AI Face Animator

AI Face Animator — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Pattern playback

  The pattern playback is an early talking device that was built by Dr. Franklin S. Cooper and his colleagues, including John M. Borst and Caryl Haskins, at Haskins Laboratories in the late 1940s and completed in 1950. There were several different versions of this hardware device. Only one currently survives. The machine converts pictures of the acoustic patterns of speech in the form of a spectrogram back into sound. Using this device, Alvin Liberman, Frank Cooper, and Pierre Delattre (later joined by Katherine Safford Harris, Leigh Lisker, and others) were able to discover acoustic cues for the perception of phonetic segments (consonants and vowels). This research was fundamental to the development of modern techniques of speech synthesis, reading machines for the blind, the study of speech perception and speech recognition, and the development of the motor theory of speech perception. To create sound, the pattern playback machine uses an arc light source which is directed against a rotating disk with 50 concentric tracks whose transparencies vary systematically in order to produce 50 harmonics of a fundamental frequency. The light is further projected against a spectrogram, whose reflectance corresponds to the sound pressure level of the partial of the signal, and is then directed towards a photovoltaic cell by which the light variation is converted into sound pressure variations. The pattern playback was last used in an experimental study by Robert Remez in 1976. The pattern playback now resides in the Museum at Haskins Laboratories in New Haven, Connecticut. The technique of pattern playback also now refers, more generally, to algorithms or techniques for converting spectrograms, cochleagrams, and correlograms from pictures back into sounds. A demonstration is in the TV show Adventure. Pioneering technology in psycholinguistics (CBS Television. 1953). == Digital pattern playback == In the 1970s, digital pattern playbacks began to supplant the earlier version. An early prototype was developed by Patrick Nye, Philip Rubin, and colleagues at Haskins Laboratories. It combined a "Ubiquitous Spectrum Analyzer"[1] for automatic spectral analysis, along with a VAX GT-40 display processor for graphic manipulation of the displayed spectrogram, a form of "synthesis by art", and subsequent re-synthesis using a 40 channel filter bank. This hybrid hardware/software digital pattern playback was eventually replaced at Haskins Laboratories by the HADES analysis and display system, designed by Philip Rubin, and implemented in Fortran on the VAX family of computers. A more modern version has been described by Arai and colleagues [2]. An on-line demonstration is available [3].

  Read more →
• 

  Vinberg's algorithm

  In mathematics, Vinberg's algorithm is an algorithm, introduced by Ernest Borisovich Vinberg, for finding a fundamental domain of a hyperbolic reflection group. Conway (1983) used Vinberg's algorithm to describe the automorphism group of the 26-dimensional even unimodular Lorentzian lattice II25,1 in terms of the Leech lattice. == Description of the algorithm == Let Γ < I s o m ( H n ) {\displaystyle \Gamma <\mathrm {Isom} (\mathbb {H} ^{n})} be a hyperbolic reflection group. Choose any point v 0 ∈ H n {\displaystyle v_{0}\in \mathbb {H} ^{n}} ; we shall call it the basic (or initial) point. The fundamental domain P 0 {\displaystyle P_{0}} of its stabilizer Γ v 0 {\displaystyle \Gamma _{v_{0}}} is a polyhedral cone in H n {\displaystyle \mathbb {H} ^{n}} . Let H 1 , . . . , H m {\displaystyle H_{1},...,H_{m}} be the faces of this cone, and let a 1 , . . . , a m {\displaystyle a_{1},...,a_{m}} be outer normal vectors to it. Consider the half-spaces H k − = { x ∈ R n , 1 | ( x , a k ) ≤ 0 } . {\displaystyle H_{k}^{-}=\{x\in \mathbb {R} ^{n,1}|(x,a_{k})\leq 0\}.} There exists a unique fundamental polyhedron P {\displaystyle P} of Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } contained in P 0 {\displaystyle P_{0}} and containing the point v 0 {\displaystyle v_{0}} . Its faces containing v 0 {\displaystyle v_{0}} are formed by faces H 1 , . . . , H m {\displaystyle H_{1},...,H_{m}} of the cone P 0 {\displaystyle P_{0}} . The other faces H m + 1 , . . . {\displaystyle H_{m+1},...} and the corresponding outward normals a m + 1 , . . . {\displaystyle a_{m+1},...} are constructed by induction. Namely, for H j {\displaystyle H_{j}} we take a mirror such that the root a j {\displaystyle a_{j}} orthogonal to it satisfies the conditions (1) ( v 0 , a j ) < 0 {\displaystyle (v_{0},a_{j})<0} ; (2) ( a i , a j ) ≤ 0 {\displaystyle (a_{i},a_{j})\leq 0} for all i < j {\displaystyle i Read more →

