AI Detector Just Done Free

AI Detector Just Done Free — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Artificial consciousness

  Artificial consciousness, also known as machine consciousness, synthetic consciousness, or digital consciousness, is consciousness hypothesized to be possible for artificial intelligence. It is also the corresponding field of study, which draws insights from philosophy of mind, philosophy of artificial intelligence, cognitive science and neuroscience. The term "sentience" can be used when specifically designating ethical considerations stemming from a form of phenomenal consciousness (P-consciousness, or the ability to feel qualia). Since sentience involves the ability to experience ethically positive or negative (i.e., valenced) mental states, it may justify welfare concerns and legal protection, as with non-human animals. Some scholars believe that consciousness is generated by the interoperation of various parts of the brain; these mechanisms are labeled the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC). Some further believe that constructing a system (e.g., a computer system) that can emulate this NCC interoperation would result in a system that is conscious. Some scholars reject the possibility of non-biological conscious beings. == Philosophical views == As there are many hypothesized types of consciousness, there are many potential implementations of artificial consciousness. In the philosophical literature, perhaps the most common taxonomy of consciousness is into "access" and "phenomenal" variants. Access consciousness concerns those aspects of experience that can be apprehended, while phenomenal consciousness concerns those aspects of experience that seemingly cannot be apprehended, instead being characterized qualitatively in terms of "raw feels", "what it is like" or qualia. === Plausibility debate === Type-identity theorists and other skeptics hold the view that consciousness can be realized only in particular physical systems because consciousness has properties that necessarily depend on physical constitution. In his 2001 article "Artificial Consciousness: Utopia or Real Possibility," Giorgio Buttazzo says that a common objection to artificial consciousness is that, "Working in a fully automated mode, they [the computers] cannot exhibit creativity, unreprogrammation (which means can 'no longer be reprogrammed', from rethinking), emotions, or free will. A computer, like a washing machine, is a slave operated by its components." For other theorists (e.g., functionalists), who define mental states in terms of causal roles, any system that can instantiate the same pattern of causal roles, regardless of physical constitution, will instantiate the same mental states, including consciousness. ==== Thought experiments ==== David Chalmers proposed two thought experiments intending to demonstrate that "functionally isomorphic" systems (those with the same "fine-grained functional organization", i.e., the same information processing) will have qualitatively identical conscious experiences, regardless of whether they are based on biological neurons or digital hardware. The "fading qualia" is a reductio ad absurdum thought experiment. It involves replacing, one by one, the neurons of a brain with a functionally identical component, for example based on a silicon chip. Chalmers makes the hypothesis, knowing it in advance to be absurd, that "the qualia fade or disappear" when neurons are replaced one-by-one with identical silicon equivalents. Since the original neurons and their silicon counterparts are functionally identical, the brain's information processing should remain unchanged, and the subject's behaviour and introspective reports would stay exactly the same. Chalmers argues that this leads to an absurd conclusion: the subject would continue to report normal conscious experiences even as their actual qualia fade away. He concludes that the subject's qualia actually don't fade, and that the resulting robotic brain, once every neuron is replaced, would remain just as sentient as the original biological brain. Similarly, the "dancing qualia" thought experiment is another reductio ad absurdum argument. It supposes that two functionally isomorphic systems could have different perceptions (for instance, seeing the same object in different colors, like red and blue). It involves a switch that alternates between a chunk of brain that causes the perception of red, and a functionally isomorphic silicon chip, that causes the perception of blue. Since both perform the same function within the brain, the subject would not notice any change during the switch. Chalmers argues that this would be highly implausible if the qualia were truly switching between red and blue, hence the contradiction. Therefore, he concludes that the equivalent digital system would not only experience qualia, but it would perceive the same qualia as the biological system (e.g., seeing the same color). Greg Egan's short story Learning To Be Me (mentioned in §In fiction), illustrates how undetectable duplication of the brain and its functionality could be from a first-person perspective. Critics object that Chalmers' proposal begs the question in assuming that all mental properties and external connections are already sufficiently captured by abstract causal organization. Van Heuveln et al. argue that the dancing qualia argument contains an equivocation fallacy, conflating a "change in experience" between two systems with an "experience of change" within a single system. Mogensen argues that the fading qualia argument can be resisted by appealing to vagueness at the boundaries of consciousness and the holistic structure of conscious neural activity, which suggests consciousness may require specific biological substrates rather than being substrate-independent. Anil Seth argues that the complexity of brain neurons intrinsically matters in addition to their function and that it is not possible to replace any part of the brain with a perfect silicon equivalent. He points out that some of biological neurons exhibit activity aimed at cleaning up metabolic waste products, and writes that a perfect silicon replacement would require a silicon-based metabolism, but silicon is not suitable for creating such artificial metabolism. ==== In large language models ==== In 2022, Google engineer Blake Lemoine made a viral claim that Google's LaMDA chatbot was sentient. Lemoine supplied as evidence the chatbot's humanlike answers to many of his questions; however, the chatbot's behavior was judged by the scientific community as likely a consequence of mimicry, rather than machine sentience. Lemoine's claim was widely derided for being ridiculous. Moreover, attributing consciousness based solely on the basis of LLM outputs or the immersive experience created by an algorithm is considered a fallacy. However, while philosopher Nick Bostrom states that LaMDA is unlikely to be conscious, he additionally poses the question of "what grounds would a person have for being sure about it?" One would have to have access to unpublished information about LaMDA's architecture, and also would have to understand how consciousness works, and then figure out how to map the philosophy onto the machine: "(In the absence of these steps), it seems like one should be maybe a little bit uncertain. [...] there could well be other systems now, or in the relatively near future, that would start to satisfy the criteria." David Chalmers argued in 2023 that LLMs today display impressive conversational and general intelligence abilities, but are likely not conscious yet, as they lack some features that may be necessary, such as recurrent processing, a global workspace, and unified agency. Nonetheless, he considers that non-biological systems can be conscious, and suggested that future, extended models (LLM+s) incorporating these elements might eventually meet the criteria for consciousness, raising both profound scientific questions and significant ethical challenges. However, the view that consciousness can exist without biological phenomena is controversial and some reject it. Kristina Šekrst cautions that anthropomorphic terms such as "hallucination" can obscure important ontological differences between artificial and human cognition. While LLMs may produce human-like outputs, she argues that it does not justify ascribing mental states or consciousness to them. Instead, she advocates for an epistemological framework (such as reliabilism) that recognizes the distinct nature of AI knowledge production. She suggests that apparent understanding in LLMs may be a sophisticated form of AI hallucination. She also questions what would happen if an LLM were trained without any mention of consciousness. === Testing === Sentience is an inherently first-person phenomenon. Because of that, and due to the lack of an empirical definition of sentience, directly measuring it may be impossible. Although systems may display numerous behaviors correlated with sentience, determining whether a system is sentient is known as the hard pr

