AI Detector That Colleges Use

AI Detector That Colleges Use — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Patent visualisation

    Patent visualisation

    Patent visualisation is an application of information visualisation. The number of patents has been increasing, encouraging companies to consider intellectual property as a part of their strategy. Patent visualisation, like patent mapping, is used to quickly view a patent portfolio. Software dedicated to patent visualisation began to appear in 2000, for example Aureka from Aurigin (now owned by Thomson Reuters). Many patent and portfolio analytics platforms, such as Questel, Patent Forecast, PatSnap, Patentcloud, Relecura, and Patent iNSIGHT Pro, offer options to visualise specific data within patent documents by creating topic maps, priority maps, IP Landscape reports, etc. Software converts patents into infographics or maps, to allow the analyst to "get insight into the data" and draw conclusions. Also called patinformatics, it is the "science of analysing patent information to discover relationships and trends that would be difficult to see when working with patent documents on a one-and-one basis". Patents contain structured data (like publication numbers) and unstructured text (like title, abstract, claims and visual info). Structured data are processed by data-mining and unstructured data are processed with text-mining. == Data mining == The main step in processing structured information is data-mining, which emerged in the late 1980s. Data mining involves statistics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. Patent data mining extracts information from the structured data of the patent document. These structured data are bibliographic fields such as location, date or status. === Structured fields === === Advantages === Data mining allows study of filing patterns of competitors and locates main patent filers within a specific area of technology. This approach can be helpful to monitor competitors' environments, moves and innovation trends and gives a macro view of a technology status. == Text-mining == === Principle === Text mining is used to search through unstructured text documents. This technique is widely used on the Internet, it has had success in bioinformatics and now in the intellectual property environment. Text mining is based on a statistical analysis of word recurrence in a corpus. An algorithm extracts words and expressions from title, summary and claims and gathers them by declension. "And" and "if" are labeled as non-information bearing words and are stored in the stopword list. Stoplists can be specialised in order to create an accurate analysis. Next, the algorithm ranks the words by weight, according to their frequency in the patent's corpus and the document frequency containing this word. The score for each word is calculated using a formula such as: W e i g h t = T e r m F r e q u e n c y D o c u m e n t F r e q u e n c y = F r e q u e n c y o f t h e w o r d o r e x p r e s s i o n i n t h e T e x t S e a N u m b e r o f d o c u m e n t s c o n t a i n i n g t h e e x p r e s s i o n o r w o r d {\displaystyle Weight={\frac {Term\ Frequency}{Document\ Frequency}}={\frac {Frequency\ of\ the\ word\ or\ expression\ in\ the\ Text\ Sea}{Number\ of\ documents\ containing\ the\ expression\ or\ word}}} A frequently used word in several documents has less weight than a word used frequently in a few patents. Words under a minimum weight are eliminated, leaving a list of pertinent words or descriptors. Each patent is associated to the descriptors found in the selected document. Further, in the process of clusterisation, these descriptors are used as subsets, in which the patent are regrouped or as tags to place the patents in predetermined categories, for example keywords from International Patent Classifications. Four text parts can be processed with text-mining : Title Abstract Claim Patent Full-Text Software offer different combinations but title, abstract and claim are generally the most used, providing a good balance between interferences and relevancy. === Advantages === Text-mining can be used to narrow a search or quickly evaluate a patent corpus. For instance, if a query produces irrelevant documents, a multi-level clustering hierarchy identifies them in order to delete them and refine the search. Text-mining can also be used to create internal taxonomies specific to a corpus for possible mapping. == Visualisations == Allying patent analysis and informatic tools offers an overview of the environment through value-added visualisations. As patents contain structured and unstructured information, visualisations fall in two categories. Structured data can be rendered with data mining in macrothematic maps and statistical analysis. Unstructured information can be shown in like clouds, cluster maps and 2D keyword maps. === Data mining visualisation === === Text mining visualisation === === Visualisation for both data-mining and text-mining === Mapping visualisations can be used for both text-mining and data-mining results. == Uses == What patent visualisation can highlight: Competitors Partners New innovations Technologic environment description Networks Field application: R&D strategy management Competitive intelligence Licensing Strategy

    Read more →
  • Feeding the Machine (book)

    Feeding the Machine (book)

    Feeding the Machine: The Hidden Human Labour Powering AI is a 2024 book by James Muldoon, Mark Graham and Callum Cant. == Writing == The authors developed the concept for the book while doing fieldwork studying data annotation in developing countries in East Africa. == Synopsis == The book examines the human input needed to develop and sustain AI ecosystems. == Reception == The book received positive reviews. Rosalie Waelen of Capital & Class gave it a mostly positive review. Tim Hornyak of Literary Review praised it. Kirkus Reviews called it "A sobering and timely—if sometimes distracted—study of AI.". Publishers Weekly gave the book a starred review, writing that "The grim real-life stories read like dystopian parables, such as the account of a European voice actor whose recordings were legally used without her consent to create an inexpensive synthetic clone whom she now competes with for business. Driven by striking reporting and finely observed profiles, this unsettles."

    Read more →
  • Oasis (Minecraft clone)

    Oasis (Minecraft clone)

    Oasis is a 2024 video game that attempts to replicate the 2011 sandbox game Minecraft, run entirely using generative artificial intelligence. The project, which began development in 2022 between the AI company Decart and the computer hardware startup Etched, was released by Decart to the public on October 31, 2024. The AI-driven simulation uses "next-frame prediction" to anticipate player actions based on keyboard and mouse inputs, trained on millions of hours of gameplay footage. Without memory or code, the game often outputs unpredictable changes in scenery and inventory, limiting its functionality as a traditional video game. Critics noted its lack of sound, low frame rate, and "dream-like" appearance, though some praised its unpredictability as entertaining. The project is seen as a potential proof of concept for AI-driven video games. == Creation and gameplay == The demo "proof of concept" version of the game was developed by Israeli San Francisco–based AI company Decart and Silicon Valley hardware startup Etched. The idea originated in 2022 when Robert Wachen, a Harvard graduate and co-founder of Etched, met Dean Leitersdorf, an Israel Institute of Technology graduate and co-founder of Decart. Sharing an interest in OpenAI's GPT-3, they collaborated to create the game, naming it after the setting of the novel and film Ready Player One. It was funded by a $21 million grant from Israeli-American billionaire Oren Zeev and New York–based Sequoia Capital. Decart released the game to the public for free on October 31, 2024. The AI replicates Minecraft's gameplay without code using "next-frame prediction", in which the AI tries to predict what the player will see after each keyboard and mouse input, which it was trained to do on millions of hours of Minecraft footage. The game used Nvidia graphics processing units or GPUs for its demo but plans to transition to more energy-efficient Sohu GPUs, under development by Etched, capable of supporting up to 4K graphics. Etched has also suggested the possibility of making the game open source in the future. Alongside Oasis, the company is co-developing AI-generated video and educational content. == Reception == Upon its launch, many players posted videos of their experience with the game online, which often showed Oasis could not maintain coherent logic in its actions or setting. The game also presented low-quality graphics, running between 360p and 720p consistently at 20 FPS, no in-game sound, and could only be played for five minutes at a time before restarting. These issues led some news outlets to refer to the game as a "nightmarish hallucination", and drawing comparisons to dementia and dreams. Despite the negative reviews, Leitersdorf, as well as a number of commentators, have commented that while the game may have fallen short of replicating Minecraft in its demo launch, it was the first step towards something more advanced, which could one day resemble Minecraft or any other game. Online publication The Backdash commented the game could be a "glimpse at the future of game development", while others like Tom's Hardware expressed doubts a game without code could ever look as good as one with, arguing they fail to capture "the point of what makes games fun—or even coherent". In terms of legality, Decart and Etched did not receive permission from Microsoft to create a copy of their game using generative artificial intelligence. No legal actions have been taken by the latter, however, as artificial intelligence and copyright remains largely vague legally.