• 

  Taxonomic database

  A taxonomic database is a database created to hold information on biological taxa – for example groups of organisms organized by species name or other taxonomic identifier – for efficient data management and information retrieval. Taxonomic databases are routinely used for the automated construction of biological checklists such as floras and faunas, both for print publication and online; to underpin the operation of web-based species information systems; as a part of biological collection management (for example in museums and herbaria); as well as providing, in some cases, the taxon management component of broader science or biology information systems. They are also a fundamental contribution to the discipline of biodiversity informatics. == Goals == Taxonomic databases digitize scientific biodiversity data and provide access to taxonomic data for research. Taxonomic databases vary in breadth of the groups of taxa and geographical space they seek to include, for example: beetles in a defined region, mammals globally, or all described taxa in the tree of life. A taxonomic database may incorporate organism identifiers (scientific name, author, and – for zoological taxa – year of original publication), synonyms, taxonomic opinions, literature sources or citations, illustrations or photographs, and biological attributes for each taxon (such as geographic distribution, ecology, descriptive information, threatened or vulnerable status, etc.). Some databases, such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility(GBIF) database and the Barcode of Life Data System, store the DNA barcode of a taxon if one exists (also called the Barcode Index Number (BIN) which may be assigned, for example, by the International Barcode of Life project (iBOL) or UNITE, a database for fungal DNA barcoding). A taxonomic database aims to accurately model the characteristics of interest that are relevant to the organisms which are in scope for the intended coverage and usage of the system. For example, databases of fungi, algae, bryophytes and vascular plants ("higher plants") encode conventions from the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature while their counterparts for animals and most protists encode equivalent rules from the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Modelling the relevant taxonomic hierarchy for any taxon is a natural fit with the relational model employed in almost all database systems. Scientific consensus is not reached for all taxon groups, and new species continue to be described; therefore, another goal of taxonomic databases is to aid in resolving conflicts of scientific opinion and unify taxonomy. == History == Possibly the earliest documented management of taxonomic information in computerised form comprised the taxonomic coding system developed by Richard Swartz et al. at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science for the Biota of Chesapeake Bay and described in a published report in 1972. This work led directly or indirectly to other projects with greater profile including the NODC Taxonomic Code system which went through 8 versions before being discontinued in 1996, to be subsumed and transformed into the still current Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). A number of other taxonomic databases specializing in particular groups of organisms that appeared in the 1970s through to the present jointly contribute to the Species 2000 project, which since 2001 has been partnering with ITIS to produce a combined product, the Catalogue of Life. While the Catalogue of Life currently concentrates on assembling basic name information as a global species checklist, numerous other taxonomic database projects such as Fauna Europaea, the Australian Faunal Directory, and more supply rich ancillary information including descriptions, illustrations, maps, and more. Many taxonomic database projects are currently listed at the TDWG "Biodiversity Information Projects of the World" site. == Issues == The representation of taxonomic information in machine-encodable form raises a number of issues not encountered in other domains, such as variant ways to cite the same species or other taxon name, the same name used for multiple taxa (homonyms), multiple non-current names for the same taxon (synonyms), changes in name and taxon concept definition through time, and more. Non-standardized categories and metadata in taxonomic databases hampers the ability for researchers to analyze the data. One forum that has promoted discussion and possible solutions to these and related problems since 1985 is the Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG), originally called the Taxonomic Database Working Group. While online databases have great benefits (for example, increased access to taxonomic information), they also have issues such as data integrity risks due to on- and off-line versions and continuous updates, technical access issues due to server or internet outage, and differing capacities for complex queries to extract taxonomic data into lists. As the quantity of information in online taxonomic databases rapidly expands, data aggregation, and the integration and alignment of non-standardized data across databases, is a big challenge in taxonomy and biodiversity informatics.

