly, in-place means that the algorithm does not use extra space for manipulating the input but may require a small though non-constant extra space for its operation. Usually, this space is O(log n), though sometimes anything in o(n) is allowed. Note that space complexity also has varied choices in whether or not to count the index lengths as part of the space used. Often, the space complexity is given in terms of the number of indices or pointers needed, ignoring their length. In this article, we refer to total space complexity (DSPACE), counting pointer lengths. Therefore, the space requirements here have an extra log n factor compared to an analysis that ignores the lengths of indices and pointers. An algorithm may or may not count the output as part of its space usage. Since in-place algorithms usually overwrite their input with output, no additional space is needed. When writing the output to write-only memory or a stream, it may be more appropriate to only consider the working space of the algorithm. In theoretical applications such as log-space reductions, it is more typical to always ignore output space (in these cases it is more essential that the output is write-only). == Examples == Given an array a of n items, suppose we want an array that holds the same elements in reversed order and to dispose of the original. One seemingly simple way to do this is to create a new array of equal size, fill it with copies from a in the appropriate order and then delete a. function reverse(a[0..n - 1]) allocate b[0..n - 1] for i from 0 to n - 1 b[n − 1 − i] := a[i] return b Unfortunately, this requires O(n) extra space for having the arrays a and b available simultaneously. Also, allocation and deallocation are often slow operations. Since we no longer need a, we can instead overwrite it with its own reversal using this in-place algorithm which will only need constant number (2) of integers for the auxiliary variables i and tmp, no matter how large the array is. function reverse_in_place(a[0..n-1]) for i from 0 to floor((n-2)/2) tmp := a[i] a[i] := a[n − 1 − i] a[n − 1 − i] := tmp As another example, many sorting algorithms rearrange arrays into sorted order in-place, including: bubble sort, comb sort, selection sort, insertion sort, heapsort, and Shell sort. These algorithms require only a few pointers, so their space complexity is O(log n). Quicksort operates in-place on the data to be sorted. However, quicksort requires O(log n) stack space pointers to keep track of the subarrays in its divide and conquer strategy. Consequently, quicksort needs O(log2 n) additional space. Although this non-constant space technically takes quicksort out of the in-place category, quicksort and other algorithms needing only O(log n) additional pointers are usually considered in-place algorithms. Most selection algorithms are also in-place, although some considerably rearrange the input array in the process of finding the final, constant-sized result. Some text manipulation algorithms such as trim and reverse may be done in-place. == In computational complexity == In computational complexity theory, the strict definition of in-place algorithms includes all algorithms with O(1) space complexity, the class DSPACE(1). This class is very limited; it equals the regular languages. In fact, it does not even include any of the examples listed above. Algorithms are usually considered in L, the class of problems requiring O(log n) additional space, to be in-place. This class is more in line with the practical definition, as it allows numbers of size n as pointers or indices. This expanded definition still excludes quicksort, however, because of its recursive calls. Identifying the in-place algorithms with L has some interesting implications; for example, it means that there is a (rather complex) in-place algorithm to determine whether a path exists between two nodes in an undirected graph, a problem that requires O(n) extra space using typical algorithms such as depth-first search (a visited bit for each node). This in turn yields in-place algorithms for problems such as determining if a graph is bipartite or testing whether two graphs have the same number of connected components. == Role of randomness == In many cases, the space requirements of an algorithm can be drastically cut by using a randomized algorithm. For example, if one wishes to know if two vertices in a graph of n vertices are in the same connected component of the graph, there is no known simple, deterministic, in-place algorithm to determine this. However, if we simply start at one vertex and perform a random walk of about 20n3 steps, the chance that we will stumble across the other vertex provided that it is in the same component is very high. Similarly, there are simple randomized in-place algorithms for primality testing such as the Miller–Rabin primality test, and there are also simple in-place randomized factoring algorithms such as Pollard's rho algorithm. == In functional programming == Functional programming languages often discourage or do not support explicit in-place algorithms that overwrite data, since this is a type of side effect; instead, they only allow new data to be constructed. However, good functional language compilers will often recognize when an object very similar to an existing one is created and then the old one is thrown away, and will optimize this into a simple mutation "under the hood". Note that it is possible in principle to carefully construct in-place algorithms that do not modify data (unless the data is no longer being used), but this is rarely done in practice.