    Read more →
  • Cube 3D

    Cube 3D

    Cube 3D is an artificial intelligence model that is developed by Roblox Corporation. It is open source and available on GitHub and Hugging Face. In March 2026, Roblox announced Cube 3D as a mesh generation model that takes text input. In February 2026, Roblox released 4D creation in a public beta, allowing embedding Cube 3D into Roblox games. Cube 3D is integrated into Roblox Studio and its API, and supports two modes of 4D creation. == History == In March 2025, Roblox announced Cube 3D as a mesh generation model that takes text input. Its first feature was an API that allows mesh generation. That month, it was made open source. Over 1.8 million assets have been generated by Cube 3D since March 2025. In March 2025, 4D creation was announced. That November, 4D creation was released in early access. In February 2026, Roblox released 4D creation in a public beta, allowing embedding Cube 3D into Roblox games. == Technology == Cube 3D is trained on Roblox meshes. To generate meshes, it tokenises meshes and shapes and predicts the next token. Cube 3D is integrated into Roblox Studio and the Roblox Studio API. Its API allows mesh generation. In 4D creation, two modes can be used. Car-5 supports modular objects, and Body-1 only supports single-mesh objects.

    Read more →
  • List of large language models

    List of large language models

    A large language model (LLM) is a type of machine learning model designed for natural language processing tasks such as language generation. LLMs are language models with many parameters, and are trained with self-supervised learning on a vast amount of text. == List == For the training cost column, 1 petaFLOP-day equals 1 petaFLOP/sec × 1 day, or 8.64×1019 FLOP (floating point operations). Only the cost of the largest model is shown. The number of parameters is measured in billions, and the training cost is measured in petaFLOP-days. === 2018 === === 2019 === === 2020 === === 2021 === === 2022 === === 2023 === === 2024 === === 2025 === === 2026 ===