  Read more →
• 

  Car–Parrinello molecular dynamics

  Car–Parrinello molecular dynamics (CPMD) refers to either a method used in molecular dynamics (also known as the Car–Parrinello method) or the computational chemistry software package used to implement this method. The CPMD method is one of the major methods for calculating ab initio molecular dynamics (ab initio MD or AIMD). Ab initio molecular dynamics (AIMD) is a computational method that uses first principles through quantum mechanics to simulate the motion of atoms in a system. It is a type of molecular dynamics (MD) simulation that does not rely on empirical potentials or force fields to describe the interactions between atoms, but rather calculates these interactions entirely from the electronic structure of the system using quantum mechanics. In an ab initio MD simulation, the total energy of the system is calculated at each time step using density functional theory (DFT), Hartree-Fock (HF), or other electronic structure calculation methods. The forces acting on each atom are then determined from the gradient of the energy with respect to the atomic coordinates, and the equations of motion are solved to predict the trajectory of the atoms. AIMD permits chemical bond breaking and forming events to occur and accounts for electronic polarization effect. Therefore, Ab initio MD simulations can be used to study a wide range of phenomena, including the structural, thermodynamic, and dynamic properties of materials and chemical reactions. They are particularly useful for systems that are not well described by empirical potentials or force fields, such as systems with strong electronic correlation or systems with many degrees of freedom. However, ab initio MD simulations are computationally demanding and require significant computational resources. The CPMD method is related to the more common Born–Oppenheimer molecular dynamics (BOMD) method in that the quantum mechanical effect of the electrons is included in the calculation of energy and forces for the classical motion of the nuclei. CPMD and BOMD are different types of AIMD. However, whereas BOMD treats the electronic structure problem within the time-independent Schrödinger equation, CPMD explicitly includes the electrons as active degrees of freedom, via (fictitious) dynamical variables. The software is a parallelized plane wave / pseudopotential implementation of density functional theory, particularly designed for ab initio molecular dynamics. == Car–Parrinello method == The Car–Parrinello method is a type of molecular dynamics, usually employing periodic boundary conditions, planewave basis sets, and density functional theory, proposed by Roberto Car and Michele Parrinello in 1985 while working at SISSA, who were subsequently awarded the Dirac Medal by ICTP in 2009. In contrast to Born–Oppenheimer molecular dynamics wherein the nuclear (ions) degree of freedom are propagated using ionic forces which are calculated at each iteration by approximately solving the electronic problem with conventional matrix diagonalization methods, the Car–Parrinello method explicitly introduces the electronic degrees of freedom as (fictitious) dynamical variables, writing an extended Lagrangian for the system which leads to a system of coupled equations of motion for both ions and electrons. In this way, an explicit electronic minimization at each time step, as done in Born–Oppenheimer MD, is not needed: after an initial standard electronic minimization, the fictitious dynamics of the electrons keeps them on the electronic ground state corresponding to each new ionic configuration visited along the dynamics, thus yielding accurate ionic forces. In order to maintain this adiabaticity condition, it is necessary that the fictitious mass of the electrons is chosen small enough to avoid a significant energy transfer from the ionic to the electronic degrees of freedom. This small fictitious mass in turn requires that the equations of motion are integrated using a smaller time step than the one (1–10 fs) commonly used in Born–Oppenheimer molecular dynamics. Currently, the CPMD method can be applied to systems that consist of a few tens or hundreds of atoms and access timescales on the order of tens of picoseconds. == General approach == In CPMD the core electrons are usually described by a pseudopotential and the wavefunction of the valence electrons are approximated by a plane wave basis set. The ground state electronic density (for fixed nuclei) is calculated self-consistently, usually using the density functional theory method. Kohn-Sham equations are often used to calculate the electronic structure, where electronic orbitals are expanded in a plane-wave basis set. Then, using that density, forces on the nuclei can be computed, to update the trajectories (using, e.g. the Verlet integration algorithm). In addition, however, the coefficients used to obtain the electronic orbital functions can be treated as a set of extra spatial dimensions, and trajectories for the orbitals can be calculated in this context. == Fictitious dynamics == CPMD is an approximation of the Born–Oppenheimer MD (BOMD) method. In BOMD, the electrons' wave function must be minimized via matrix diagonalization at every step in the trajectory. CPMD uses fictitious dynamics to keep the electrons close to the ground state, preventing the need for a costly self-consistent iterative minimization at each time step. The fictitious dynamics relies on the use of a fictitious electron mass (usually in the range of 400 – 800 a.u.) to ensure that there is very little energy transfer from nuclei to electrons, i.e. to ensure adiabaticity. Any increase in the fictitious electron mass resulting in energy transfer would cause the system to leave the ground-state BOMD surface. === Lagrangian === L = 1 2 ( ∑ I n u c l e i M I R ˙ I 2 + μ ∑ i o r b i t a l s ∫ d r | ψ ˙ i ( r , t ) | 2 ) − E [ { ψ i } , { R I } ] + ∑ i j Λ i j ( ∫ d r ψ i ψ j − δ i j ) , {\displaystyle {\mathcal {L}}={\frac {1}{2}}\left(\sum _{I}^{\mathrm {nuclei} }\ M_{I}{\dot {\mathbf {R} }}_{I}^{2}+\mu \sum _{i}^{\mathrm {orbitals} }\int d\mathbf {r} \ |{\dot {\psi }}_{i}(\mathbf {r} ,t)|^{2}\right)-E\left[\{\psi _{i}\},\{\mathbf {R} _{I}\}\right]+\sum _{ij}\Lambda _{ij}\left(\int d\mathbf {r} \ \psi _{i}\psi _{j}-\delta _{ij}\right),} where μ {\displaystyle \mu } is the fictitious mass parameter; E[{ψi},{RI}] is the Kohn–Sham energy density functional, which outputs energy values when given Kohn–Sham orbitals and nuclear positions. === Orthogonality constraint === ∫ d r ψ i ∗ ( r , t ) ψ j ( r , t ) = δ i j , {\displaystyle \int d\mathbf {r} \ \psi _{i}^{}(\mathbf {r} ,t)\psi _{j}(\mathbf {r} ,t)=\delta _{ij},} where δij is the Kronecker delta. === Equations of motion === The equations of motion are obtained by finding the stationary point of the Lagrangian under variations of ψi and RI, with the orthogonality constraint. M I R ¨ I = − ∇ I E [ { ψ i } , { R I } ] {\displaystyle M_{I}{\ddot {\mathbf {R} }}_{I}=-\nabla _{I}\,E\left[\{\psi _{i}\},\{\mathbf {R} _{I}\}\right]} μ ψ ¨ i ( r , t ) = − δ E δ ψ i ∗ ( r , t ) + ∑ j Λ i j ψ j ( r , t ) , {\displaystyle \mu {\ddot {\psi }}_{i}(\mathbf {r} ,t)=-{\frac {\delta E}{\delta \psi _{i}^{}(\mathbf {r} ,t)}}+\sum _{j}\Lambda _{ij}\psi _{j}(\mathbf {r} ,t),} where Λij is a Lagrangian multiplier matrix to comply with the orthonormality constraint. === Born–Oppenheimer limit === In the formal limit where μ → 0, the equations of motion approach Born–Oppenheimer molecular dynamics. == Software packages == There are a number of software packages available for performing AIMD simulations. Some of the most widely used packages include: CP2K: an open-source software package for AIMD. Quantum Espresso: an open-source package for performing DFT calculations. It includes a module for AIMD. VASP: a commercial software package for performing DFT calculations. It includes a module for AIMD. Gaussian: a commercial software package that can perform AIMD. NWChem: an open-source software package for AIMD. LAMMPS: an open-source software package for performing classical and ab initio MD simulations. SIESTA: an open-source software package for AIMD. ORCA: a general-purpose quantum chemistry package. == Applications == Studying the behavior of water across different environments, such as near a hydrophobic graphene sheet. Investigating the structure and dynamics of liquid water at ambient temperature. Solving the heat transfer problems (heat conduction and thermal radiation), such as in Si/Ge superlattices. Probing the proton transfer along hydrogen-bonds in different environments, such as in 1D water chains inside carbon nanotubes. Evaluating the critical point of crystals, composites, and solid-state materials, such as aluminum. Predicting and modelling different phases and phase transitions, such as in the amorphous phase of the phase-change memory material GeSbTe. Studying the combustion of combustibles, such as lignite-water systems. Measuring th