  Read more →
• 

  Cancer Likelihood in Plasma

  Cancer Likelihood in Plasma (CLiP) refers to a set of ensemble learning methods for integrating various genomic features useful for the noninvasive detection of early cancers from blood plasma. An application of this technique for early detection of lung cancer (Lung-CLiP) was originally described by Chabon et al. (2020) from the labs of Ash Alizadeh and Max Diehn at Stanford. This method relies on several improvements to cancer personalized profiling by deep sequencing (CAPP-Seq) for analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). The CLiP technique integrates multiple distinctive genomic features of a cancer of interest findings within a machine-learning framework for cancer detection. For example, studies have shown that the majority of somatic mutations found in cell-free DNA (cfDNA) are not tumor derived, but instead reflect clonal hematopoeisis (also known as CHIP). Even though CHIP tends to target specific genes, it also involves many generally non-recurrent mutations that can be shed from leukocytes and detected in cfDNA, regardless of whether profiling patients with cancer and healthy adults. However, genuine tumor derived ctDNA mutations can be distinguished from CHIP-derived mutations. This is because unlike tumor-derived mutations, CHIP-derived mutations that are shed from leukocytes into plasma tend to occur on longer cfDNA fragments, and to lack specific mutational signatures such as those associated with tobacco smoking in lung cancer that are also found in tumor derived ctDNA molecules. CLiP integrates these features within hierarchical ensemble machine learning models that consider somatic mutations and copy number alternations, among other features. While the CLiP method is unique in relying exclusively on mutations and copy number alterations, it is related to a variety of other liquid biopsy methods being commercially developed for early cancer detection using ctDNA and proteins (e.g., CancerSEEK / DETECT-A ), cfDNA fragmentation patterns (e.g., DELFI), and DNA methylation (e.g., cfMeDIP-Seq, Grail). While the CLiP method has not yet been broadly applied for population-based cancer screening, it has been shown to distinguish discriminate early-stage lung cancers from risk-matched controls across multiple cohorts of patients enrolled across the US.

  Read more →
• 

  Breakup Notifier

  Breakup Notifier was a web application written by product developer and programmer Dan Loewenherz that enabled its registered users to track the relationship status of their Facebook friends. An email notification was sent to the user when one of their Facebook friends changed their relationship status. The app was one of the most viral Facebook app's at the time of its release. It was mentioned in a skit on The Jay Leno Show and news of its popularity was published in Time magazine, The New York Post, CNET, and The Globe and Mail. == Popularity and Facebook controversy == Breakup Notifier gathered 100,000 users in less than 24 hours of its launch and reached a user base of more than 3,000,000 in February 2011. Facebook then blocked the app. Loewenherz later created an app named Crush Notifier, which differs from the original app in that users can check if they have a mutual crush. Breakup Notifier was later unblocked by Facebook and monetized.