  Read more →
• 

  Trust federation

  A trust federation is part of the evolving Identity Metasystem that will bring a new layer of persistent identity and trusted data sharing to the Internet. Although the concept of trust federations is technology neutral, several protocols like SAML, OpenID, Information Card, XDI can handle the challenges of technical interoperability. The challenge of business and social interoperability requires a new type of cooperative association similar to a credit card association. Instead of banks, however, a trust federation is an alliance of i-brokers and their customers who agree to abide by a common set of agreements in the care and handling of customer data. A model for trust federations is offered by Open Identity Exchange and Kantara Initiative, which is applied in the U.S. Government ICAM Trust Framework. Some operational trust federations are: InCommon (academic, USA) REFEDs (Research and Education Federations, Europe) IGTF Interoperable Global Trust Federation Portalverbund Government Portal Federation, Austria Trust federations are not limited to the social web use case, but apply to all federations where trust in identity and compliance to other objectives of information security such as confidentiality, integrity and privacy is brokered.

  Read more →
• 

  Media engagement framework

  The media engagement framework is a planning framework used by marketing professionals to understand the behavior of social media marketing-based audiences. The construct was introduced in the book, ROI of Social Media. Powell’s background in marketing ROI and Groves' experience and understanding of the applications of social media in business led to a collaboration. Dimos joined as a brand strategist for Litmus Group, a global management consulting firm. The media engagement framework consists of the definitions of personas (Individuals, Consumers and Influencers), referenced by the competitive set or constraint that applies to that persona and the measurement framework that might be applied to those personas. It is referenced at the center of the marketing process diagram, surrounded by the marketing functions of strategy, tactics, metrics and ROI. The marketing process diagram describes how the media engagement framework can apply to any strategic marketing activity but was developed to establish a completely integrated framework describing how both traditional and social media marketing activities can be planned, executed, measured and improved. == Application == The media engagement framework provides a strategic planning construct in which measurements and metrics play a crucial role. Applying the media engagement framework aids in the development and management of an effective online marketing presence leveraging social media to engage a market or audience. By first personifying the audience, the marketer is able to identify the limiting aspect of the engagements possible with that audience segment and then, understand the type of engagement metrics to apply. Each persona makes decisions differently about how he/she acts in the social media universe. A framework metric can be applied for each of these personas: Endorsement funnel for influencers Community engagement funnel for individuals Purchase funnel for consumers Individuals, influencers and consumers make decisions based on alternatives available to them and constraints put on them. To engage with an individual brands must realize they are competing against the time an individual spends on line. If they find something else more engaging, they will engage with that activity. Brands compete against other brands for the purchases of consumers acting in the category. Lastly, influencers have only so many endorsements they can make and therefore brands compete with other endorsers for the endorsement of an influencer. Creating engaging content by keeping target audience in mind like create content that audience find it funny, interesting, and relatable will encourage audience to share it on social networks. Which will be beneficial for you brand, getting more people to know about your business and brand. Contact Digilord to create engaging content for your brand. Use of listening tools (Google Alerts, Twitter Search, SocialMention.com, Veooz.com, Alterian SM2, Radian6, Sysomos, Buzzient etc.) can be employed within the model to help identify the members of the audience segment and to support the formation of other social engagement planning and management tools.

  Read more →
• 

  Branch number

  In cryptography, the branch number is a numerical value that characterizes the amount of diffusion introduced by a vectorial Boolean function F that maps an input vector a to output vector F ( a ) {\displaystyle F(a)} . For the (usual) case of a linear F the value of the differential branch number is produced by: applying nonzero values of a (i.e., values that have at least one non-zero component of the vector) to the input of F; calculating for each input value a the Hamming weight W {\displaystyle W} (number of nonzero components), and adding weights W ( a ) {\displaystyle W(a)} and W ( F ( a ) ) {\displaystyle W(F(a))} together; selecting the smallest combined weight across for all nonzero input values: B d ( F ) = min a ≠ 0 ( W ( a ) + W ( F ( a ) ) ) {\displaystyle B_{d}(F)={\underset {a\neq 0}{\min }}(W(a)+W(F(a)))} . If both a and F ( a ) {\displaystyle F(a)} have s components, the result is obviously limited on the high side by the value s + 1 {\displaystyle s+1} (this "perfect" result is achieved when any single nonzero component in a makes all components of F ( a ) {\displaystyle F(a)} to be non-zero). A high branch number suggests higher resistance to the differential cryptanalysis: the small variations of input will produce large changes on the output and in order to obtain small variations of the output, large changes of the input value will be required. The term was introduced by Daemen and Rijmen in early 2000s and quickly became a typical tool to assess the diffusion properties of the transformations. == Mathematics == The branch number concept is not limited to the linear transformations, Daemen and Rijmen provided two general metrics: differential branch number, where the minimum is obtained over inputs of F that are constructed by independently sweeping all the values of two nonzero and unequal vectors a, b ( ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } is a component-by-component exclusive-or): B d ( F ) = min a ≠ b ( W ( a ⊕ b ) + W ( F ( a ) ⊕ F ( b ) ) {\displaystyle B_{d}(F)={\underset {a\neq b}{\min }}(W(a\oplus b)+W(F(a)\oplus F(b))} ; for linear branch number, the independent candidates α {\displaystyle \alpha } and β {\displaystyle \beta } are independently swept; they should be nonzero and correlated with respect to F (the L A T ( α , β ) {\displaystyle LAT(\alpha ,\beta )} coefficient of the linear approximation table of F should be nonzero): B l ( F ) = min α ≠ 0 , β , L A T ( α , β ) ≠ 0 ( W ( α ) + W ( β ) ) {\displaystyle B_{l}(F)={\underset {\alpha \neq 0,\beta ,LAT(\alpha ,\beta )\neq 0}{\min }}(W(\alpha )+W(\beta ))} .