  Read more →
• 

  Right to explanation

  In the regulation of algorithms, particularly artificial intelligence and its subfield of machine learning, a right to [an] explanation is a right to be given an explanation for an output of the algorithm. Such rights primarily refer to individual rights to be given an explanation for decisions that significantly affect an individual, particularly legally or financially. For example, a person who applies for a loan and is denied may ask for an explanation, which could be "Credit bureau X reports that you declared bankruptcy last year; this is the main factor in considering you too likely to default, and thus we will not give you the loan you applied for." Some such legal rights already exist, while the scope of a general "right to explanation" is a matter of ongoing debate. There have been arguments made that a "social right to explanation" is a crucial foundation for an information society, particularly as the institutions of that society will need to use digital technologies, artificial intelligence, machine learning. In other words, that the related automated decision making systems that use explainability would be more trustworthy and transparent. Without this right, which could be constituted both legally and through professional standards, the public will be left without much recourse to challenge the decisions of automated systems. == Examples == === Credit scoring in the United States === Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B of the Code of Federal Regulations), Title 12, Chapter X, Part 1002, §1002.9, creditors are required to notify applicants who are denied credit with specific reasons for the detail. As detailed in §1002.9(b)(2): (2) Statement of specific reasons. The statement of reasons for adverse action required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section must be specific and indicate the principal reason(s) for the adverse action. Statements that the adverse action was based on the creditor's internal standards or policies or that the applicant, joint applicant, or similar party failed to achieve a qualifying score on the creditor's credit scoring system are insufficient. The official interpretation of this section details what types of statements are acceptable. Creditors comply with this regulation by providing a list of reasons (generally at most 4, per interpretation of regulations), consisting of a numeric reason code (as identifier) and an associated explanation, identifying the main factors affecting a credit score. An example might be: 32: Balances on bankcard or revolving accounts too high compared to credit limits === European Union === The European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, enacted 2016, taking effect 2018) extends the automated decision-making rights in the 1995 Data Protection Directive to provide a legally disputed form of a right to an explanation, stated as such in Recital 71: "[the data subject should have] the right ... to obtain an explanation of the decision reached". In full: The data subject should have the right not to be subject to a decision, which may include a measure, evaluating personal aspects relating to him or her which is based solely on automated processing and which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her, such as automatic refusal of an online credit application or e-recruiting practices without any human intervention. ... In any case, such processing should be subject to suitable safeguards, which should include specific information to the data subject and the right to obtain human intervention, to express his or her point of view, to obtain an explanation of the decision reached after such assessment and to challenge the decision. However, the extent to which the regulations themselves provide a "right to explanation" is heavily debated. There are two main strands of criticism. There are significant legal issues with the right as found in Article 22 — as recitals are not binding, and the right to an explanation is not mentioned in the binding articles of the text, having been removed during the legislative process. In addition, there are significant restrictions on the types of automated decisions that are covered — which must be both "solely" based on automated processing, and have legal or similarly significant effects — which significantly limits the range of automated systems and decisions to which the right would apply. In particular, the right is unlikely to apply in many of the cases of algorithmic controversy that have been picked up in the media. The UK has also recently amended its implementation of Article 22. A second potential source of such a right has been pointed to in Article 15, the "right of access by the data subject". This restates a similar provision from the 1995 Data Protection Directive, allowing the data subject access to "meaningful information about the logic involved" in the same significant, solely automated decision-making, found in Article 22. Yet this too suffers from alleged challenges that relate to the timing of when this right can be drawn upon, as well as practical challenges that mean it may not be binding in many cases of public concern. Other EU legislative instruments contain explanation rights. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act provides in Article 86 a "[r]ight to explanation of individual decision-making" of certain high risk systems which produce significant, adverse effects to an individual's health, safety or fundamental rights. The right provides for "clear and meaningful explanations of the role of the AI system in the decision-making procedure and the main elements of the decision taken", although only applies to the extent other law does not provide such a right. The Digital Services Act in Article 27, and the Platform to Business Regulation in Article 5, both contain rights to have the main parameters of certain recommender systems to be made clear, although these provisions have been criticised as not matching the way that such systems work. The Platform Work Directive, which provides for regulation of automation in gig economy work as an extension of data protection law, further contains explanation provisions in Article 11, using the specific language of "explanation" in a binding article rather than a recital as is the case in the GDPR. Scholars note that remains uncertainty as to whether these provisions imply sufficiently tailored explanation in practice which will need to be resolved by courts. === France === In France the 2016 Loi pour une République numérique (Digital Republic Act or loi numérique) amends the country's administrative code to introduce a new provision for the explanation of decisions made by public sector bodies about individuals. It notes that where there is "a decision taken on the basis of an algorithmic treatment", the rules that define that treatment and its "principal characteristics" must be communicated to the citizen upon request, where there is not an exclusion (e.g. for national security or defence). These should include the following: the degree and the mode of contribution of the algorithmic processing to the decision- making; the data processed and its source; the treatment parameters, and where appropriate, their weighting, applied to the situation of the person concerned; the operations carried out by the treatment. Scholars have noted that this right, while limited to administrative decisions, goes beyond the GDPR right to explicitly apply to decision support rather than decisions "solely" based on automated processing, as well as provides a framework for explaining specific decisions. Indeed, the GDPR automated decision-making rights in the European Union, one of the places a "right to an explanation" has been sought within, find their origins in French law in the late 1970s. == Criticism == Some argue that a "right to explanation" is at best unnecessary, at worst harmful, and threatens to stifle innovation. Specific criticisms include: favoring human decisions over machine decisions, being redundant with existing laws, and focusing on process over outcome. Authors of study "Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For" Lilian Edwards and Michael Veale argue that a right to explanation is not the solution to harms caused to stakeholders by algorithmic decisions. They also state that the right of explanation in the GDPR is narrowly defined, and is not compatible with how modern machine learning technologies are being developed. With these limitations, defining transparency within the context of algorithmic accountability remains a problem. For example, providing the source code of algorithms may not be sufficient and may create other problems in terms of privacy disclosures and the gaming of technical systems. To mitigate this issue, Edwards and Veale argue that an auditing system could be more effective, to allow auditors to loo