  Read more →
• 

  Kullback–Leibler Upper Confidence Bound

  In multi-armed bandit problems, KL-UCB (for Kullback–Leibler Upper Confidence Bound) is a UCB-type algorithm that is asymptotically optimal, in the sense that its regret matches the problem-dependent Lai-Robbins lower bound. == 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} there 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}} , he then gets 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 μ } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{inf}(\nu ,\mu ,{\mathcal {D}}):=\inf \left\{\mathrm {KL} (\nu ,{\tilde {\nu }})\ |\ {\tilde {\nu }}\in {\mathcal {D}},\ \mathbb {E} [{\tilde {\nu }}]>\mu \right\}} K L {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} } is the Kullback–Leibler divergence ν ^ a ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t)} is the empirical distribution of arm a {\displaystyle a} at turn t {\displaystyle t} δ t {\displaystyle \delta _{t}} is a well-chosen sequence of positive numbers, often equal to ln ⁡ t + c ln ⁡ ln ⁡ t {\displaystyle \ln t+c\ln \ln t} with c > 0 {\displaystyle c>0} . Then we choose the arm a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} with the highest index: a t := arg ⁡ max a U a ( t ) {\displaystyle a_{t}:=\arg \max _{a}U_{a}(t)} We note that the algorithm does not require knowledge of T {\displaystyle T} . === Example === In the special case of Gaussian distribution with fixed variance σ 2 {\displaystyle \sigma ^{2}} , we have: U a ( t ) = μ ^ a ( t ) + 2 σ 2 δ t N a ( t ) {\displaystyle U_{a}(t)={\hat {\mu }}_{a}(t)+{\sqrt {\frac {2\sigma ^{2}\delta _{t}}{N_{a}(t)}}}} with μ ^ a ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\mu }}_{a}(t)} being the empirical mean of arm a {\displaystyle a} at turn t {\displaystyle t} . === Pseudocode === The player gets the set D for each arm i do: n[i] ← 1; nu[i] ← None; d ← ln(K) for t from 1 to K do: select arm t observe reward r n[t] ← n[t] + 1 nu[t] ← update empirical distribution for t from K+1 to T do: for each arm i do: index[i] ← compute_index(n[i], nu[i], D, d) select arm a with highest index[a] observe reward r n[a] ← n[a] + 1 nu[a] ← update empirical distribution d ← ln(t+1) == Theoretical results == In the multi-armed bandit problem we have the Lai–Robbins asymptotic lower bound on regret. The algorithm KL-UCB matches this lower bound for one-dimensional exponential families with δ t := ln ⁡ t + 3 ln ⁡ ln ⁡ t {\displaystyle \delta _{t}:=\ln t+3\ln \ln t} and for distributions bounded in [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} with δ t := ln ⁡ t + ln ⁡ ln ⁡ t {\displaystyle \delta _{t}:=\ln t+\ln \ln t} . === Lai–Robbins lower bound === In 1985 Lai and Robbins proved an asymptotic, problem-dependent lower bound on regret. It states that for every consistent algorithm on the set D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} — that is, an algorithm for which, for every ( ν 1 , … , ν K ) ∈ D K {\displaystyle (\nu _{1},\dots ,\nu _{K})\in {\mathcal {D}}^{K}} , the regret R T {\displaystyle R_{T}} is subpolynomial (i.e. R T = o T → + ∞ ( T α ) {\displaystyle R_{T}=o_{T\to +\infty }(T^{\alpha })} for all α > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha >0} ) — we have: R T ≥ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ , D ) ) ln ⁡ T + o T → + ∞ ( ln ⁡ T ) . {\displaystyle R_{T}\geq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{},{\mathcal {D}})}}\right)\ln T+o_{T\to +\infty }(\ln T).} This bound is asymptotic (as T → + ∞ {\displaystyle T\to +\infty } ) and gives a first-order lower bound of order ln ⁡ T {\displaystyle \ln T} with the optimal constant in front of it. === Regret bound for KL-UCB === The algorithm matches the Lai–Robbins lower bound for one-dimensional exponential-family distributions and for distributions bounded in [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} . ==== One-dimensional exponential family ==== For D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} being the set of one-dimensional exponential families, with δ t := ln ⁡ t + 3 ln ⁡ ln ⁡ t {\displaystyle \delta _{t}:=\ln t+3\ln \ln t} we have the following upper bound on the regret of KL-UCB: R T ≤ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ , D ) ) ln ⁡ T + O T ( ln ⁡ T ) . {\displaystyle R_{T}\leq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{},{\mathcal {D}})}}\right)\ln T+O_{T}({\sqrt {\ln T}}).} ==== Bounded distributions in [0,1] ==== For D = P ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}={\mathcal {P}}([0,1])} (the set of distributions supported on [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} ), and for δ t := ln ⁡ t + ln ⁡ ln ⁡ t {\displaystyle \delta _{t}:=\ln t+\ln \ln t} , we have the following upper bound on the regret of KL-UCB: R T ≤ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ , D ) ) ln ⁡ T + O T ( ( ln ⁡ T ) 4 / 5 ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T ) . {\displaystyle R_{T}\leq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{},{\mathcal {D}})}}\right)\ln T+O_{T}{\big (}(\ln T)^{4/5}\ln \ln T{\big )}.} === Runtime === For D = P ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}={\mathcal {P}}([0,1])} , the runtime needed per step and for an arm k {\displaystyle k} with n {\displaystyle n} observations is O ( n ( ln ⁡ n ) 2 ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}{\big (}n(\ln n)^{2}{\big )}} . This is higher than that of other optimal algorithms, such as NPTS with O ( n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n)} . MED with O ( n ln ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n\ln n)} . and IMED with O ( n ln ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n\ln n)} . The high runtime of KL-UCB is due to a two-level optimisation: for each arm and candidate mean μ {\displaystyle \mu } , the algorithm evaluates K inf ( ν ^ a ( t ) , μ , D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }({\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t),\mu ,{\mathcal {D}})} and then maximises μ {\displaystyle \mu } subject to N a ( t ) K inf ( ν ^ a ( t ) , μ , D ) ≤ δ t {\displaystyle N_{a}(t)\,{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }({\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t),\mu ,{\mathcal {D}})\leq \delta _{t}} . For distributions bounded in [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} the inner problem has no closed form and must be solved numerically, which increases the per-step cost.