  Read more →
• 

  Sarpa (snakebite app)

  Sarpa or SARPA (Snake Awareness, Rescue and Protection app) is a snakebite app, an application for mobile devices developed in India to provide rapid, life-saving help for victims of snakebite, which kill an estimated 58,000 people a year in India. The app provides information about snakes, gets fast aid for people bitten, and helps in the development of antivenoms. Similar systems developed in India include SnakeHub, Snake Lens, Snakepedia, Serpent and the Big Four Mapping Project. The apps provide rapid response to snakebite incidents, often in remote areas, using a network of volunteers managed by local wildlife departments; their use can save human lives by providing rapid medical care, and also snakes, by helping to avoid interaction between the species. In 2026, it was announced that the app had plans to offer real-time contact from doctors directly from the app to provide users with decision-making advice.

  Read more →
• 

  Ultra (cryptography)

  Ultra was the designation adopted by British military intelligence in June 1941 for wartime signals intelligence obtained by breaking high-level encrypted enemy radio and teleprinter communications at the Government Code and Cypher School (GC&CS) at Bletchley Park. Ultra eventually became the standard designation among the western Allies for all such intelligence. The name arose because the intelligence obtained was considered more important than that designated by the highest British security classification then used (Most Secret) and so was regarded as being Ultra Secret. Several other cryptonyms had been used for such intelligence. The code name "Boniface" was used as a cover name for Ultra. In order to ensure that the successful code-breaking did not become apparent to the Germans, British intelligence created a fictional MI6 master spy, Boniface, who controlled a fictional series of agents throughout Germany. Information obtained through code-breaking was often attributed to the human intelligence from the Boniface network. The U.S. used the codename Magic for its decrypts from Japanese sources, including the "Purple" cipher. Much of the German cipher traffic was encrypted on the Enigma machine. Used properly, the German military Enigma would have been virtually unbreakable; in practice, shortcomings in operation allowed it to be broken. The term "Ultra" has often been used almost synonymously with "Enigma decrypts". However, Ultra also encompassed decrypts of the German Lorenz SZ 40/42 machines that were used by the German High Command, and the Hagelin machine. Many observers, at the time and later, regarded Ultra as immensely valuable to the Allies. Winston Churchill was reported to have told King George VI, when presenting to him Stewart Menzies (head of the Secret Intelligence Service and the person who controlled distribution of Ultra decrypts to the government): "It is thanks to the secret weapon of General Menzies, put into use on all the fronts, that we won the war!" F. W. Winterbotham quoted the western Supreme Allied Commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower, at war's end describing Ultra as having been "decisive" to Allied victory. Sir Harry Hinsley, Bletchley Park veteran and official historian of British Intelligence in World War II, made a similar assessment of Ultra, saying that while the Allies would have won the war without it, "the war would have been something like two years longer, perhaps three years longer, possibly four years longer than it was." However, Hinsley and others have emphasized the difficulties of counterfactual history in attempting such conclusions, and some historians, such as John Keegan, have said the shortening might have been as little as the three months it took the United States to deploy the atomic bomb. == Sources of intelligence == Most Ultra intelligence was derived from reading radio messages that had been encrypted with cipher machines, complemented by material from radio communications using traffic analysis and direction finding. In the early phases of the war, particularly during the eight-month Phoney War, the Germans could transmit most of their messages using land lines and so had no need to use radio. This meant that those at Bletchley Park had some time to build up experience of collecting and starting to decrypt messages on the various radio networks. German Enigma messages were the main source, with those of the German air force (the Luftwaffe) predominating, as they used radio more and their operators were particularly ill-disciplined. === German === ==== Enigma ==== "Enigma" refers to a family of electro-mechanical rotor cipher machines. These produced a polyalphabetic substitution cipher and were widely thought to be unbreakable in the 1920s, when a variant of the commercial Model D was first used by the Reichswehr. The German Army (Heer), Navy, Air Force, Nazi party, Gestapo and German diplomats used Enigma machines in several variants. Abwehr (German military intelligence) used a four-rotor machine without a plugboard and Naval Enigma used different key management from that of the army or air force, making its traffic far more difficult to cryptanalyse; each variant required different cryptanalytic treatment. The commercial versions were not as secure and Dilly Knox of GC&CS is said to have broken one before the war. German military Enigma was first broken in December 1932 by Marian Rejewski and the Polish Cipher Bureau, using a combination of brilliant mathematics, the services of a spy in the German office responsible for administering encrypted communications, and good luck. The Poles read Enigma to the outbreak of World War II and beyond, in France. At the turn of 1939, the Germans made the systems ten times more complex, which required a tenfold increase in Polish decryption equipment, which they could not meet. On 25 July 1939, the Polish Cipher Bureau handed reconstructed Enigma machines and their techniques for decrypting ciphers to the French and British. Gordon Welchman wrote, Ultra would never have got off the ground if we had not learned from the Poles, in the nick of time, the details both of the German military Enigma machine, and of the operating procedures that were in use. At Bletchley Park, some of the key people responsible for success against Enigma included mathematicians Alan Turing and Hugh Alexander and, at the British Tabulating Machine Company, chief engineer Harold Keen. After the war, interrogation of German cryptographic personnel led to the conclusion that German cryptanalysts understood that cryptanalytic attacks against Enigma were possible but were thought to require impracticable amounts of effort and investment. The Poles' early start at breaking Enigma and the continuity of their success gave the Allies an advantage when World War II began. ==== Lorenz cipher ==== In June 1941, the Germans started to introduce on-line stream cipher teleprinter systems for strategic point-to-point radio links, to which the British gave the code-name Fish. Several systems were used, principally the Lorenz SZ 40/42 (codenamed "Tunny" by the British) and Geheimfernschreiber ("Sturgeon"). These cipher systems were cryptanalysed, particularly Tunny, which the British thoroughly penetrated. It was eventually attacked using Colossus machines, which were the first digital programme-controlled electronic computers. In many respects the Tunny work was more difficult than for the Enigma, since the British codebreakers had no knowledge of the machine producing it and no head-start such as that the Poles had given them against Enigma. Although the volume of intelligence derived from this system was much smaller than that from Enigma, its importance was often far higher because it produced primarily high-level, strategic intelligence that was sent between Wehrmacht high command (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, OKW). The eventual bulk decryption of Lorenz-enciphered messages contributed significantly, and perhaps decisively, to the defeat of Nazi Germany. Nevertheless, the Tunny story has become much less well known among the public than the Enigma one. At Bletchley Park, some of the key people responsible for success in the Tunny effort included mathematicians W. T. "Bill" Tutte and Max Newman and electrical engineer Tommy Flowers. === Italian === In June 1940, the Italians were using book codes for most of their military messages, except for the Italian Navy, which in early 1941 had started using a version of the Hagelin rotor-based cipher machine C-38. This was broken from June 1941 onwards by the Italian subsection of GC&CS at Bletchley Park. === Japanese === In the Pacific theatre, a Japanese cipher machine, called "Purple" by the Americans, was used for highest-level Japanese diplomatic traffic. It produced a polyalphabetic substitution cipher, but unlike Enigma, was not a rotor machine, being built around electrical stepping switches. It was broken by the US Army Signal Intelligence Service and disseminated as Magic. Detailed reports by the Japanese ambassador to Germany were encrypted on the Purple machine. His reports included reviews of German assessments of the military situation, reviews of strategy and intentions, reports on direct inspections by the ambassador (in one case, of Normandy beach defences), and reports of long interviews with Hitler. The Japanese are said to have obtained an Enigma machine in 1937, although it is debated whether they were given it by the Germans or bought a commercial version, which, apart from the plugboard and internal wiring, was the German Heer/Luftwaffe machine. Having developed a similar machine, the Japanese did not use the Enigma machine for their most secret communications. The chief fleet communications code system used by the Imperial Japanese Navy was called JN-25 by the Americans, and by early 1942 the US Navy had made considerable progress in decrypting Japanese naval messages. The US Army also made progress on the