    Read more →
  • Sword Art Online

    Sword Art Online

    Sword Art Online (Japanese: ソードアート・オンライン, Hepburn: Sōdo Āto Onrain) is a Japanese light novel series written by Reki Kawahara and illustrated by abec. The series takes place in the 2020s and focuses on protagonists Kazuto "Kirito" Kirigaya and Asuna Yuuki as they play through various virtual reality MMORPG worlds, and later their involvement in the matters of a simulated civilization. Kawahara originally released the series as a web novel on his website from 2002 to 2008. The light novels began publication on ASCII Media Works' Dengeki Bunko imprint from April 10, 2009, with a spin-off series launching in October 2012. The series has spawned twelve manga adaptations published by ASCII Media Works and Kadokawa. The novels and the manga adaptations have been licensed for release in North America by Yen Press. An anime television series produced by A-1 Pictures, known simply as Sword Art Online, aired in Japan between July and December 2012, with a television film Sword Art Online: Extra Edition airing on December 31, 2013, and a second season, titled Sword Art Online II, airing between July and December 2014. An animated film titled Sword Art Online the Movie: Ordinal Scale, featuring an original story by Kawahara, premiered in Japan and Southeast Asia on February 18, 2017, and was released in the United States on March 9, 2017. A spin-off anime series titled Sword Art Online Alternative: Gun Gale Online premiered in April 2018, while a third season titled Sword Art Online: Alicization aired from October 2018 to September 2020. An anime film adaptation of Sword Art Online: Progressive titled Sword Art Online Progressive: Aria of a Starless Night premiered on October 30, 2021. A second film titled Sword Art Online Progressive: Scherzo of Deep Night premiered on October 22, 2022. Many video games based on the series have been released for consoles, PC, and mobile devices. Sword Art Online has achieved widespread commercial success, with the light novels having over 30 million copies sold worldwide. The anime series has received mixed to positive reviews, with praise for its animation, musical score, and exploration of the psychological aspects of virtual reality, but it has also been met with criticisms for its pacing and writing. == Synopsis == === Setting === The light novel series spans several virtual reality worlds, beginning with the game, Sword Art Online (SAO), which is set in a world known as Aincrad. Each world is built on a game engine called Cardinal system, which was initially developed specifically for SAO by Akihiko Kayaba, but was later duplicated for Alfheim Online (ALO), and a consolidated package is later given to Kirito in the form of the World Seed, who had it leaked online with the successful intention of reviving the virtual reality industry. A third world known as Gun Gale Online (GGO) appears in the third arc and is stylized as a first-person shooter game instead of a role-playing game, and is the main setting of Alternative Gun Gale Online. It was created using the World Seed by an American company. A fourth world appears in the fourth arc known as the Underworld (UW). The world itself was created using the World Seed as a base, but it is as realistic as the real world due to using many powerful government resources to keep it running. === Plot === In 2022, a virtual reality massively multiplayer online role-playing game (VRMMORPG) called Sword Art Online (SAO) was released. With the NerveGear, a helmet that stimulates the user's five senses via their brain, players can experience and control their in-game characters with their minds. Both the game and the NerveGear were created by Akihiko Kayaba. On November 6, 10,000 players log into SAO's mainframe cyberspace for the first time, only to discover that they are unable to log out. Kayaba appears and tells the players that they must beat all 100 floors of Aincrad, a steel castle which is the setting of SAO, if they wish to be free. He also states that those who suffer in-game deaths or forcibly remove the NerveGear out-of-game will suffer real-life deaths. A player named Kazuto "Kirito" Kirigaya is one of 1,000 testers in the game's previous closed beta. With the advantage of previous VR gaming experience and a drive to protect other beta testers from discrimination, he isolates himself from the greater groups and plays the game alone, bearing the mantle of "beater", a portmanteau of "beta tester" and "cheater". As the players progress through the game Kirito eventually befriends a young woman named Asuna Yuuki, forming a relationship with and later marrying her in-game. After the duo discover the identity of Kayaba's secret ID, who was playing as "Heathcliff", the leader of the guild Asuna joined in, they confront and destroy him, freeing themselves and the other players from the game. In the real world, Kazuto discovers that 300 SAO players, including Asuna, remain trapped in their NerveGear. As he goes to the hospital to see Asuna, he meets Asuna's father Shouzou Yuuki who is asked by an associate of his, Nobuyuki Sugou, to make a decision, which Sugou later reveals to be his marriage with Asuna, angering Kazuto. Several months later, he is informed by Agil, another SAO survivor, that a figure similar to Asuna was spotted on "The World Tree" in another VRMMORPG cyberspace called Alfheim Online (ALO). Assisted in-game by his cousin and adoptive sister Suguha "Leafa" Kirigaya and Yui, a navigation pixie (originally an AI from SAO), he quickly learns that the trapped players in ALO are part of a plan conceived by Sugou to perform illegal experiments on their minds. The goal is to create the perfect mind-control for financial gain and to subjugate Asuna, whom he intends to marry in the real world, to assume control of her family's corporation. Kirito eventually stops the experiment and rescues the remaining 300 SAO players, foiling Sugou's plans. Before leaving ALO to see Asuna, Kayaba, who has uploaded his mind to the Internet using an experimental, destructively high-powered