  Read more →
• 

  Online analytical processing

  In computing, online analytical processing (OLAP) (), is an approach to quickly answer multi-dimensional analytical (MDA) queries. The term OLAP was created as a slight modification of the traditional database term online transaction processing (OLTP). OLAP is part of the broader category of business intelligence, which also encompasses relational databases, report writing and data mining. Typical applications of OLAP include business reporting for sales, marketing, management reporting, business process management (BPM), budgeting and forecasting, financial reporting and similar areas, with new applications emerging, such as agriculture. OLAP tools enable users to analyse multidimensional data interactively from multiple perspectives. OLAP consists of three basic analytical operations: consolidation (roll-up), drill-down, and slicing and dicing. Consolidation involves the aggregation of data that can be accumulated and computed in one or more dimensions. For example, all sales offices are rolled up to the sales department or sales division to anticipate sales trends. By contrast, the drill-down is a technique that allows users to navigate through the details. For instance, users can view the sales by individual products that make up a region's sales. Slicing and dicing is a feature whereby users can take out (slicing) a specific set of data of the OLAP cube and view (dicing) the slices from different viewpoints. These viewpoints are sometimes called dimensions (such as looking at the same sales by salesperson, or by date, or by customer, or by product, or by region, etc.). Databases configured for OLAP use a multidimensional data model, allowing for complex analytical and ad hoc queries with a rapid execution time. They borrow aspects of navigational databases, hierarchical databases and relational databases. OLAP is typically contrasted to OLTP (online transaction processing), which is generally characterized by much less complex queries, in a larger volume, to process transactions rather than for the purpose of business intelligence or reporting. Whereas OLAP systems are mostly optimized for read, OLTP has to process all kinds of queries (read, insert, update and delete). == Overview of OLAP systems == At the core of any OLAP system is an OLAP cube (also called a 'multidimensional cube' or a hypercube). It consists of numeric facts called measures that are categorized by dimensions. The measures are placed at the intersections of the hypercube, which is spanned by the dimensions as a vector space. The usual interface to manipulate an OLAP cube is a matrix interface, like Pivot tables in a spreadsheet program, which performs projection operations along the dimensions, such as aggregation or averaging. The cube metadata is typically created from a star schema or snowflake schema or fact constellation of tables in a relational database. Measures are derived from the records in the fact table and dimensions are derived from the dimension tables. Each measure can be thought of as having a set of labels, or meta-data associated with it. A dimension is what describes these labels; it provides information about the measure. A simple example would be a cube that contains a store's sales as a measure, and Date/Time as a dimension. Each Sale has a Date/Time label that describes more about that sale. For example: Sales Fact Table +-------------+----------+ | sale_amount | time_id | +-------------+----------+ Time Dimension | 930.10| 1234 |----+ +---------+-------------------+ +-------------+----------+ | | time_id | timestamp | | +---------+-------------------+ +---->| 1234 | 20080902 12:35:43 | +---------+-------------------+ === Multidimensional databases === Multidimensional structure is defined as "a variation of the relational model that uses multidimensional structures to organize data and express the relationships between data". The structure is broken into cubes and the cubes are able to store and access data within the confines of each cube. "Each cell within a multidimensional structure contains aggregated data related to elements along each of its dimensions". Even when data is manipulated it remains easy to access and continues to constitute a compact database format. The data still remains interrelated. Multidimensional structure is quite popular for analytical databases that use online analytical processing (OLAP) applications. Analytical databases use these databases because of their ability to deliver answers to complex business queries swiftly. Data can be viewed from different angles, which gives a broader perspective of a problem unlike other models. === Aggregations === It has been claimed that for complex queries OLAP cubes can produce an answer in around 0.1% of the time required for the same query on OLTP relational data. The most important mechanism in OLAP which allows it to achieve such performance is the use of aggregations. Aggregations are built from the fact table by changing the granularity on specific dimensions and aggregating up data along these dimensions, using an aggregate function (or aggregation function). The number of possible aggregations is determined by every possible combination of dimension granularities. The combination of all possible aggregations and the base data contains the answers to every query which can be answered from the data. Because usually there are many aggregations that can be calculated, often only a predetermined number are fully calculated; the remainder are solved on demand. The problem of deciding which aggregations (views) to calculate is known as the view selection problem. View selection can be constrained by the total size of the selected set of aggregations, the time to update them from changes in the base data, or both. The objective of view selection is typically to minimize the average time to answer OLAP queries, although some studies also minimize the update time. View selection is NP-complete. Many approaches to the problem have been explored, including greedy algorithms, randomized search, genetic algorithms and A search algorithm. Some aggregation functions can be computed for the entire OLAP cube by precomputing values for each cell, and then computing the aggregation for a roll-up of cells by aggregating these aggregates, applying a divide and conquer algorithm to the multidimensional problem to compute them efficiently. For example, the overall sum of a roll-up is just the sum of the sub-sums in each cell. Functions that can be decomposed in this way are called decomposable aggregation functions, and include COUNT, MAX, MIN, and SUM, which can be computed for each cell and then directly aggregated; these are known as self-decomposable aggregation functions. In other cases, the aggregate function can be computed by computing auxiliary numbers for cells, aggregating these auxiliary numbers, and finally computing the overall number at the end; examples include AVERAGE (tracking sum and count, dividing at the end) and RANGE (tracking max and min, subtracting at the end). In other cases, the aggregate function cannot be computed without analyzing the entire set at once, though in some cases approximations can be computed; examples include DISTINCT COUNT, MEDIAN, and MODE; for example, the median of a set is not the median of medians of subsets. These latter are difficult to implement efficiently in OLAP, as they require computing the aggregate function on the base data, either computing them online (slow) or precomputing them for possible rollouts (large space). == Types == OLAP systems have been traditionally categorized using the following taxonomy. === Multidimensional OLAP (MOLAP) === MOLAP (multi-dimensional online analytical processing) is the classic form of OLAP and is sometimes referred to as just OLAP. MOLAP stores this data in an optimized multi-dimensional array storage, rather than in a relational database. Some MOLAP tools require the pre-computation and storage of derived data, such as consolidations – the operation known as processing. Such MOLAP tools generally utilize a pre-calculated data set referred to as a data cube. The data cube contains all the possible answers to a given range of questions. As a result, they have a very fast response to queries. On the other hand, updating can take a long time depending on the degree of pre-computation. Pre-computation can also lead to what is known as data explosion. Other MOLAP tools, particularly those that implement the functional database model do not pre-compute derived data but make all calculations on demand other than those that were previously requested and stored in a cache. Advantages of MOLAP Fast query performance due to optimized storage, multidimensional indexing and caching. Smaller on-disk size of data compared to data stored in relational database due to compression techniques. Automated computation of higher-level aggregates of the data. It is very compact for low dimension data se