  Read more →
• 

  Serge Belamant

  Serge Belamant (born 1953) is a French-born South African entrepreneur best known for designing the Universal Electronic Payment System (UEPS) and the Chip Offline Pre-authorised Card (COPAC). He founded the cash-payments company Net1 UEPS Technologies in 1989, led it through dual listings on the NASDAQ and the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, and oversaw the contentious welfare-payments contract with the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) until his retirement in 2017. Since 2018 he has been non-executive chair of London-based buy-now-pay-later fintech Zilch. == Early life and education == Belamant moved from France to South Africa with his family in 1967 and matriculated from Highlands North Boys' High School, Johannesburg. In 1972 he entered the University of the Witwatersrand to study civil engineering but switched to computer science and applied mathematics in his second year. He left the university without a degree and later took short courses in information systems at the University of South Africa (UNISA). == Early career and SASWITCH (1981–1989) == Belamant worked for Control Data Corporation as a systems analyst for a decade before joining SASWITCH Ltd in 1985. Economic sanctions had left the consortium's national ATM network dependent on unsupported Christian Rovsing computers. Belamant led a rebuild on fault-tolerant Stratus hardware and wrote protocol-translation software that allowed fourteen banks to connect without altering their host systems. By 1988 SASWITCH was handling about three million ATM transactions a month, according to the Competition Commission. The switch—now run by BankservAfrica—remains the backbone of South Africa's shared ATM network. == Net1 UEPS Technologies (1989–2017) == === Founding and UEPS === In 1989, Serge Belamant developed the Universal Electronic Payment System (UEPS), enabling secure, real-time transactions even in areas with limited connectivity. In the same year, he founded NET1 UEPS Technologies Inc., serving as its CEO and Director. === COPAC for VISA === In 1995, VISA tasked Belamant with designing the Chip Offline Pre-authorized Card (COPAC), a technology still widely used in chip-enabled credit and debit cards. A year later, he listed his company APLITEC (Applied Technology Holdings Limited) on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. === Listings and acquisitions === In 1999, Belamant acquired Cash Payment Services (CPS) from First National Bank of South Africa, modernizing its welfare payment system to serve millions in rural areas. In 2005, he led NET1 Technologies to an IPO, listing it as NET1 UEPS Technologies Inc. on the Nasdaq. A secondary listing on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) followed in 2008. === SASSA contract === Under Belamant's leadership, NET1 managed welfare payments for the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA), handling payments for over 10 million beneficiaries monthly. Despite criticism over handling the SASSA contract, investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice and the South African Constitutional Court found no wrongdoing. == Zilch (2018–present) == Belamant co-founded London-based "buy-now-pay-later" firm Zilch Technology in 2018 and serves as non-executive chair. Zilch reported £145 million in annual-recurring revenue and 4.5 million customers in January 2025. == Patents == Belamant is listed as inventor on more than a dozen payment-security patents, including: "Funds transfer system" (US RE36,788, 2000) – the basis for UEPS. "Financial transactions with a varying PIN" (WO 2014/037869, 2014).

  Read more →
• 

  Data Reference Model

  The Data Reference Model (DRM) is one of the five reference models of the Federal Enterprise Architecture. == Overview == The DRM is a framework whose primary purpose is to enable information sharing and reuse across the United States federal government via the standard description and discovery of common data and the promotion of uniform data management practices. The DRM describes artifacts which can be generated from the data architectures of federal government agencies. The DRM provides a flexible and standards-based approach to accomplish its purpose. The scope of the DRM is broad, as it may be applied within a single agency, within a community of interest, or cross-community of interest. == Data Reference Model topics == === DRM structure === The DRM provides a standard means by which data may be described, categorized, and shared. These are reflected within each of the DRM's three standardization areas: Data Description: Provides a means to uniformly describe data, thereby supporting its discovery and sharing. Data Context: Facilitates discovery of data through an approach to the categorization of data according to taxonomies. Additionally, enables the definition of authoritative data assets within a community of interest. Data Sharing: Supports the access and exchange of data where access consists of ad hoc requests (such as a query of a data asset), and exchange consists of fixed, re-occurring transactions between parties. Enabled by capabilities provided by both the Data Context and Data Description standardization areas. === DRM Version 2 === The Data Reference Model version 2 released in November 2005 is a 114-page document with detailed architectural diagrams and an extensive glossary of terms. The DRM also make many references to ISO standards specifically the ISO/IEC 11179 metadata registry standard. === DRM usage === The DRM is not technically a published technical interoperability standard such as web services, it is an excellent starting point for data architects within federal and state agencies. Any federal or state agencies that are involved with exchanging information with other agencies or that are involved in data warehousing efforts should use this document as a guide.