  Read more →
• 

  Run-time algorithm specialization

  In computer science, run-time algorithm specialization is a methodology for creating efficient algorithms for costly computation tasks of certain kinds. The methodology originates in the field of automated theorem proving and, more specifically, in the Vampire theorem prover project. The idea is inspired by the use of partial evaluation in optimising program translation. Many core operations in theorem provers exhibit the following pattern. Suppose that we need to execute some algorithm a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} in a situation where a value of A {\displaystyle A} is fixed for potentially many different values of B {\displaystyle B} . In order to do this efficiently, we can try to find a specialization of a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} for every fixed A {\displaystyle A} , i.e., such an algorithm a l g A {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}} , that executing a l g A ( B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}(B)} is equivalent to executing a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} . The specialized algorithm may be more efficient than the generic one, since it can exploit some particular properties of the fixed value A {\displaystyle A} . Typically, a l g A ( B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}(B)} can avoid some operations that a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} would have to perform, if they are known to be redundant for this particular parameter A {\displaystyle A} . In particular, we can often identify some tests that are true or false for A {\displaystyle A} , unroll loops and recursion, etc. == Difference from partial evaluation == The key difference between run-time specialization and partial evaluation is that the values of A {\displaystyle A} on which a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} is specialised are not known statically, so the specialization takes place at run-time. There is also an important technical difference. Partial evaluation is applied to algorithms explicitly represented as codes in some programming language. At run-time, we do not need any concrete representation of a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} . We only have to imagine a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} when we program the specialization procedure. All we need is a concrete representation of the specialized version a l g A {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}} . This also means that we cannot use any universal methods for specializing algorithms, which is usually the case with partial evaluation. Instead, we have to program a specialization procedure for every particular algorithm a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} . An important advantage of doing so is that we can use some powerful ad hoc tricks exploiting peculiarities of a l g {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}} and the representation of A {\displaystyle A} and B {\displaystyle B} , which are beyond the reach of any universal specialization methods. == Specialization with compilation == The specialized algorithm has to be represented in a form that can be interpreted. In many situations, usually when a l g A ( B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}(B)} is to be computed on many values of B {\displaystyle B} in a row, a l g A {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}_{A}} can be written as machine code instructions for a special abstract machine, and it is typically said that A {\displaystyle A} is compiled. The code itself can then be additionally optimized by answer-preserving transformations that rely only on the semantics of instructions of the abstract machine. The instructions of the abstract machine can usually be represented as records. One field of such a record, an instruction identifier (or instruction tag), would identify the instruction type, e.g. an integer field may be used, with particular integer values corresponding to particular instructions. Other fields may be used for storing additional parameters of the instruction, e.g. a pointer field may point to another instruction representing a label, if the semantics of the instruction require a jump. All instructions of the code can be stored in a traversable data structure such as an array, linked list, or tree. Interpretation (or execution) proceeds by fetching instructions in some order, identifying their type, and executing the actions associated with said type. In many programming languages, such as C and C++, a simple switch statement may be used to associate actions with different instruction identifiers. Modern compilers usually compile a switch statement with constant (e.g. integer) labels from a narrow range by storing the address of the statement corresponding to a value i {\displaystyle i} in the i {\displaystyle i} -th cell of a special array, as a means of efficient optimisation. This can be exploited by taking values for instruction identifiers from a small interval of values. == Data-and-algorithm specialization == There are situations when many instances of A {\displaystyle A} are intended for long-term storage and the calls of a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} occur with different B {\displaystyle B} in an unpredictable order. For example, we may have to check a l g ( A 1 , B 1 ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A_{1},B_{1})} first, then a l g ( A 2 , B 2 ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A_{2},B_{2})} , then a l g ( A 1 , B 3 ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A_{1},B_{3})} , and so on. In such circumstances, full-scale specialization with compilation may not be suitable due to excessive memory usage. However, we can sometimes find a compact specialized representation A ′ {\displaystyle A^{\prime }} for every A {\displaystyle A} , that can be stored with, or instead of, A {\displaystyle A} . We also define a variant a l g ′ {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}^{\prime }} that works on this representation and any call to a l g ( A , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}(A,B)} is replaced by a l g ′ ( A ′ , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathit {alg}}^{\prime }(A^{\prime },B)} , intended to do the same job faster.