  Read more →
• 

  Mobile content management system

  A mobile content management system (MCMs) is a type of content management system (CMS) capable of storing and delivering content and services to mobile devices, such as mobile phones, smart phones, and PDAs. Mobile content management systems may be discrete systems, or may exist as features, modules or add-ons of larger content management systems capable of multi-channel content delivery. Mobile content delivery has unique, specific constraints including widely variable device capacities, small screen size, limitations on wireless bandwidth, sometimes small storage capacity, and (for some devices) comparatively weak device processors. Demand for mobile content management increased as mobile devices became increasingly ubiquitous and sophisticated. MCMS technology initially focused on the business to consumer (B2C) mobile market place with ringtones, games, text-messaging, news, and other related content. Since, mobile content management systems have also taken root in business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-employee (B2E) situations, allowing companies to provide more timely information and functionality to business partners and mobile workforces in an increasingly efficient manner. A 2008 estimate put global revenue for mobile content management at US$8 billion. == Key features == === Multi-channel content delivery === Multi-channel content delivery capabilities allow users not to manage a central content repository while simultaneously delivering that content to mobile devices such as mobile phones, smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices. Content can be stored in a raw format (such as Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, PDF, Text, HTML etc.) to which device-specific presentation styles can be applied. === Content access control === Access control includes authorization, authentication, access approval to each content. In many cases the access control also includes download control, wipe-out for specific user, time specific access. For the authentication, MCM shall have basic authentication which has user ID and password. For higher security many MCM supports IP authentication and mobile device authentication. === Specialized templating system === While traditional web content management systems handle templates for only a handful of web browsers, mobile CMS templates must be adapted to the very wide range of target devices with different capacities and limitations. There are two approaches to adapting templates: multi-client and multi-site. The multi-client approach makes it possible to see all versions of a site at the same domain (e.g. sitename.com), and templates are presented based on the device client used for viewing. The multi-site approach displays the mobile site on a targeted sub-domain (e.g. mobile.sitename.com). === Location-based content delivery === Location-based content delivery provides targeted content, such as information, advertisements, maps, directions, and news, to mobile devices based on current physical location. Currently, GPS (global positioning system) navigation systems offer the most popular location-based services. Navigation systems are specialized systems, but incorporating mobile phone functionality makes greater exploitation of location-aware content delivery possible.