  Read more →
• 

  Racter

  Racter is an artificial intelligence program that generates English language prose at random. It was published by Mindscape for IBM PC compatibles in 1984, then for the Apple II, Mac, and Amiga. An expanded version of the software, not the one released through Mindscape, was used to generate the text for the published book The Policeman's Beard Is Half Constructed. == History == Racter, short for raconteur, was written by William Chamberlain and Thomas Etter. Racter's initial creation was the short story Soft Ions, which appeared in the October 1981 issue of Omni (magazine). The publication's editors bought the story in January 1980, before it had even been written. In exchange for the rights, the editors offered financial support to Chamberlain and Etter so the two could refine Racter. In 1983, Racter produced a book called The Policeman's Beard Is Half Constructed (ISBN 0-446-38051-2). The program originally was written for an OSI which only supported file names at most six characters long, causing the name to be shorted to Racter and it was later adapted to run on a CP/M machine where it was written in "compiled ASIC on a Z80 microcomputer with 64K of RAM." This version, the program that allegedly wrote the book, was not released to the general public. The sophistication claimed for the program was likely exaggerated, as could be seen by investigation of the template system of text generation. In 1984, Mindscape released an interactive version of Racter, developed by Inrac Corporation, for IBM PC compatibles, and it was ported to the Apple II, Mac, and Amiga. The published Racter was similar to a chatterbot. The BASIC program that was released by Mindscape was far less sophisticated than anything that could have written the fairly sophisticated prose of The Policeman's Beard. The commercial version of Racter could be likened to a computerized version of Mad Libs, the game in which you fill in the blanks in advance and then plug them into a text template to produce a surrealistic tale. The commercial program attempted to parse text inputs, identifying significant nouns and verbs, which it would then regurgitate to create "conversations", plugging the input from the user into phrase templates which it then combined, along with modules that conjugated English verbs. By contrast, the text in The Policeman's Beard, apart from being edited from a large amount of output, would have been the product of Chamberlain's own specialized templates and modules, which were not included in the commercial release of the program. == Reception == The Boston Phoenix called the story Soft Ions "schematic nonsense. But the scheme is obvious enough and the nonsense accessible enough to an attentive reader that one can almost believe Chamberlain when he predicts that before long Racter will be ready to write for the pulp-reading public." PC Magazine described some of Policeman's Beard's scenes as "surprising for their frankness" and "reflective". It concluded that the book was "whimsical and wise and sometimes fun". Computer Gaming World described Racter as "a diversion into another dimension that might best be seen before paying the price of a ticket. (Try before you buy!)" A 1985 review of the program in The New York Times notes that, "As computers move ever closer to artificial intelligence, Racter is on the edge of artificial insanity." It also states that Racter's "always-changing sentences are grammatically correct, often funny and, for a computer, sometimes profound." The article includes examples showing interaction with Racter, most often Racter asking the user questions. == Reviews == Jeux & Stratégie #47

  Read more →
• 

  Cryptographic Module Testing Laboratory

  Cryptographic Module Testing Laboratory (CMTL) is an information technology (IT) computer security testing laboratory that is accredited to conduct cryptographic module evaluations for conformance to the FIPS 140-2 U.S. Government standard. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) accredits CMTLs to meet Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) standards and procedures. This has been replaced by FIPS 140-2 and the Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP). == CMTL requirements == These laboratories must meet the following requirements: NIST Handbook 150, NVLAP Procedures and General Requirements NIST Handbook 150-17 Information Technology Security Testing - Cryptographic Module Testing NVLAP Specific Operations Checklist for Cryptographic Module Testing == FIPS 140-2 in relation to the Common Criteria == A CMTL can also be a Common Criteria (CC) Testing Laboratory (CCTL). The CC and FIPS 140-2 are different in the abstractness and focus of evaluation. FIPS 140-2 testing is against a defined cryptographic module and provides a suite of conformance tests to four FIPS 140 security levels. FIPS 140-2 describes the requirements for cryptographic modules and includes such areas as physical security, key management, self tests, roles and services, etc. The standard was initially developed in 1994 - prior to the development of the CC. The CC is an evaluation against a Protection Profile (PP), or security target (ST). Typically, a PP covers a broad range of products. A CC evaluation does not supersede or replace a validation to either FIPS 140-1, FIPS140-2 or FIPS 140-3. The four security levels in FIPS 140-1 and FIPS 140-2 do not map directly to specific CC EALs or to CC functional requirements. A CC certificate cannot be a substitute for a FIPS 140-1 or FIPS 140-2 certificate. If the operational environment is a modifiable operational environment, the operating system requirements of the Common Criteria are applicable at FIPS Security Levels 2 and above. FIPS 140-1 required evaluated operating systems that referenced the Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC) classes C2, B1 and B2. However, TCSEC is no longer in use and has been replaced by the Common Criteria. Consequently, FIPS 140-2 now references the Common Criteria. FIPS 140-2 or FIPS 140-3 validation efforts can be in some parts reused in Common Criteria evaluations, specifically in areas related to entropy source and cryptographic algorithms.