  Read more →
• 

  ARMA International

  ARMA International (formerly the Association of Records Managers and Administrators) is an American not-for-profit professional association for information professionals – primarily information management (including records management) and information governance, and related industry practitioners and vendors. The association provides educational opportunities and publications covering aspects of information management broadly. == History == The Association was founded in 1955. In 1975, the Association of Records Executives and Administrators (AREA) and the American Records Management Association merged to form ARMA International. The headquarters for ARMA International is located in Overland Park, Kansas. == Operations == ARMA International services professionals in the United States, Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Its members include records managers, attorneys, information technology professionals, consultants, and archivists involved in various aspects of managing records and information assets. ARMA hosts an annual conference with the goal of bringing together record and information management professionals from around the world – In 2023, ARMA hosted conferences in both the United States and Canada. Topics addressed in the 120+ educational sessions include advanced technology, creating information structure, ediscovery and information law, information management fundamentals, information project management, and reducing organizational information risk. The expo features exhibitors displaying records and information technologies, products, and services.

  Read more →
• 

  Hindley–Milner type system

  A Hindley–Milner (HM) type system is a classical type system for the lambda calculus with parametric polymorphism. It is also known as Damas–Milner or Damas–Hindley–Milner. It was first described by J. Roger Hindley and later rediscovered by Robin Milner. Luis Damas contributed a close formal analysis and proof of the method in his PhD thesis. Among HM's more notable properties are its completeness and its ability to infer the most general type of a given program without programmer-supplied type annotations or other hints. Algorithm W is an efficient type inference method in practice and has been successfully applied on large code bases, although it has a high theoretical complexity. HM is preferably used for functional programming languages. It was first implemented as part of the type system of the programming language ML. Since then, HM has been extended in various ways, most notably with type class constraints like those in Haskell. == Introduction == As a type inference method, Hindley–Milner is able to deduce the types of variables, expressions and functions from programs written in an entirely untyped style. Being scope sensitive, it is not limited to deriving the types only from a small portion of source code, but rather from complete programs or modules. Being able to cope with parametric types, too, it is core to the type systems of many functional programming languages. It was first applied in this manner in the ML programming language. The origin is the type inference algorithm for the simply typed lambda calculus that was devised by Haskell Curry and Robert Feys in 1958. In 1969, J. Roger Hindley extended this work and proved that their algorithm always inferred the most general type. In 1978, Robin Milner, independently of Hindley's work, provided an equivalent algorithm, Algorithm W. In 1982, Luis Damas finally proved that Milner's algorithm is complete and extended it to support systems with polymorphic references. === Monomorphism vs. polymorphism === In the simply typed lambda calculus, types T are either atomic type constants or function types of form T → T {\displaystyle T\rightarrow T} . Such types are monomorphic. Typical examples are the types used in arithmetic values: 3 : N u m b e r a d d 3 4 : N u m b e r a d d : N u m b e r → N u m b e r → N u m b e r {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{ll}3&:{\mathtt {Number}}\\{\mathtt {add}}\ 3\ 4&:{\mathtt {Number}}\\{\mathtt {add}}&:{\mathtt {Number}}\rightarrow {\mathtt {Number}}\rightarrow {\mathtt {Number}}\end{array}}} Contrary to this, the untyped lambda calculus is neutral to typing at all, and many of its functions can be meaningfully applied to all type of arguments. The trivial example is the identity function i d ≡ λ x . x {\displaystyle {\mathtt {id}}\equiv \lambda x.x} which simply returns whatever value it is applied to. Less trivial examples include parametric types like lists. While polymorphism in general means that operations accept values of more than one type, the polymorphism used here is parametric. One finds the notation of type schemes in the literature, too, emphasizing the parametric nature of the polymorphism. Additionally, constants may be typed with (quantified) type variables. For example, the following type schemes quantify universally over α {\displaystyle \alpha } , meaning that they are true for all possible α {\displaystyle \alpha } : c o n s : ∀ α . α → L i s t α → L i s t α n i l : ∀ α . L i s t α i d : ∀ α . α → α {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{ll}{\mathtt {cons}}&:\forall \alpha .\alpha \rightarrow {\mathtt {List}}\ \alpha \rightarrow {\mathtt {List}}\ \alpha \\{\mathtt {nil}}&:\forall \alpha .