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial general intelligence

  Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a hypothetical type of artificial intelligence that matches or surpasses human capabilities across virtually all cognitive tasks. Beyond AGI, artificial superintelligence (ASI) would outperform the best human abilities across every domain by a wide margin. Unlike artificial narrow intelligence (ANI), whose competence is confined to well‑defined tasks, an AGI system can generalise knowledge, transfer skills between domains, and solve novel problems without task‑specific reprogramming. Creating AGI is a stated goal of technology companies such as OpenAI, Google, xAI, and Meta. A 2020 survey identified 72 active AGI research and development projects across 37 countries. AGI is a common topic in science fiction and futures studies. Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential risk. Some AI experts and industry figures have stated that mitigating the risk of human extinction posed by AGI should be a global priority. Others find the development of AGI to be in too remote a stage to present such a risk. == Terminology == AGI is also known as strong AI, full AI, human-level AI, human-level intelligent AI, or general intelligent action. The term "artificial general intelligence" was used in 1997 by Mark Gubrud in a discussion of the implications of fully automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI named AIXI was proposed in 2000 by Marcus Hutter, who defines intelligence as "an agent’s ability to achieve goals or succeed in a wide range of environments". This type of AGI has also been called "universal artificial intelligence". The term AGI was re-introduced and popularized by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. Some academic sources reserve the term "strong AI" for computer programs that will experience sentience or consciousness. In contrast, weak AI (or narrow AI) can solve a specific problem but lacks general cognitive abilities. Some academic sources use "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience consciousness nor have a mind in the same sense as humans. Related concepts include artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical type of AGI that is much more generally intelligent than humans, while the notion of transformative AI relates to AI having a large impact on society, for example, similar to the agricultural or industrial revolution. A framework for classifying AGI was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind researchers. They define five performance levels of AGI: emerging, competent, expert, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a competent AGI is defined as an AI that outperforms 50% of skilled adults in a wide range of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e., an artificial superintelligence) is similarly defined but with a threshold of 100%. They consider large language models like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI (comparable to unskilled humans). Regarding the autonomy of AGI and associated risks, they define five levels: tool (fully in human control), consultant, collaborator, expert, and agent (fully autonomous). == Characteristics == There is no single agreed-upon definition of intelligence as applied to computers. Computer scientist John McCarthy wrote in 2007: "We cannot yet characterize in general what kinds of computational procedures we want to call intelligent." === Intelligence traits === Researchers generally hold that a system is required to do all of the following to be regarded as an AGI: reason, use strategy, solve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty, represent knowledge, including common sense knowledge, plan, learn, communicate in natural language, if necessary, integrate these skills in completion of any given goal. Many interdisciplinary approaches (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and decision making) consider additional traits such as imagination (the ability to form novel mental images and concepts) and autonomy. Computer-based systems exhibiting these capabilities are now widespread, with modern large language models demonstrating computational creativity, automated reasoning, and decision support simultaneously across domains. === Physical traits === Other capabilities are considered desirable in intelligent systems, as they may affect intelligence or aid in its expression. These include: the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc.), and the ability to act (e.g. move and manipulate objects, change location to explore, etc.) This includes the ability to detect and respond to hazard. === Tests for human-level AGI === Several tests meant to confirm human-level AGI have been considered. ==== Turing test ==== The Turing test was proposed by Alan Turing in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". This test involves a human judge engaging in natural language conversations with both a human and a machine designed to generate human-like responses. The machine passes the test if it can convince the judge that it is human a significant fraction of the time. Turing proposed this as a practical measure of machine intelligence, focusing on the ability to produce human-like responses rather than on the internal workings of the machine. The idea of the test is that the machine has to try and pretend to be a man, by answering questions put to it, and it will only pass if the pretence is reasonably convincing. A considerable portion of a jury, who should not be experts about machines, must be taken in by the pretence. In 2014, a chatbot named Eugene Goostman, designed to imitate a 13-year-old Ukrainian boy, reportedly passed a Turing Test event by convincing 33% of judges that it was human. However, this claim was met with significant skepticism from the AI research community, who questioned the test's implementation and its relevance to AGI. A 2025 pre‑registered, three‑party Turing‑test study by Cameron R. Jones and Benjamin K. Bergen showed that GPT-4.5 was judged to be the human in 73% of five‑minute text conversations—surpassing the 67% humanness rate of real confederates and meeting the researchers' criterion for having passed the test. ==== Ikea test ==== The "Ikea test", also known as the Flat Pack Furniture Test, involves an AI controlling a robot which attempts to assemble an Ikea flat-pack furniture product after having been shown the parts and instructions. As early as 2013, MIT's IkeaBot demonstrated fully autonomous multi-robot assembly of an IKEA Lack table in ten minutes, with no human intervention and no pre-programmed assembly instructions. The robots inferred the assembly sequence from the geometry of the parts alone. ==== Coffee test ==== Steve Wozniak proposed a test where a machine is required to enter an average American home and figure out how to make coffee. It must find the coffee machine, find the coffee, add water, find a mug, and brew the coffee by pushing the proper buttons. This test has been substantially approached across multiple systems. In January 2024, Figure AI's Figure 01 humanoid learned to operate a Keurig coffee machine autonomously after watching video demonstrations, using end-to-end neural networks to translate visual input into motor actions. In 2025, researchers at the University of Edinburgh published the ELLMER framework in Nature Machine Intelligence, demonstrating a robotic arm that interprets verbal instructions, analyses its surroundings, and autonomously makes coffee in dynamic kitchen environments — adapting to unforeseen obstacles in real time rather than following pre-programmed sequences. ==== Suleyman's test ==== Mustafa Suleyman's test proposes giving an AI model US$100,000 and asking it to obtain US$1 million. ==== Use of video-games ==== Adams, et al. propose that the ability to learn and succeed in a wide range of video games can be used to test AI intelligence. This range would include games unknown to the AGI developers before the test is administered. === AI-complete problems === A problem is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is believed that AGI would be needed to solve it, because the solution is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. == History == === Classical AI === Modern AI research began in the mid-1950s. The first generation of AI researchers were convinced that artificial general intelligence was possible and that it would exist in just a few decades. AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon wrote in 1965: "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do". Their predictions were the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's fictional character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers believed they could create by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was a consultant on the project of making HAL 9000 as realistic as possible according to the consensus predictions of the time. He said in 1967, "Within a generation... the problem of

  Read more →
• 

  Reverse data management

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

  Read more →
• 

  Metadata controller

  Metadata controller (or MDC) is a storage area network (SAN) technology for managing file locking, space allocation and data access authorization. This is needed when several clients are given block level access to the same disk volume, data storage sharing. MDCs are only used on high-end servers. These are never found on user computers. In the absence of MDC over a SAN there is no possible way of ensuring privacy of the stored data. This controller can also play its role as a sharing device in case the administrators allow other servers to access certain blocks in a particular SAN. The access granted to the servers is of different levels. Some times it may happen that the server is not able to see a block or make changes in it in case of a locked file. This is caused by grant of low level access. If different clients on SAN happen to know each other, access may be granted to shift a certain block from one server to another. This allows the recipient server to use the block and make changes in it. MDCs work as enzymes. They require certain types of SANs and networks to work properly. If a controller is connected to the right network it will boost its output. In case of wrong connection i.e. with the incorrect network, it will decrease its performance.