  Read more →
• 

  Social commerce

  Social commerce is a subset of electronic commerce that involves social media and online media that supports social interaction, and user contributions to assist online buying and selling of products and services. More succinctly, social commerce is the use of social network(s), and user-generated content in the context of e-commerce transactions. The term social commerce was introduced by Yahoo! in November 2005 which describes a set of online collaborative shopping tools such as shared pick lists, user ratings and other user-generated content of online product information and advice. The concept of social commerce was developed by David Beisel to denote user-generated advertorial content on e-commerce sites, and by Steve Rubel to include collaborative e-commerce tools that enable shoppers "to get advice from trusted individuals, find goods and services and then purchase them". The social networks that spread this advice have been found to increase the customer's trust in one retailer over another. Social commerce may assist companies in achieving the following purposes: Firstly, social commerce helps companies engage customers with their brands according to the customers' social behaviors. Secondly, it provides an incentive for customers to return to their website. Thirdly, it provides customers with a platform to talk about their brand on their website. Fourthly, it provides all the information customers need to research, compare, and ultimately choose you over your competitor, thus purchasing from you and not others. In these days, the range of social commerce has been expanded to include social media tools and content used in the context of e-commerce, especially in the fashion industry. Examples of social commerce include customer ratings and reviews, user recommendations and referrals, social shopping tools (sharing the act of shopping online), forums and communities, social media optimization, social applications and social advertising. Technologies such as augmented reality have also been integrated with social commerce, allowing shoppers to visualize apparel items on themselves and solicit feedback through social media tools. Some academics have sought to distinguish "social commerce" from "social shopping", with the former being referred to as collaborative networks of online vendors; the latter, the collaborative activity of online shoppers. == Timeline == 2005: The term "social commerce" was first introduced on Yahoo! in 2005. 2021: The Global Web Index associated one's use of social media to his/her eagerness to buy. Social media with its entertaining and inspirational content can increase a product's profitability. This explains why Instagram expanded its Checkout feature to similar content like IG Stories, IGTV, and Reels. == Elements == The attraction and effectiveness of Social Commerce can be understood in terms of Robert Cialdini's Principles of InfluenceInfluence: Science and Practice": Reciprocity – When a company gives a person something for free, that person will feel the need to return the favor, whether by buying again or giving good recommendations for the company. Community – When people find an individual or a group that shares the same values, likes, beliefs, etc., they find community. People are more committed to a community that they feel accepted within. When this commitment happens, they tend to follow the same trends as a group and when one member introduces a new idea or product, it is accepted more readily based on the previous trust that has been established. It would be beneficial for companies to develop partnerships with social media sites to engage social communities with their products. Social proof – To receive positive feedback, a company needs to be willing to accept social feedback and to show proof that other people are buying, and like, the same things that I like. This can be seen in a lot of online companies such as eBay and Amazon, that allow public feedback of products and when a purchase is made, they immediately generate a list showing purchases that other people have made in relation to my recent purchase. It is beneficial to encourage open recommendation and feedback. This creates trust for you as a seller. 55% of buyers turn to social media when they're looking for information. Authority – Many people need proof that a product is of good quality. This proof can be based on the recommendations of others who have bought the same product. If there are many user reviews about a product, then a consumer will be more willing to trust their own decision to buy this item. Liking – People trust based on the recommendations of others. If there are a lot of "likes" of a particular product, then the consumer will feel more confident and justified in making this purchase. Scarcity – As part of supply and demand, a greater value is assigned to products that are regarded as either being in high demand or are seen as being in a shortage. Therefore, if a person is convinced that they are purchasing something that is unique, special, or not easy to acquire, they will have more of a willingness to make a purchase. If there is trust established from the seller, they will want to buy these items immediately. This can be seen in the cases of Zara and Apple Inc. who create demand for their products by convincing the public that there is a possibility of missing out on being able to purchase them. == Types == === Onsite === Onsite social commerce refers to retailers including social sharing and other social functionality on their website. Some notable examples include Zazzle which enables users to share their purchases, Macy's which allows users to create a poll to find the right product, and Fab.com which shows a live feed of what other shoppers are buying. Onsite user reviews are also considered a part of social commerce. This approach has been successful in improving customer engagement, conversion and word-of-mouth branding according to several industry sources. === Offsite === Offsite social commerce includes activities that happen outside of the retailers' website. This may include posting products on social networks such as Facebook, X, and TikTok. It may also include advertising on shopping forums such as SlickDeals, Red Flag Deals, and LatestDeals.co.uk. == Measurements == Social commerce can be measured by any of the principle ways to measure social media. Return on Investment: measures the effect or action of social media on sales. Reputation: indices measure the influence of social media investment in terms of changes to online reputation – made up of the volume and valence of social media mentions. Reach: metrics use traditional media advertising metrics to measure the exposure rates and levels of an audience with social media. == Business applications == This category is based on individuals' shopping, selling, recommending behaviors. Social network-driven sales (Soldsie) – Facebook commerce and Twitter commerce belong to this part. Sales take place on established social network sites. Peer-to-peer sales platforms (eBay, Etsy, Amazon) – In these websites, users can directly communicate and sell products to other users. Group buying (Groupon, LivingSocial) – Users can buy products or services at a lower price when enough users agree to make this purchase. Peer recommendations and reviews (Amazon, Yelp, Bazaarvoice) – Users can see recommendations and reviews from other users. User-curated shopping (The Fancy, Lyst) – Users create and share lists of products and services for others to shop from. Participatory commerce (Betabrand, Threadless, Kickstarter) – Users can get involved in the production process. Social shopping (Squadded) – Allowing e-commerce to provide their users live chat sessions and shared shopping lists so they can communicate with their friends or other shoppers for advice. == Business examples == Here are some notable business examples of Social Commerce: Betabrand: an online brand using participatory design to release new, community-created ideas every week. Cafepress: an online retailer of stock and user-customized on demand products. Etsy: an e-commerce website focused on handmade or vintage items and supplies, as well as unique factory-manufactured items under Etsy's new guidelines. Eventbrite: an online ticketing service that allows event organizers to plan, set up ticket sales and promote events (event management) and publish them across Facebook, Twitter and other social-networking tools directly from the site's interface. Groupon: a deal-of-the-day website that features discounted gift certificates usable at local or national companies. Houzz: a web site and online community about architecture, interior design and decorating, landscape design and home improvement. LivingSocial: an online marketplace that allows clients to buy and share things to do in their city. Lockerz: an international social commerce website based in Seattle, Washington. OpenSky: is a r

  Read more →
• 

  Azuqua

  Azuqua is an American cloud-based integration and automation company headquartered in Seattle, Washington. As such, they integrate SaaS applications and create automations that are designed to eliminate manual work. Azuqua's platform has the ability to set up workflows between multiple applications so disparate teams can stay in the loop. Azuqua's customers include companies such as Charles Schwab, General Electric, General Motors, HubSpot, and Airbnb. == History == Nikhil Hasija and Craig Unger founded Azuqua in 2011. In 2013, the team participated in Techstars Microsoft's Windows Azure Accelerator, a Seattle-based incubator that helps entrepreneurs gain traction through deep mentor engagement and rapid iteration cycles. Azuqua announced in 2014 that they have received their Series A funding from Ignition Partners which amounted to $5 million. 2017 included a 65% growth in new customers, a doubling of new SaaS connectors, and a 50% growth in overall employee headcount. Azuqua also received their Series B funding which totaled to $10.8 million. This funding was led by Insight Ventures Partners, with DFJ and Ignition Partners also joining the round In March 2018, Azuqua hired Todd Owens as CEO. Owens was previously CEO of Appuri, a customer data platform. Hasija has transitioned to the role of Chief Product Officer. Azuqua also hired on Dan Kogan who has taken on the role of Chief Marketing Officer. Kogan previously worked at Tableau, a BI and analytics company, as a Senior Director of Product Marketing. Okta acquired Azuqua in 2019. == Product Description/Features == Logic Library: Logic functions that can be used for data processing, branching logic, and business rules Drag and Drop Visual Designer: No-code visual designer Use of API's for each cloud service a business is using to allow the various apps to communicate and share data API Publishing: Integrations and automations can be made available as secure endpoints, webhooks, or open services Connector Builder: Build a connector to an application Connector Library: Pre-built connectors to SaaS applications Error Handling: Automations that execute when an error is detected