{\mathtt {List}}\ \alpha \\{\mathtt {id}}&:\forall \alpha .\alpha \rightarrow \alpha \end{array}}} Polymorphic types can become monomorphic by consistent substitution of their variables. Examples of monomorphic instances are: i d ′ : S t r i n g → S t r i n g n i l ′ : L i s t N u m b e r {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{ll}{\mathtt {id}}'&:{\mathtt {String}}\rightarrow {\mathtt {String}}\\{\mathtt {nil}}'&:{\mathtt {List}}\ {\mathtt {Number}}\end{array}}} More generally, types are polymorphic when they contain type variables, while types without them are monomorphic. Contrary to the type systems used for example in Pascal (1970) or C (1972), which only support monomorphic types, HM is designed with emphasis on parametric polymorphism. The successors of the languages mentioned, like C++ (1985), focused on different types of polymorphism, namely subtyping in connection with object-oriented programming and overloading. While subtyping is incompatible with HM, a variant of systematic overloading is available in the HM-based type system of Haskell. === Let-polymorphism === When extending the type inference for the simply-typed lambda calculus towards polymorphism, one has to decide whether assigning a polymorphic type not only as type of an expression, but also as the type of a λ-bound variable is admissible. This would allow the generic identity type to be assigned to the variable 'id' in: (λ id . ... (id 3) ... (id "text") ... ) (λ x . x) Allowing this gives rise to the polymorphic lambda calculus; however, type inference in this system is not decidable. Instead, HM distinguishes variables that are immediately bound to an expression from more general λ-bound variables, calling the former let-bound variables, and allows polymorphic types to be assigned only to these. This leads to let-polymorphism where the above example takes the form let id = λ x . x in ... (id 3) ... (id "text") ... which can be typed with a polymorphic type for 'id'. As indicated, the expression syntax is extended to make the let-bound variables explicit, and by restricting the type system to allow only let-bound variable to have polymorphic types, while the parameters in lambda-abstractions must get a monomorphic type, type inference becomes decidable. == Overview == The remainder of this article proceeds as follows: The HM type system is defined. This is done by describing a deduction system that makes precise what expressions have what type, if any. From there, it works towards an implementation of the type inference method. After introducing a syntax-driven variant of the above deductive system, it sketches an efficient implementation (algorithm J), appealing mostly to the reader's metalogical intuition. Because it remains open whether algorithm J indeed realises the initial deduction system, a less efficient implementation (algorithm W), is introduced and its use in a proof is hinted. Finally, further topics related to the algorithm are discussed. The same description of the deduction system is used throughout, even for the two algorithms, to make the various forms in which the HM method is presented directly comparable. == The Hindley–Milner type system == The type system can be formally described by syntax rules that fix a language for the expressions, types, etc. The presentation here of such a syntax is not too formal, in that it is written down not to study the surface grammar, but rather the depth grammar, and leaves some syntactical details open. This form of presentation is usual. Building on this, typing rules are used to define how expressions and types are related. As before, the form used is a bit liberal. === Syntax === The expressions to be typed are exactly those of the lambda calculus extended with a let-expression as shown in the adjacent table. Parentheses can be used to disambiguate an expression. The application is left-binding and binds stronger than abstraction or the let-in construct. Types are syntactically split into two groups, monotypes and polytypes. ==== Monotypes ==== Monotypes always designate a particular type. Monotypes τ {\displaystyle \tau } are syntactically represented as terms. Examples of monotypes include type constants like i n t {\displaystyle {\mathtt {int}}} or s t r i n g {\displaystyle {\mathtt {string}}} , and parametric types like M a p ( S e t s t r i n g ) i n t {\displaystyle {\mathtt {Map\ (Set\ string)\ int}}} . The latter types are examples of applications of type functions, for example, from the set { M a p 2 , S e t 1 , s t r i n g 0 , i n t 0 , → 2 } {\displaystyle \{{\mathtt {Map^{2},\ Set^{1},\ string^{0},\ int^{0}}},\ \rightarrow ^{2}\}} , where the superscript indicates the number of type parameters. The complete set of type functions C {\displaystyle C} is arbitrary in HM, except that it must contain at least → 2 {\displaystyle \rightarrow ^{2}} , the type of functions. It is often written in infix notation for convenience. For example, a function mapping integers to strings has type i n t → s t r i n g {\displaystyle {\mathtt {int}}\rightarrow {\mathtt {string}}} . Again, parentheses can be used to disambiguate a type expression. The application binds stronger than the infix arrow, which is right-binding. Type variables are admitted as monotypes. Monotypes are not to be confused with monomorphic types, which exc