version of NerveGear at the cost of his life, entrusts Kirito with The Seed – a package program designed to create virtual worlds. Kazuto eventually reunites with Asuna in the real world after thwarting an attack from Sugou and The Seed is released onto the Internet, reviving Aincrad as other VRMMORPGs begin to thrive. One year after the events of SAO, at the prompting of a government official investigating strange occurrences in VR, Kazuto takes on a job to investigate a series of murders involving another VRMMORPG called Gun Gale Online (GGO), the AmuSphere (the successor of the NerveGear), and a player called Death Gun. Aided by a female player named Shino "Sinon" Asada, he participates in a gunfight tournament called the Bullet of Bullets (BoB) and discovers the truth behind the murders, which originated with a player who participated in a player-killing guild in SAO. Through his and Sinon's efforts, two suspects are captured, though the third suspect, Johnny Black, escapes. Kazuto is later recruited to test an experimental FullDive machine, Soul Translator (STL), which has an interface far more realistic and complex than the previous machine he had played, to help RATH, a research and development organization under the Ministry of Defense (MOD), develop an artificial intelligence named A.L.I.C.E. He tests the STL by entering the Underworld (UW), a virtual reality cyberspace created with The Seed package. In the UW, the flow of time proceeds a thousand times faster than in the real world, and Kirito's memories of what happens inside are restricted. However, when Johnny Black ambushes and mortally wounds Kazuto with suxamethonium chloride, RATH recovers Kazuto and places him back into the STL to preserve his mind while attempts are made to save him. During his time in Underworld, Kirito befriends Eugeo, a carver in a small village of Rulid, and helps him on a journey to save Alice Zuberg, his friend who was taken by a group of highly skilled warriors known as the Integrity Knights for accidentally breaking a rule of the Axiom Church, the leaders of the Human Empire. He and Eugeo soon find themselves uncovering the secrets of the Axiom Church, led by a woman only known as "The Administrator", and the true purpose of Underworld itself, while unbeknownst to them, a war against the opposing Dark Territory is brewing on the horizon. They meet Alice, now an Integrity Knight, and though she does not remember them, Kirito helps her remember her true identity: a form of true artificial intelligence known as A.L.I.C.E. In the battle against the Administrator, Kirito manages to slay her, though Eugeo dies in the process, to Kirito's dismay. Meanwhile, in the real world, conflict escalates as American forces raid RATH's facility in the Ocean Turtle in an effort to take A.L.I.C.E. for purposes unknown. Two of the attackers - Gabriel "Vecta" Miller and Vassago "Prince of Hell" Cassals - take contr

    Read more →
  • AI Now Institute

    AI Now Institute

    The AI Now Institute (AI Now) is an American research institute studying the social implications of artificial intelligence and policy research that addresses the concentration of power in the tech industry. AI Now has partnered with organizations such as the Distributed AI Research Institute (DAIR), Data & Society, Ada Lovelace Institute, New York University Tandon School of Engineering, New York University Center for Data Science, Partnership on AI, and the ACLU. AI Now has produced annual reports that examine the social implications of artificial intelligence. In 2021–22, AI Now's leadership served as a Senior Advisors on AI to Chair Lina Khan at the Federal Trade Commission. Its executive director is Amba Kak. == Founding and mission == AI Now grew out of a 2016 symposium organized by Obama's White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The event was led by Meredith Whittaker, the founder of Google's Open Research Group, and Kate Crawford, a principal researcher at Microsoft Research. The event focused on near-term implications of AI in social domains: Inequality, Labor, Ethics, and Healthcare. In November 2017, AI Now held a second symposium on AI and social issues, and publicly launched the AI Now Institute in partnership with New York University. It is claimed to be the first university research institute focused on the social implications of AI, and the first AI institute founded and led by women. It is now a fully independent institute. In an interview with NPR, Crawford stated that the motivation for founding AI Now was that the application of AI into social domains - such as health care, education, and criminal justice - was being treated as a purely technical problem. The goal of AI Now's research is to treat these as social problems first, and bring in domain experts in areas like sociology, law, and history to study the implications of AI. == Research == AI Now publishes an annual report on the state of AI and its integration into society. Its 2017 report stated that "current framings of AI ethics are failing" and provided ten strategic recommendations for the field - including pre-release trials of AI systems, and increased research into bias and diversity in the field. The report was noted for calling for an end to "black box" systems in core social domains, such as those responsible for criminal justice, healthcare, welfare, and education. In April 2018, AI Now released a framework for algorithmic impact assessments, as a way for governments to assess the use of AI in public agencies. According to AI Now, an AIA would be similar to environmental impact assessment, in that it would require public disclosure and access for external experts to evaluate the effects of an AI system, and any unintended consequences. This would allow systems to be vetted for issues like biased outcomes or skewed training data, which researchers have already identified in algorithmic systems deployed across the country. Its 2023 Report argued that meaningful reform of the tech sector must focus on addressing concentrated power in the tech industry.