  Read more →
• 

  Overcategorization

  Overcategorization or category clutter is a phenomenon during classification where too many categories or classes are assigned to a document, record, or item. Overcategorization is related to the library and information science (LIS) concepts of document classification and subject indexing. It is also related to online shopping where excessive product categories can overwhelm users with too many choices or make it more difficult for customers to find the products they need. Although these categories are intended to improve organization and ease of navigation when shipping online, too many categories can lower customer satisfaction, increase difficulty navigating the online store, and reduce future shopping intentions. In LIS, the ideal number of terms that should be assigned to classify an item are measured by the variables precision and recall. Assigning few category labels that are most closely related to the content of the item being classified will result in searches that have high precision, I.e., where a high proportion of the results are closely related to the query. Assigning more category labels to each item will reduce the precision of each search, but increase the recall, retrieving more relevant results. Related LIS concepts include exhaustivity of indexing and information overload. == Basic principles == If too many categories are assigned to a given document, the implications for users depend on how informative the links are. If the user is able to distinguish between useful and not useful links, the damage is limited: The user only wastes time selecting links. In many cases, however, the user cannot judge whether or not a given link will turn out to be fruitful. In that case he or she has to follow the link and to read or skim another document. The worst case scenario is, of course, that even after reading the new document the user is unable to decide whether or not it might be useful if its subject matter is not thoroughly investigated. Overcategorization also has another unpleasant implication: It makes the system (for example in Wikipedia) difficult to maintain in a consistent way. If the system is inconsistent, it means that when the user considers the links in a given category, he or she will not find all documents relevant to that category. Basically, the problem of overcategorization should be understood from the perspective of relevance and the traditional measures of recall and precision. If too few relevant categories are assigned to a document, recall may decrease. If too many non-relevant categories are assigned, precision becomes lower. The hard job is to say which categories are fruitful or relevant for future use of the document.

  Read more →
• 

  Cloud load balancing

  Cloud load balancing is a type of load balancing that is performed in cloud computing. Cloud load balancing is the process of distributing workloads across multiple computing resources. Cloud load balancing reduces costs associated with document management systems and maximizes availability of resources. It is a type of load balancing and not to be confused with Domain Name System (DNS) load balancing. While DNS load balancing uses software or hardware to perform the function, cloud load balancing uses services offered by various computer network companies. == Comparison With DNS load balancing == Cloud load balancing has an advantage over DNS load balancing as it can transfer loads to servers globally as opposed to distributing it across local servers. In the event of a local server outage, cloud load balancing delivers users to the closest regional server without interruption for the user. Cloud load balancing addresses issues relating to TTL reliance present during DNS load balancing. DNS directives can only be enforced once in every TTL cycle and can take several hours if switching between servers during a lag or server failure. Incoming server traffic will continue to route to the original server until the TTL expires and can create an uneven performance as different internet service providers may reach the new server before other internet service providers. Another advantage is that cloud load balancing improves response time by routing remote sessions to the best performing data centers. == Importance of Load Balancing == Cloud computing brings advantages in "cost, flexibility and availability of service users." Those advantages drive the demand for Cloud services. The demand raises technical issues in Service Oriented Architectures and Internet of Services (IoS)-style applications, such as high availability and scalability. As a major concern in these issues, load balancing allows cloud computing to "scale up to increasing demands" by efficiently allocating dynamic local workload evenly across all nodes. == Load Balancing Techniques == === Scheduling Algorithms === Opportunistic Load Balancing (OLB) is the algorithm that assigns workloads to nodes in free order. It is simple but does not consider the expected execution time of each node. Load balance Min-Min (LBMM) assigns sub-tasks to the node which requires minimum execution time. === Load Balancing Policies === Workload and Client Aware Policy (WCAP) specifies the unique and special property (USP) of requests and computing nodes. With the information of USP, the schedule can decide the most suitable node to complete a request. WCAP makes the most of computing nodes by reducing their idle time. Also, it reduces performance time through searches based on content information. === A Comparative Study of Algorithms === Biased Random Sampling bases its job allocation on the network represented by a directed graph. For each execution node in this graph, in-degree means available resources and out-degree means allocated jobs. In-degree will decrease during job execution while out-degree will increase after job allocation. Active Clustering is a self-aggregation algorithm to rewire the network. The experiment result is that"Active Clustering and Random Sampling Walk predictably perform better as the number of processing nodes is increased" while the Honeyhive algorithm does not show the increasing pattern. == Client-side Load Balancer Using Cloud Computing == Load balancer forwards packets to web servers according to different workloads on servers. However, it is hard to implement a scalable load balancer because of both the "cloud's commodity business model and the limited infrastructure control allowed by cloud providers." Client-side Load Balancer (CLB) solve this problem by using a scalable cloud storage service. CLB allows clients to choose back-end web servers for dynamic content although it delivers static content.