  Read more →
• 

  Self-management (computer science)

  Self-management is the process by which computer systems manage their own operation without human intervention. Self-management technologies are expected to pervade the next generation of network management systems. The growing complexity of modern networked computer systems is a limiting factor in their expansion. The increasing heterogeneity of corporate computer systems, the inclusion of mobile computing devices, and the combination of different networking technologies like WLAN, cellular phone networks, and mobile ad hoc networks make the conventional, manual management difficult, time-consuming, and error-prone. More recently, self-management has been suggested as a solution to increasing complexity in cloud computing. An industrial initiative towards realizing self-management is the Autonomic Computing Initiative (ACI) started by IBM in 2001. The ACI defines the following four functional areas: Self-configuration Auto-configuration of components Self-healing Automatic discovery, and correction of faults; automatically applying all necessary actions to bring system back to normal operation Self-optimization Automatic monitoring and control of resources to ensure the optimal functioning with respect to the defined requirements Self-protection Proactive identification and protection from arbitrary attacks

  Read more →
• 

  Tagsistant

  Tagsistant is a semantic file system for the Linux kernel, written in C and based on FUSE. Unlike traditional file systems that use hierarchies of directories to locate objects, Tagsistant introduces the concept of tags. == Design and differences with hierarchical file systems == In computing, a file system is a type of data store which could be used to store, retrieve and update files. Each file can be uniquely located by its path. The user must know the path in advance to access a file and the path does not necessarily include any information about the content of the file. Tagsistant uses a complementary approach based on tags. The user can create a set of tags and apply those tags to files, directories and other objects (devices, pipes, ...). The user can then search all the objects that match a subset of tags, called a query. This kind of approach is well suited for managing user contents like pictures, audio recordings, movies and text documents but is incompatible with system files (like libraries, commands and configurations) where the univocity of the path is a security requirement to prevent the access to a wrong content. == The tags/ directory == A Tagsistant file system features four main directories: archive/ relations/ stats/ tags/ Tags are created as sub directories of the tags/ directory and can be used in queries complying to this syntax: tags/subquery/[+/subquery/[+/subquery/]]/@/ where a subquery is an unlimited list of tags, concatenated as directories: tag1/tag2/tag3/.../tagN/ The portion of a path delimited by tags/ and @/ is the actual query. The +/ operator joins the results of different sub-queries in one single list. The @/ operator ends the query. To be returned as a result of the following query: tags/t1/t2/+/t1/t4/@/ an object must be tagged as both t1/ and t2/ or as both t1/ and t4/. Any object tagged as t2/ or t4/, but not as t1/ will not be retrieved. The query syntax deliberately violates the POSIX file system semantics by allowing a path token to be a descendant of itself, like in tags/t1/t2/+/t1/t4/@ where t1/ appears twice. As a consequence a recursive scan of a Tagsistant file system will exit with an error or endlessly loop, as done by Unix find: This drawback is balanced by the possibility to list the tags inside a query in any order. The query tags/t1/t2/@/ is completely equivalent to tags/t2/t1/@/ and tags/t1/+/t2/t3/@/ is equivalent to tags/t2/t3/+/t1/@/. The @/ element has the precise purpose of restoring the POSIX semantics: the path tags/t1/@/directory/ refers to a traditional directory and a recursive scan of this path will properly perform. == The reasoner and the relations/ directory == Tagsistant features a simple reasoner which expands the results of a query by including objects tagged with related tags. A relation between two tags can be established inside the relations/ directory following a three level pattern: relations/tag1/rel/tag2/ The rel element can be includes or is_equivalent. To include the rock tag in the music tag, the Unix command mkdir can be used: mkdir -p relations/music/includes/rock The reasoner can recursively resolve relations, allowing the creation of complex structures: mkdir -p relations/music/includes/rock mkdir -p relations/rock/includes/hard_rock mkdir -p relations/rock/includes/grunge mkdir -p relations/rock/includes/heavy_metal mkdir -p relations/heavy_metal/includes/speed_metal The web of relations created inside the relations/ directory constitutes a basic form of ontology. == Autotagging plugins == Tagsistant features an autotagging plugin stack which gets called when a file or a symlink is written. Each plugin is called if its declared MIME type matches The list of working plugins released with Tagsistant 0.6 is limited to: text/html: tags the file with each word in