    Read more →
  • GITEX AI Europe

    GITEX AI Europe

    GITEX AI Europe is an annual technology trade show and conference held in Berlin, Germany, as part of GITEX GLOBAL. The event focuses on the European technology market, specifically in the sectors of artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity, quantum computing, and digital infrastructure. The event is organized by Kaoun International GmbH, the international arm of the Dubai World Trade Centre (DWTC), in partnership with Messe Berlin. == History == The establishment of GITEX AI Europe was announced in 2023 as part of a strategic move to bring the GITEX brand to the European market. The inaugural edition took place from May 21 to 23, 2025, at the Messe Berlin exhibition grounds. The launch was supported by the Berlin Senate and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action. The first edition of GITEX AI Europe in 2025 featured 21,650 attendees, 1,434 exhibiting companies, and 755 startups, with 513 speakers representing 125 countries. The next edition is scheduled for June 30 – July 1, 2026 in Berlin. == Program == The event consists of an exhibition floor for corporate displays, several conference stages for keynote speeches, and specialized sub-events. The conference program includes tracks such as "AI Stack Sovereignty," "Cyber Regulation & Trust Convergence," and "Institutional Growth Capital." GITEX AI Europe incorporates brands under its umbrella: AI Everything Europe: Focused on the development and application of generative AI and machine learning. North Star Europe: A dedicated program for startups and venture capital, featuring the "Supernova Challenge" pitch competition. GISEC Europe: A cybersecurity forum discussing regulation and infrastructure defense. GITEX Quantum Expo: Focused on the commercialization of quantum computing. Institutional partners for the event include the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, the European Innovation Council (EIC), the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Bitkom, and Digital Dubai.

    Read more →
  • Packed pixel

    Packed pixel

    In packed pixel or chunky framebuffer organization, the bits defining each pixel are clustered and stored consecutively. For example, if there are 16 bits per pixel, each pixel is represented in two consecutive (contiguous) 8-bit bytes in the framebuffer. If there are 4 bits per pixel, each framebuffer byte defines two pixels, one in each nibble. The latter example is as opposed to storing a single 4-bit pixel in a byte, leaving 4 bits of the byte unused. If a pixel has more than one channel, the channels are interleaved when using packed pixel organization. Packed pixel displays were common on early microcomputer system that shared a single main memory for both the central processing unit (CPU) and display driver. In such systems, memory was normally accessed a byte at a time, so by packing the pixels, the display system could read out several pixels worth of data in a single read operation. Packed pixel is one of two major ways to organize graphics data in memory, the other being planar organization, where each pixel is made of individual bits stored in their own plane. For a 4-bit color value, memory would be organized as four screen-sized planes of one bit each and a single pixel's value built up by selecting the appropriate bit from each plane. Planar organization has the advantage that the data can be accessed in parallel, and is used when memory bandwidth is an issue.

    Read more →
  • Opposition to AI data centers

    Opposition to AI data centers

    Since 2024, dozens of local community-led protest campaigns have emerged in opposition to AI data centers. == Motivations == Organized opposition to AI data centers has been driven by concerns about energy use, energy costs, noise pollution, air pollution, and water waste. Opposition sentiment is widespread with a Gallup poll conducted in March 2026 showing that 70% of respondents oppose the construction of new AI data centers in their neighborhood. == Impact == In 2025, local opposition to AI data centers led to the delay or cancellation of projects totalling US$156 billion. == Specific protests and outcomes in the United States == According to Data Center Watch, there are has been a wave of dozens of protests against AI data centers since 2022. Below is a non-exhaustive list of some notable examples. === Goodyear and Buckeye, Arizona: Tract AI Data Center Proposal === In Goodyear and Buckeye, Arizona, a $14 billion project by developer Tract was withdrawn after local authorities blocked necessary rezoning in response to pressure from resident organizers. Opponest stiff resistance due to concerns over building heights, noise pollution, and the potential strain on local utilities. However, the company announced a revised project near the Buckeye airport in August 2024, with the backing of local officials and the mayor. === Peculiar, Missouri: Diode Ventures Harper Road Technology Park Proposal === In Peculiar, Missouri, residents from the group "Peaceful Peculiar" organized to stop a data center proposal from Diode Ventures called Harper Road Technology Park. Citing concerns around noise and light pollution, health, environmental impacts, jobs, property values, and energy use, organizers attended local planning and zoning meetings in large numbers and lobbied councilors to reject the proposal. Ultimately, the city council unanimously rejected the proposal in September 2024. === Chesterton, Indiana: Provident Realty Advisors Proposal === In Chesterton, Indiana, the Texas-based company Provident Reality Advisors applied for a $1.3 billion construction of a data center complex on the Brassie Golf Club property. Provident Realty Advisors wanted to purchase the 200 acres owned by PPM Chesterton LLC in 2024 order to build a data center complex, with eight buildings and an end user of a hyperscaler. The Town Council of Chesterton released a statement saying that they would never support this project, at least not at the scale and location it was planned for. They cited fears of added noise for locals, electrical or water management concerns, the intrusiveness of a data center built next to houses, and more. Provident released a statement shortly after rescinding their plan, because it was clear than the town of Chesterton would not support them. === Cascade Locks, Oregon: Roundhouse Digital Infrastructure Proposal === Startup data center developer Roundhouse Digital Infrastructure had planned to build out a 10-megawatt data center using a vacant industrial building and nearby 10-acre site in the Port of Cascade Locks, Oregon. After significant organized community opposition, the project was abandoned. === Forth Worth, Texas: WUSF 5 Rock Creek East Proposal === In September 2024, the City Council of Fort Worth, Texas approved a zoning change that would allow construction of a data center. In responses, neighbors mounted opposition citing concerns about traffic, light pollution, energy consumption, water use, and noise issues if the data center were to be built. In response to extensive public comments opposing a tax break for the data center, a city councilor withdrew his motion to approve the tax break. As of April, 2026, the future of the project is still uncertain. === Santa Clara, California: GI Partners Proposal === GI partners sought to build a new AI data center in Santa Clara, California, which is already home to many data centers, by acquiring a conditional permit use that would have allowed the developer to knock down a property and replace it with a data center. To obtain this permit they were required to go before members of the Planning Commission. Ultimately, the project was delayed with the Planning Commission requiring GI partners to do more public outreach. === Virginia === ==== Richmond: DC Blox Proposal ==== After residents organized to lobby the municipal government to block the proposal to avoid noise pollution and higher energy use, commissioners denied the company's permit. ==== Catlett Station: Headwaters Site Proposal ==== In Catlett, Virginia, developer Headwaters proposed construction of a data center complex just north of the town in 2020. In response, a residents' organization called "Protect Catlett" was formed to oppose the project. Arguments against the data center involved its impacts on water and power availability, its noise as a residential disturbance, and its destruction of historic and community heritage buildings. Arguments in favor cited job creation and $20 million in local tax revenue if the project were to go through. Protect Catlett utilized town halls and public comments to mobilize opposition to the project. They also dedicated time to educating other residents about the project's negative impacts and canvassing door-to-door in order to garner even more opposition to the project. Ultimately, after fervent opposition from most town residents, the project was canceled by the town and the developer. ==== Culpeper County: Culpeper Acquisitions Proposal ==== Culpeper Acquisitions, LLC, proposed a massive $12 billion data center project in Culpeper County, Virginia, designed to feature 4.6 million square feet of space across nine multi-story buildings. Coalition to Save Culpeper (C2SC) is an activist organization formed to resist the development of the project. C2SC has been active on many fronts including, messaging on social media, reaching out to local officials, and organizing meetings to bring community members with aligned interests together. Ultimately, the project was delayed due to unanimous denial by the Culpeper County Planning Commission on June 12, 2024, which was driven by intense opposition from C2SC. C2SC was successful in their mission largely because they were able to get so many people from the community behind it, and put enough pressure on local officials to take action. ==== Midlothian: Province Group Proposal ==== In late October 2025, the Powhatan County Board of Supervisors in Virginia voted unanimously to approve the $3 billion data center, despite the county's Planning Commission having unanimously recommended denial several days earlier. The reasoning behind their support for the center is that it will generate substantial tax revenue, reducing the county's reliance on residential property taxes. This appeal of lowering residential property taxes is the major selling point for the center's development. The developer, California-based Province Group, incentivized the Board by being agreeable to its conditions for building the center. The center is still on track for development, but faces local resistance, though little information is available on specific groups opposing it. ==== Warrenton: Amazon Proposal ==== Citizens for Farquier County (CFFC) advocates to "preserve the natural, historic and agricultural resources" of their county. Historically, this has meant opposing the building of a dam or lights in front of fast food stores. This group has recently mobilized in opposition of a plan to build data centers for Amazon. They first filed a suit to stop the construction in 2023 and it has been in litigation ever since. The case hinges on opposition to a 2021 zoning amendment which allowed data centers to be built in town. CFFC's lawyer, Dale Mullen, argues that this amendment violates state law, which requires such amendments to state their "public purpose". They argue that the permit for the Amazon data center was "void from the beginning". The CFFC also organized to vote out town council members who approved the first data center and were up for reelection, replacing them with candidates who opposed the data center. In May 2025, after attending town council meetings to speak out against the data center, the planning commission voted 4–1 to remove the zoning amendment allowing data center construction in town, citing public opposition. Currently, CFFC is advocating along with Piedmont Environmental Group, for phasing out data center tax breaks at the state level. ==== France: Marseille opposition ==== In France, local opposition materialised in response to proposed data centre developments, especially in and around the city of Marseille. Opposition came from activists, such as "Clouds Were Under Our Feet" group, residents ,and local politicians. Issues raised related to energy use, environmental impact, and limited local benefits (such as the creation of a few jobs only). == Legislation in the United States == Legal limits and moratoriums on the construction of new d