  Read more →
• 

  Visual Peer Review

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

  Read more →
• 

  Exploratory search

  Exploratory search is a specialization of information exploration which represents the activities carried out by searchers who are: unfamiliar with the domain of their goal (i.e. need to learn about the topic in order to understand how to achieve their goal) or unsure about the ways to achieve their goals (either the technology or the process) or unsure about their goals in the first place. Exploratory search is distinguished from known-item search, for which the searcher has a particular target in mind. Consequently, exploratory search covers a broader class of activities than typical information retrieval, such as investigating, evaluating, comparing, and synthesizing, where new information is sought in a defined conceptual area; exploratory data analysis is another example of an information exploration activity. Typically, therefore, such users generally combine querying and browsing strategies to foster learning and investigation. == History == Exploratory search is a topic that has grown from the fields of information retrieval and information seeking but has become more concerned with alternatives to the kind of search that has received the majority of focus (returning the most relevant documents to a Google-like keyword search). The research is motivated by questions like "What if the user doesn't know which keywords to use?" or "What if the user isn't looking for a single answer?" Consequently, research has begun to focus on defining the broader set of information behaviors in order to learn about the situations when a user is, or feels, limited by only having the ability to perform a keyword search. In the last few years, a series of workshops has been held at various related and key events. In 2005, the Exploratory Search Interfaces workshop focused on beginning to define some of the key challenges in the field. Since then a series of other workshops has been held at related conferences: Evaluating Exploratory Search at SIGIR06 and Exploratory Search and HCI at CHI07 (in order to meet with the experts in human–computer interaction). In March 2008, an Information Processing and Management special issue focused particularly on the challenges of evaluating exploratory search, given the reduced assumptions that can be made about scenarios of use. In June 2008, the National Science Foundation sponsored an invitational workshop to identify a research agenda for exploratory search and similar fields for the coming years. == Research challenges == === Important scenarios === With the majority of research in the information retrieval community focusing on typical keyword search scenarios, one challenge for exploratory search is to further understand the scenarios of use for when keyword search is not sufficient. An example scenario, often used to motivate the research by mSpace, states: if a user does not know much about classical music, how should they even begin to find a piece that they might like. Similarly, for patients or their carers, if they don't know the right keywords for their health problems, how can they effectively find useful health information for themselves? === Designing new interfaces === With one of the motivations being to support users when keyword search is not enough, some research has focused on identifying alternative user interfaces and interaction models that support the user in different ways. An example is faceted search which presents diverse category-style options to the users, so that they can choose from a list instead of guess a possible keyword query. Many of the interactive forms of search, including faceted browsers, are being considered for their support of exploratory search conditions. Computational cognitive models of exploratory search have been developed to capture the cognitive complexities involved in exploratory search. Model-based dynamic presentation of information cues are proposed to facilitate exploratory search performance. === Evaluating interfaces === As the tasks and goals involved with exploratory search are largely undefined or unpredictable, it is very hard to evaluate systems with the measures often used in information retrieval. Accuracy was typically used to show that a user had found a correct answer, but when the user is trying to summarize a domain of information, the correct answer is near impossible to identify, if not entirely subjective (for example: possible hotels to stay in Paris). In exploration, it is also arguable that spending more time (where time efficiency is typically desirable) researching a topic shows that a system provides increased support for investigation. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, giving study participants a well specified task could immediately prevent them from exhibiting exploratory behavior. === Models of exploratory search behavior === There have been recent attempts to develop a process model of exploratory search behavior, especially in social information system (e.g., see models of collaborative tagging. The process model assumes that user-generated information cues, such as social tags, can act as navigational cues that facilitate exploration of information that others have found and shared with other users on a social information system (such as social bookmarking system). These models provided extension to existing process model of information search that characterizes information-seeking behavior in traditional fact-retrievals using search engines. Recent development in exploratory search is often concentrated in predicting users' search intents in interaction with the user. Such predictive user modeling, also referred as intent modeling, can help users to get accustomed to a body of domain knowledge and help users to make sense of the potential directions to be explored around their initial, often vague, expression of information needs. == Major figures == Key figures, including experts from both information seeking and human–computer interaction, are: Marcia Bates Nicholas Belkin Gary Marchionini m.c. schraefel Ryen W. White

  Read more →