  Read more →
• 

  Comparison of machine learning software

  The following tables are a comparison of machine learning software such as software frameworks, libraries, and computer programs used for machine learning. == Machine learning software == == Other comparisons == == Machine learning helper libraries and platforms == Apache OpenNLP — natural language processing toolkit CUDA — GPU computing platform used to accelerate machine learning and deep learning workloads Horovod — distributed training framework for deep learning Hugging Face Transformers — library of pretrained transformer models built on other machine learning frameworks Kubeflow — machine learning platform for Kubernetes Mallet — toolkit for natural language processing and text analysis NumPy — numerical computing library used in machine learning OpenCV — computer vision library with machine learning functions ONNX — open format for representing machine learning models pandas — data analysis and data preparation library used in machine learning PlaidML — tensor compiler and backend for machine learning frameworks Polars — Dataframe library used for machine learning data preparation and analysis PyArrow — columnar data library used in machine learning data processing ROOT (TMVA) — data analysis framework with machine learning tools SciPy — scientific computing and optimization library used in machine learning == Online development environments for machine learning == Google Colab — hosted Jupyter Notebook environment commonly used for machine learning and deep learning JupyterLab — notebook-based development environment for machine learning and data science Jupyter Notebook — interactive notebook environment used for machine learning and data science Kaggle — online data science and machine learning platform

  Read more →
• 

  Snake oil (cryptography)

  In cryptography, snake oil is any cryptographic method or product considered to be bogus or fraudulent. The name derives from snake oil, one type of patent medicine widely available in the 19th century United States. Distinguishing secure cryptography from insecure cryptography can be difficult from the viewpoint of a user. Many cryptographers, such as Bruce Schneier and Phil Zimmermann, undertake to educate the public in how secure cryptography is done, as well as highlighting the misleading marketing of some cryptographic products. The Snake Oil FAQ describes itself as "a compilation of common habits of snake oil vendors. It cannot be the sole method of rating a security product, since there can be exceptions to most of these rules. [...] But if you're looking at something that exhibits several warning signs, you're probably dealing with snake oil." == Some examples of snake oil cryptography techniques == This is not an exhaustive list of snake oil signs. A more thorough list is given in the references. Secret system Some encryption systems will claim to rely on a secret algorithm, technique, or device; this is categorized as security through obscurity. Criticisms of this are twofold. First, a 19th-century rule known as Kerckhoffs's principle, later formulated as Shannon's maxim, teaches that "the enemy knows the system" and the secrecy of a cryptosystem algorithm does not provide any advantage. Second, secret methods are not open to public peer review and cryptanalysis, so potential mistakes and insecurities can go unnoticed. Technobabble Snake oil salespeople may use "technobabble" to sell their product since cryptography is a complicated subject. "Unbreakable" Claims of a system or cryptographic method being "unbreakable" are always false (or true under some limited set of conditions), and are generally considered a sure sign of snake oil. "Military grade" There is no accepted standard or criterion for "military grade" ciphers. One-time pads One-time pads are a popular cryptographic method to invoke in advertising, because it is well known that one-time pads, when implemented correctly, are genuinely unbreakable. The problem comes in implementing one-time pads, which is rarely done correctly. Cryptographic systems that claim to be based on one-time pads are considered suspect, particularly if they do not describe how the one-time pad is implemented, or they describe a flawed implementation. Unsubstantiated "bit" claims Cryptographic products are often accompanied with claims of using a high number of bits for encryption, apparently referring to the key length used. However key lengths are not directly comparable between symmetric and asymmetric systems. Furthermore, the details of implementation can render the system vulnerable. For example, in 2008 it was revealed that a number of hard drives sold with built-in "128-bit AES encryption" were actually using a simple and easily defeated "XOR" scheme. AES was only used to store the key, which was easy to recover without breaking AES.