    Read more →
  • Tamarin Prover

    Tamarin Prover

    Tamarin Prover is a computer software program for formal verification of cryptographic protocols. It has been used to verify Transport Layer Security 1.3, ISO/IEC 9798, DNP3 Secure Authentication v5, WireGuard, and the PQ3 Messaging Protocol of Apple iMessage. Tamarin is an open source tool, written in Haskell, built as a successor to an older verification tool called Scyther. Tamarin has automatic proof features, but can also be self-guided. In Tamarin lemmas that representing security properties are defined. After changes are made to a protocol, Tamarin can verify if the security properties are maintained. The results of a Tamarin execution will either be a proof that the security property holds within the protocol, an example protocol run where the security property does not hold, or Tamarin could potentially fail to halt.

    Read more →
  • HYPO CBR

    HYPO CBR

    HYPO is a computer program, an expert system, that models reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in the legal domain. It is the first of its kind and the most sophisticated of the case-based legal reasoners, which was designed by Kevin Ashley for his Ph.D dissertation in 1987 at the University of Massachusetts Amherst under the supervision of Edwina Rissland. HYPO's design represents a hybrid generalization/comparative evaluation method appropriate for a domain with a weak analytical theory and applies to tasks that rarely involve just one right answer. The domain covers US trade secret law, and is substantially a common law domain. Since Anglo-American common law operates under the doctrine of precedent, the definitive way of interpreting problems is of necessity and case-based. Thus, HYPO did not involve the analysis of a statute, as required by the Prolog program. Rissland and Ashley (1987) envisioned HYPO as employing the key tasks performed by lawyers when analyzing case law for precedence to generate arguments for the prosecution or the defence. HYPO was a successful example of a general category of legal expert systems (LESs), it applies artificial intelligence (A.I.) techniques to the domain of legal reasoning in patent law, implementing a case-based reasoning (CBR) system, in contrast to rule based systems like MYCIN, or mixed-paradigm systems integrating CBR with rule-based or model-based reasoning like IKBALS II. A legal case-based reasoning essentially reasons from prior tried cases, comparing the contextual information in the current input case with that of cases previously tried and entered into the system. As noted by Ashley and Rissland (1988) CBR is used to "... capture expertise in domains where rules are ill-defined, incomplete or inconsistent". The HYPO project set out to model the creation of hypotheticals in law, where no case matches well enough. HYPO uses hypotheticals for a variety of tasks necessary for good interpretation: "to redefine old situations in terms of new dimensions, to create new standard cases when an appropriate one doesn’t exist, to explore and test the limits of a concept, to refocus a case by excluding some issues and to organize or cluster cases". Hypotheticals can include facts that support two conflicting lines of reasoning. So, it makes and responds to arguments from competing viewpoints about who should win the dispute. HYPO use heuristics such as making a case weaker or stronger, making a case extreme, enabling a near-miss, disabling a near-hit to generate hypotheticals in the context of an argument by using the dimensions mechanism. Dimensions have a range of values, along which the supportive strength that may shift from one side to the other. What differentiated this expert system from others was its facility not only to return a primary to best-case response but to return near-best-fit responses also. == Components == Legal knowledge in HYPO is contained in: the case-knowledge-base (CKB) and the library of dimensions. The CKB contains HYPO's base of known cases that are highly structured objects and sub-objects both real and hypothetical in the area of trade secret law. Each case is represented as a hierarchical set of frames whose slots are important facets of the case (e.g. Plaintiff, defendant, secret knowledge, employer/employee data).Ashley’s HYPO system used a database of thirty cases in the area indexed by thirteen dimensions. A key mechanism in HYPO is a dimension i.e. a mechanism to allow retrieval from the CKB, in order to represent legal cases. Ashley's dimensions are composed of (i) prerequisites, which are a set of factual predicates that must be satisfied for the dimension to apply (ii) focal slots, which accommodate one or two of the dimension's prerequisites designated as being indicative of the case's strength along that dimension and (iii) range information, which tells how a change in focal slot value effects the strength of a party's case along a given dimension. Dimensions focus attention on important aspects of cases. In HYPO's domain of misappropriation of trade secrets the dimension called “secrets voluntary disclosed” captures the idea that the more disclosures the plaintiff has made of his/her putative secret, the less convincing is his/her argument that the defendant is responsible for letting the secret. HYPO, like any other CBR system has also the following components: Similarity/relevancy metrics: that is, standards by which to evaluate the closeness of cases, judge their relevancy to the instant case, and select “most on point” cases. Half-Order Theory of the Application Domain: that is, hierarchies and taxonomies of knowledge, especially regarding the application domain. Precedent-based argumentation abilities: that is, capabilities to generate and evaluate precedent-based arguments. Knowledge to generate hypotheticals: that is, the ability to generate hypothetical cases to deal with various circumstances, like testing the validity of an interpretation or argument by providing gedanken experiments such as test cases or to fill in a weak CKB. == Functions == HYPO's method of creating an argument and justifying a solution or position has several steps. HYPO begins its processing with the current fact situation (cfs) which is direct input by the user into HYPO's representation framework. Once the user inputs the case, HYPO begins its legal analysis. The cfc is analyzed for relevant factors. Based on these factors HYPO selects the relevant cases and produces a case-analysis-record that records which dimensions apply to the cfc and which nearly apply (i.e. are "near misses"). The combined list of applicable and near miss dimensions is called the D-list. At this point the fact gathered module may request additional information from the user in order to draw a legal conclusion. Once all the facts are in the case-positioner module it uses the case-analysis record to create the claim lattice. This is a technique that organizes the relevant retrieved cases from the point of view of the cfc and makes it easy for HYPO to ascertain the most-on point cases (mopc) and to least on-point-cases. HYPO's arguments are 3ply, leading to the construction of the skeleton of an argument: it makes a point for one side, drawing the analogy between the problem and the precedent, responds with an argument for the opponent side, endeavoring to differentiate the cited case and citing other cases as counterarguments. Then it makes a final rebuttal, attempting to differentiate the counterarguments. The claim lattice also enables the HYPO-generator module to produce legally hypotheticals. With its use of dimension-based heuristics, the HYPO-generator does a heuristic search of the space of all possible cases. Lastly, the Explanation module expands upon the argument skeleton and provides explanation and justification for the different lines of analysis and cases found by HYPO. == An intelligent legal tutoring system == Legal expert systems are specifically designed to teach an area of law and are useful for pedagogical purposes. Ashley's work was mainly concerned to build tools to help students understand legal reasoning. Explanation and argument are the bases of the case method used in many professional schools in the U.S., first introduced by the Dean of the Harvard Law School, Christopher Columbus Langdell in 1870. The case method focuses on close readings of cases and principles; it involves students in pointed Socratic dialogue and makes strong use of hypotheticals (hypos). Thus, CATO (Aleven 1997) was a research project to device and test an intelligent, case-based tutorial program for teaching law students how to argue with cases implementing the HYPO program. Within the tutor system, Ashley and Aleven (1991) proposed to leverage an understanding of legal reasoning against the standard case-based tutoring methodology. What makes this tutoring system stand out is the additional levels of abstraction involved in its results. The system presents exercises, including the facts of a problem and a set of on-line cases and instructions to make, or respond to, a legal argument about the problem. The student/user will have a set of tools to analyze the problem and fashion an answer comparing it to other cases. Instead of simply generating precedent cases, the system works to interpret student responses, comparing them against a list of possibilities and responding to student entries, for example, by citing counterexamples, and providing feedback on a student's problem solving activities with explanations of correctness or giving further hints as to what may be wrong with evaluating a student's ability to perform legal reasoning and argument, examples and follow-up assignments by employing HYPO's model of case-based structure. == HYPO’s progeny == The quality of HYPO's results speak for themselves, in that a number of sequent legal reasoning systems are either directly based upon H

    Read more →
  • Threat actor

    Threat actor

    In cybersecurity and risk assessment, a threat actor (or threat agents, attackers, or adversaries) is a person, group, organisation, state, or other entity with the ability to cause, carry, transmit, support, or exploit a threat. Threat actors are commonly analysed according to their motivations, resources, technical capability, access to systems, relationship to a target, and degree of connection to state authority. They may exploit vulnerabilities, conduct social engineering, steal or monetise data, disrupt operations, or support other actors who carry out such activity. Because the term covers a wide range of actors, researchers and security organisations use taxonomies that distinguish between groups such as cybercriminals, state-linked actors, ideologically motivated actors, thrill seekers or trolls, insiders, and competitors. Threat actor classifications are used in risk management, cyber threat intelligence, and incident response to connect observed behaviour with possible objectives and likely future activity. The categories are not always mutually exclusive: the same actor may combine criminal, ideological, commercial, or state-linked motivations, and different organisations may use different names for similar actors. == Risk assessment and security management == In risk assessment, threat actor analysis is used to identify who or what may create, carry, transmit, support, or exploit a threat, and how that actor relates to the system being assessed. Rausand and Haugen classify threat actors by their relationship to the system, distinguishing between internal and external actors, and by intent, distinguishing between intentional and unintentional actors. Threat actor classification may also support incident investigation. Rogers argued that actor categories could be inferred from observable case points, such as tools used, messages left, data targeted, forensic knowledge, and the degree of damage, allowing investigators to assess likely motivation and skill level. Later work similarly linked actor classification to operational analysis. Chng, Lu, Kumar and Yau proposed a framework connecting hacker types, motivations and typical strategies, arguing that observed behaviour before or during an attack can help analysts infer the likely type of actor involved. At the strategic level, actor analysis may consider an actor's resources, capabilities, degree of state involvement, motivations and objectives. == Landscape == The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research has described the contemporary cyberthreat landscape as involving an increasingly diverse and interconnected set of actors, including state-led operations, cybercriminal syndicates, ideological hacktivists, commercial cyber mercenaries, private companies and civilian volunteers. Its 2026 report argued that these actors vary in resources, technical sophistication and relationships with states, making it traditional distinctions between state, civilian combatant roles, and legitimate and illegitimate conduct harder to apply. == Academic taxonomies == Early taxonomies classified hackers by activity, skill, motivation, or criminal profile. Landreth proposed six categories based on activity: novice, student, tourist, crasher, and thief. Hollinger classified computer misuse into pirates, browsers, and crackers, describing a progression from less-skilled activity to more technically serious offences. Chantler used attributes including activity, skill, knowledge, motivation, and duration of involvement to distinguish between an elite group, neophytes, and "losers and lamers". Parker proposed seven profiles of cybercriminals: pranksters, hacksters, malicious hackers, personal problem solvers, career criminals, extreme advocates, and malcontents, addicts, and irrational or incompetent people. In 2000, Marc Rogers proposed a taxonomy of hackers with seven, non-mutually-exclusive categories: newbie/tool kit users, cyber-punks, internals, coders, old guard hackers, professional criminals, and cyber-terrorists. Rausand and Haugen distinguish between internal and external threat actors, and between intentional and unintentional threat actors. Internal actors have some relationship with, access to, or position inside the system or organisation, while external actors operate from outside it. Intentional actors seek to create, exploit, or support a threat event, whereas unintentional actors may cause or enable a threat event through error, negligence, accident, or lack of awareness. Rogers later revised his hacker taxonomy into Novices, Cyber-punks, Internals, Petty Thieves, Virus Writers, Old Guard hackers, Professional Criminals, Information Warriors, and, more tentatively, Political Activists. In the model, motivation is grouped into four broad domains: curiosity, notoriety, revenge, and financial gain. A 2022 review by Chng, Lu, Kumar and Yau examined 11 hacker typologies published over three decades and proposed a unified framework linking hacker types, motivations, and strategies. The framework identified 13 hacker types and seven motivations, and argued that observed strategies during an attack can help analysts infer the likely type of actor involved. == Government taxonomies == Taxonomies of threat actors by governments are much more likely to include state-level threat actors. In the United States the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) uses the term threat source in its risk-assessment guidance: organisations are directed to identify and characterise threat sources of concern, including capability, intent and targeting for adversarial threat sources, and the range of effects for non-adversarial threat sources. NIST treats threat-source identification as part of the risk-assessment process, alongside identifying threat events, vulnerabilities, likelihood and impact. In the EU, European Union Agency for Cybersecurity publishes the annual ENISA Threat Landscape, which analyses cyber incidents and adversary behaviour affecting the European Union. The 2025 report analysed selected incidents from the previous year and grouped activity around cybercrime, state-aligned activity, foreign information manipulation and interference, and hacktivism. In ENISA's 2025 analysis, hacktivist activity dominated reporting, representing almost 80% of recorded incidents and consisting mainly of low-level distributed denial-of-service operations. ENISA also reported increasing convergence between hacktivism, cybercrime and state-nexus activity, including state-aligned use of hacktivist personas, hacktivist adoption of ransomware, and false-flag or impersonation activity. At the UN level, A 2026 report by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research described the cyberthreat landscape as involving state-led operations, cybercriminal syndicates, ideological hacktivists, commercial cyber mercenaries, and civilian volunteers, with actors varying in resources, technical sophistication, and links to states. Canada defines threat actors as states, groups, or individuals who aim to cause harm by exploiting a vulnerability with malicious intent. A threat actor must be trying to gain access to information systems to access or alter data, devices, systems, or networks. The Japanese government's National Centre of Incident Readiness and Strategy (NISC) was established in 2015 to create a "free, fair and secure cyberspace" in Japan. The NICS created a cybersecurity strategy in 2018 that outlines nation-states and cybercrime to be some of the most key threats. It also indicates that terrorist usage of the cyberspace needs to be monitored and understood. The Security Council of the Russian Federation published the cyber security strategy doctrine in 2016. This strategy highlights the following threat actors as a risk to cyber security measures: nation-state actors, cyber criminals, and terrorists. == Techniques == Threat actors use techniques like Social engineering (security), and Phishing, alongside technical exploits like Cross-site scripting, SQL injection, and denial-of-service attacks. == Limitations == In practice, actor categories may overlap (Edward Snowden for example), and the same activity may combine features associated with hacktivism, cybercrime and state-linked operations. The lines between hacktivism, cybercrime and state-nexus activity had continued to blur, with shared toolsets, overlapping methods, fake personas, hacktivist adoption of ransomware, and cybercriminal or state-linked actors masquerading as other groups. Threat actor analysis also has limits as a risk-management method. NIST notes that risk assessments depend on their purpose, scope, assumptions, constraints, information sources, risk model and analytic approach, and that assessments are tied to particular time frames and organisational contexts. NIST also warns that simple threat-vulnerability pairing may be undesirable or problematic where there are many threats and vulnerabilities, and recom