  Read more →
• 

  Conditional disclosure of secrets

  Conditional disclosure of secrets (CDS) is a primitive, studied in information-theoretic cryptography, that allows distributed, non-communicating parties to coordinate the release of information to a third party. CDS was initially introduced for use in the context of private information retrieval, and has been related to communication complexity and non-local quantum computation. == Definition of conditional disclosure of secrets == The conditional disclosure of secrets setting involves three players; Alice, Bob and the referee. Alice receives an input x ∈ { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle x\in \{0,1\}^{n}} and a secret z ∈ { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle z\in \{0,1\}} , and Bob receives a string y ∈ { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle y\in \{0,1\}^{n}} . A choice of Boolean function f : { 0 , 1 } 2 n → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle f:\{0,1\}^{2n}\rightarrow \{0,1\}} is fixed in advance and known to all players. Alice and Bob cannot communicate with one another, but share a string of random bits which we label r {\displaystyle r} . Alice and Bob compute messages m A = m A ( x , z , r ) {\displaystyle m_{A}=m_{A}(x,z,r)} and m B = m B ( y , r ) {\displaystyle m_{B}=m_{B}(y,r)} , which they send to the referee. The referee knows ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} . A CDS protocol consists of the encoding maps applied by Alice and Bob. A protocol is said to be ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } -correct if, for all ( x , y ) ∈ f − 1 ( 1 ) {\displaystyle (x,y)\in f^{-1}(1)} , the referee can determine z {\displaystyle z} with probability 1 − ϵ {\displaystyle 1-\epsilon } . A protocol is said to be δ {\displaystyle \delta } -secure if, for all ( x , y ) ∈ f − 1 ( 0 ) {\displaystyle (x,y)\in f^{-1}(0)} the distribution of the messages is δ {\displaystyle \delta } close to a simulator distribution (in total variation distance), where the simulator distribution is independent of z {\displaystyle z} . The communication complexity of a CDS protocol P is the total number of bits of message sent by Alice and Bob. The CDS communication cost of a function, C D S ϵ , δ ( f ) {\displaystyle CDS_{\epsilon ,\delta }(f)} is the minimal communication cost of an ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } -correct, δ {\displaystyle \delta } secure protocol that implements f {\displaystyle f} . The randomness complexity and randomness cost of implementing a function in the CDS model are defined similarly, but consider the number of bits of shared random bits held by Alice and Bob. == Basic properties of the primitive == === Amplification === Supposing we have an ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } -correct and δ {\displaystyle \delta } -secure CDS protocol, it is known that we can find a new protocol which reduces the correctness and privacy errors at the expense of an increased communication and randomness cost. More specifically, the following theorem has been proven Theorem (Amplification). A CDS protocol for f which supports a single-bit secret with privacy and correctness error of 1/3 can be transformed into a new CDS protocol with privacy and correctness error of 2 − Ω ( k ) {\displaystyle 2^{-\Omega (k)}} and communication/randomness complexity which are larger than those of the original protocol by a multiplicative factor of O(k). In fact, somewhat more than the above theorem is true in that the size of the secret can also be made to be of length k {\displaystyle k} , while simultaneously reducing the correctness and privacy errors as above. The proof involves first encoding the secret z {\displaystyle z} into a secret sharing scheme, and then running the original CDS protocol on each share of the resulting scheme. === Closure === If a CDS protocol for a function f {\displaystyle f} is known, then certain simple modifications of f {\displaystyle f} have CDS protocols with similar efficiency. The simplest case is to consider a CDS protocol for function f {\displaystyle f} and ask for a similarly efficient protocol for the negation of f {\displaystyle f} , labelled ¬ f {\displaystyle \neg f} . This is addressed by the following theorem Theorem (CDS is closed under complement). Suppose that f has a CDS protocol with randomness cost of ρ {\displaystyle \rho } bits, communication complexity of t {\displaystyle t} bits, and privacy and correctness errors δ = ϵ = 2 − k {\displaystyle \delta =\epsilon =2^{-k}} . Then ¬ f {\displaystyle \neg f} has a CDS scheme with similar privacy and correctness errors, and randomness and communication complexity of O ( k 3 ρ 2 t + k 3 ρ 3 ) {\displaystyle O(k^{3}\rho ^{2}t+k^{3}\rho ^{3})} . The cost of a CDS protocol is also closed under formula's, in the following sense. Consider two functions f 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}} and f 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}} . Then, the communication and randomness costs of f 1 ∧ f 2 {\displaystyle f_{1}\wedge f_{2}} as well as f 1 ∨ f 2 {\displaystyle f_{1}\vee f_{2}} are not much larger than the sum of the costs for f 1 {\displaystyle f_{1}} and f 2 {\displaystyle f_{2}} . See Applebaum et al. for a precise statement. == Upper and lower bounds on communication cost == Given a function f {\displaystyle f} we would like to understand the communication and randomness costs to implement f {\displaystyle f} in the CDS setting. Towards understanding this, protocols for implementing CDS have been developed (which give an upper bound on the cost) and lower bound strategies have been developed. For most functions, there is a large gap between the known upper and lower bound, so understanding the cost of CDS remains largely an open problem. This section presents some of what is known so far about the cost of CDS. === Secret sharing based upper bound === A subject with a close relationship to CDS is secret sharing. Secret sharing constructions provide an upper bound on the cost of CDS protocols. A secret sharing scheme encodes a secret, s {\displaystyle s} into a set of shares S 1 , . . . , S n {\displaystyle S_{1},...,S_{n}} . Associated to any secret sharing scheme is an access structure, which consists of a set of authorized sets A = A 1 , . . . , A k {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}={A_{1},...,A_{k}}} with A i ⊆ { S 1 , . . . , S n } {\displaystyle A_{i}\subseteq \{S_{1},...,S_{n}\}} . The authorized sets are those subsets of the A i {\displaystyle A_{i}} from which it is possible to recover the secret recorded into the scheme. A succinct way to describe an access structure is in terms of a function f A : { 0 , 1 } n → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}:\{0,1\}^{n}\rightarrow \{0,1\}} . Each subset of the shares K [ x ] ⊂ { S 1 , . . . , S n } {\displaystyle K[x]\subset \{S_{1},...,S_{n}\}} is labelled by a string x ∈ { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle x\in \{0,1\}^{n}} such that x i = 1 {\displaystyle x_{i}=1} if and only if S i ∈ K {\displaystyle S_{i}\in K} . Then we define f A {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}} to be such that f A ( x ) = 1 {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}(x)=1} if and only if K [ x ] ∈ A {\displaystyle K[x]\in {\mathcal {A}}} . In words, the function f A {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}} is 1 when given an authorized subset as input, and 0 otherwise. A basic result in the theory of secret sharing is that an access structure A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} can be realized in a secret sharing scheme if and only if f A {\displaystyle f_{\mathcal {A}}} is monotone. The size of a secret sharing scheme is defined as the total number of bits in the shares S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} . For monotone functions, there is an upper bound on the communication cost in CDS for any monotone function f {\displaystyle f} in terms of the size of any secret sharing scheme with access structure given by f {\displaystyle f} , C D S ϵ = 0 , δ = 0 ( f ) ≤ S h a r i n g S i z e ( f ) {\displaystyle CDS_{\epsilon =0,\delta =0}(f)\leq SharingSize(f)} For some concrete classes of secret sharing schemes, this relationship can be extended to general (non-monotone) Boolean functions. This leads to an upper bound on CDS cost in terms of the size of any span program that computes f {\displaystyle f} , C D S ϵ = 0 , δ = 0 ( f ) ≤ S P k ( f ) {\displaystyle CDS_{\epsilon =0,\delta =0}(f)\leq SP_{k}(f)} The class of problems with efficient (polynomial size) span program is the complexity class M o d k L {\displaystyle Mod_{k}L} , so problems in this class have efficient CDS protocols. === Sub-exponential upper bounds for all functions === Using a matching vector family based construction, it has been proven that ∀ f , C D S ϵ = 0 , δ = 0 ( f ) ≤ 2 O ( n log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle \forall f,\,\,\,\,\,\,CDS_{\epsilon =0,\delta =0}(f)\leq 2^{O({\sqrt {n\log n}})}} . The technique for this proof is similar to one used to prove upper bounds on private information retrieval. This upper bound on CDS also leads to sub-exponential upper bounds on the size of a large class of secret sharing schemes. === Lower bounds from communication complexity === In a CDS protocol, the referee is given the inputs ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} . This means it is not clear if the messages sent by Alice a

  Read more →