    Read more →
  • Netflix Prize

    Netflix Prize

    The Netflix Prize was an open competition for the best collaborative filtering algorithm to predict user ratings for films, based on previous ratings without any other information about the users or films, i.e. without the users being identified except by numbers assigned for the contest. The competition was held by Netflix, a video streaming service, and was open to anyone who was neither connected with Netflix (current and former employees, agents, close relatives of Netflix employees, etc.) nor a resident of certain blocked countries (such as Cuba or North Korea). On September 21, 2009, the grand prize of US$1,000,000 was given to the BellKor's Pragmatic Chaos team which bested Netflix's own algorithm for predicting ratings by 10.06%. == Problem and data sets == Netflix provided a training data set of 100,480,507 ratings that 480,189 users gave to 17,770 movies. Each training rating is a quadruplet of the form . The user and movie fields are integer IDs, while grades are from 1 to 5 (integer) stars. The qualifying data set contains over 2,817,131 triplets of the form , with grades known only to the jury. A participating team's algorithm must predict grades on the entire qualifying set, but they are informed of the score for only half of the data: a quiz set of 1,408,342 ratings. The other half is the test set of 1,408,789, and performance on this is used by the jury to determine potential prize winners. Only the judges know which ratings are in the quiz set, and which are in the test set—this arrangement is intended to make it difficult to hill climb on the test set. Submitted predictions are scored against the true grades in the form of root mean squared error (RMSE), and the goal is to reduce this error as much as possible. Note that, while the actual grades are integers in the range 1 to 5, submitted predictions need not be. Netflix also identified a probe subset of 1,408,395 ratings within the training data set. The probe, quiz, and test data sets were chosen to have similar statistical properties. In summary, the data used in the Netflix Prize looks as follows: Training set (99,072,112 ratings not including the probe set; 100,480,507 including the probe set) Probe set (1,408,395 ratings) Qualifying set (2,817,131 ratings) consisting of: Test set (1,408,789 ratings), used to determine winners Quiz set (1,408,342 ratings), used to calculate leaderboard scores For each movie, the title and year of release are provided in a separate dataset. No information at all is provided about users. In order to protect the privacy of the customers, "some of the rating data for some customers in the training and qualifying sets have been deliberately perturbed in one or more of the following ways: deleting ratings; inserting alternative ratings and dates; and modifying rating dates." The training set is constructed such that the average user rated over 200 movies, and the average movie was rated by over 5000 users. But there is wide variance in the data—some movies in the training set have as few as 3 ratings, while one user rated over 17,000 movies. There was some controversy as to the choice of RMSE as the defining metric. It has been claimed that even as small an improvement as 1% RMSE results in a significant difference in the ranking of the "top-10" most recommended movies for a user. == Prizes == Prizes were based on improvement over Netflix's own algorithm, called Cinematch, or the previous year's score if a team has made improvement beyond a certain threshold. A trivial algorithm that predicts for each movie in the quiz set its average grade from the training data produces an RMSE of 1.0540. Cinematch uses "straightforward statistical linear models with a lot of data conditioning." The performance of Cinematch had plateaued by 2006. Using only the training data, Cinematch scores an RMSE of 0.9514 on the quiz data, roughly a 10% improvement over the trivial algorithm. Cinematch has a similar performance on the test set, 0.9525. In order to win the grand prize of $1,000,000, a participating team had to improve this by another 10%, to achieve 0.8572 on the test set. Such an improvement on the quiz set corresponds to an RMSE of 0.8563. As long as no team won the grand prize, a progress prize of $50,000 was awarded every year for the best result thus far. However, in order to win this prize, an algorithm had to improve the RMSE on the quiz set by at least 1% over the previous progress prize winner (or over Cinematch, the first year). If no submission succeeded, the progress prize was not to be awarded for that year. To win a progress or grand prize a participant had to provide source code and a description of the algorithm to the jury within one week after being contacted by them. Following verification the winner also had to provide a non-exclusive license to Netflix. Netflix would publish only the description, not the source code, of the system. (To keep their algorithm and source code secret, a team could choose not to claim a prize.) The jury also kept their predictions secret from other participants. A team could send as many attempts to predict grades as they wish. Originally submissions were limited to once a week, but the interval was quickly modified to once a day. A team's best submission so far counted as their current submission. Once one of the teams succeeded in improving the RMSE by 10% or more, the jury would issue a last call, giving all teams 30 days to send their submissions. Only then, the team with the best submission was asked for the algorithm description, source code, and non-exclusive license, and, after successful verification; declared a grand prize winner. The contest would last until the grand prize winner was declared. Had no one received the grand prize, it would have lasted for at least five years (until October 2, 2011). After that date, the contest could have been terminated at any time at Netflix's sole discretion. == Progress over the years == The competition began on October 2, 2006. By October 8, a team called WXYZConsulting had already beaten Cinematch's results. By October 15, there were three teams who had beaten Cinematch, one of them by 1.06%, enough to qualify for the annual progress prize. By June 2007 over 20,000 teams had registered for the competition from over 150 countries. 2,000 teams had submitted over 13,000 prediction sets. Over the first year of the competition, a handful of front-runners traded first place. The more prominent ones were: WXYZConsulting, a team of Wei Xu and Yi Zhang. (A front runner during November–December 2006.) ML@UToronto A, a team from the University of Toronto led by Prof. Geoffrey Hinton. (A front runner during parts of October–December 2006.) Gravity, a team of four scientists from the Budapest University of Technology (A front runner during January–May 2007.) BellKor, a group of scientists from AT&T Labs. (A front runner since May 2007.) Dinosaur Planet, a team of three undergraduates from Princeton University. (A front runner on September 3, 2007 for one hour before BellKor snatched back the lead.) The algorithms used by the leading teams were usually an ensemble of singular value decomposition, k-nearest neighbor, neural networks, and so on. On August 12, 2007, many contestants gathered at the KDD Cup and Workshop 2007, held at San Jose, California. During the workshop all four of the top teams on the leaderboard at that time presented their techniques. The team from IBM Research—Yan Liu, Saharon Rosset, Claudia Perlich, and Zhenzhen Kou—won the third place in Task 1 and first place in Task 2. Over the second year of the competition, only three teams reached the leading position: BellKor, a group of scientists from AT&T Labs (front runner during May 2007 – September 2008) BigChaos, a team of Austrian scientists from Commendo Research & Consulting (single team front runner since October 2008) BellKor in BigChaos, a joint team of the two leading single teams (a front runner since September 2008) === 2007 Progress Prize === On September 2, 2007, the competition entered the "last call" period for the 2007 Progress Prize. Over 40,000 teams from 186 countries had entered the contest. They had thirty days to tender submissions for consideration. At the beginning of this period the leading team was BellKor, with an RMSE of 0.8728 (8.26% improvement), followed by Dinosaur Planet (RMSE = 0.8769; 7.83% improvement), and Gravity (RMSE = 0.8785; 7.66% improvement). In the last hour of the last call period, an entry by "KorBell" took first place. This turned out to be an alternate name for Team BellKor. On November 13, 2007, team KorBell (formerly BellKor) was declared the winner of the $50,000 Progress Prize with an RMSE of 0.8712 (8.43% improvement). The team consisted of three researchers from AT&T Labs, Yehuda Koren, Robert Bell, and Chris Volinsky. As required, they published a description of their a

    Read more →
  • Argument Web

    Argument Web

    The Argument Web is a large-scale Web of interconnected arguments created by individuals as they express their opinions and interact with the opinions of others. The Argument Web aims to make online debate intuitive for participants such as mediators, students, academics, broadcasters and bloggers, to create a Web infrastructure that allows for the storage, automatic retrieval and analysis of linked argument data, and to improve the quality of online argument and debate. The Argument Web can be described as a portion of a larger Semantic Web. == AIFdb == AIFdb is a database implementation or ‘reification’ of the Argument Interchange Format (AIF), which allows for the storage and retrieval of AIF compliant argument structures. This database solution was provided as a foundation for an open, integrated Argument Web. It offers an extensive range of web services for interacting with stored argument data, while also offering search and argument visualisation features that are all consistent with the formal ontology of AIF. At a basic level, the AIFdb web services allow for the insertion and querying of basic components of an AIF argument, such as nodes, edges and schemes. Building upon this basis, it also facilitates more complex interactions with these AIF argument structures. Such complex queries could make it possible, for example, to determine all the statements made by a particular person in support a given I-Node. While, at its highest level of interaction, AIFdb can handle the import and export of many standard file formats, including SVG, DOT, RDF/XML and other formats of argument theory tools, like Carneades, Rationale and Araucaria. == Argument blogging == ArguBlogging is software which allows its users to select portions of hypertext on webpages in their Web browsers and to agree or disagree with the selected content, posting their arguments to their blogs with linked argument data. It is implemented as a bookmarklet, adding functionality to Web browsers and interoperating with blogging platforms such as Blogger and Tumblr.

    Read more →