AI Face Look

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

• 

  DataScene

  DataScene is a scientific graphing, animation, data analysis, and real-time data monitoring software package. It was developed with the Common Language Infrastructure technology and the GDI+ graphics library. With the two Common Language Runtime engines - the .Net and Mono frameworks - DataScene runs on all major operating systems. With DataScene, the user can plot 39 types 2D & 3D graphs (e.g., Area graph, Bar graph, Boxplot graph, Pie graph, Line graph, Histogram graph, Surface graph, Polar graph, Water Fall graph, etc.), manipulate, print, and export graphs to various formats (e.g., Bitmap, WMF/EMF, JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF, PostScript, and PDF), analyze data with different mathematical methods (fitting curves, calculating statics, FFT, etc.), create chart animations for presentations (e.g. with PowerPoint), classes, and web pages, and monitor and chart real-time data. == History == DataScene was first released (version 1.0) in March 2009 for the Windows platform and the .Net 2.0 framework. Since version 2.0, DataScene has been ported to the Mono framework 2.6 and all Linux and Unix/X11 operating systems. Cyberwit offers free licensing for the Express edition of DataScene.

  Read more →
• 

  Distributed transaction

  A distributed transaction operates within a distributed environment, typically involving multiple nodes across a network depending on the location of the data. A key aspect of distributed transactions is atomicity, which ensures that the transaction is completed in its entirety or not executed at all. It's essential to note that distributed transactions are not limited to databases. The Open Group, a vendor consortium, proposed the X/Open Distributed Transaction Processing Model (X/Open XA), which became a de facto standard for the behavior of transaction model components. Databases are common transactional resources and, often, transactions span a couple of such databases. In this case, a distributed transaction can be seen as a database transaction that must be synchronized (or provide ACID properties) among multiple participating databases which are distributed among different physical locations. The isolation property (the I of ACID) poses a special challenge for multi database transactions, since the (global) serializability property could be violated, even if each database provides it (see also global serializability). In practice most commercial database systems use strong strict two-phase locking (SS2PL) for concurrency control, which ensures global serializability, if all the participating databases employ it. A common algorithm for ensuring correct completion of a distributed transaction is the two-phase commit (2PC). This algorithm is usually applied for updates able to commit in a short period of time, ranging from couple of milliseconds to couple of minutes. There are also long-lived distributed transactions, for example a transaction to book a trip, which consists of booking a flight, a rental car and a hotel. Since booking the flight might take up to a day to get a confirmation, two-phase commit is not applicable here, it will lock the resources for this long. In this case more sophisticated techniques that involve multiple undo levels are used. The way you can undo the hotel booking by calling a desk and cancelling the reservation, a system can be designed to undo certain operations (unless they are irreversibly finished). In practice, long-lived distributed transactions are implemented in systems based on web services. Usually these transactions utilize principles of compensating transactions, Optimism and Isolation Without Locking. The X/Open standard does not cover long-lived distributed transactions. Several technologies, including Jakarta Enterprise Beans and Microsoft Transaction Server fully support distributed transaction standards. == Synchronization == In event-driven architectures, distributed transactions can be synchronized through using request–response paradigm and it can be implemented in two ways: Creating two separate queues: one for requests and the other for replies. The event producer must wait until it receives the response. Creating one dedicated ephemeral queue for each request.

  Read more →
• 

  Physical schema

  A physical data model (or database design) is a representation of a data design as implemented, or intended to be implemented, in a database management system. In the lifecycle of a project it typically derives from a logical data model, though it may be reverse-engineered from a given database implementation. A complete physical data model will include all the database artifacts required to create relationships between tables or to achieve performance goals, such as indexes, constraint definitions, linking tables, partitioned tables or clusters. Analysts can usually use a physical data model to calculate storage estimates; it may include specific storage allocation details for a given database system. As of 2012 seven main databases dominate the commercial marketplace: Informix, Oracle, Postgres, SQL Server, Sybase, IBM Db2 and MySQL. Other RDBMS systems tend either to be legacy databases or used within academia such as universities or further education colleges. Physical data models for each implementation would differ significantly, not least due to underlying operating-system requirements that may sit underneath them. For example: SQL Server runs only on Microsoft Windows operating-systems (Starting with SQL Server 2017, SQL Server runs on Linux. It's the same SQL Server database engine, with many similar features and services regardless of your operating system), while Oracle and MySQL can run on Solaris, Linux and other UNIX-based operating-systems as well as on Windows. This means that the disk requirements, security requirements and many other aspects of a physical data model will be influenced by the RDBMS that a database administrator (or an organization) chooses to use. == Physical schema == Physical schema is a term used in data management to describe how data is to be represented and stored (files, indices, etc.) in secondary storage using a particular database management system (DBMS) (e.g., Oracle RDBMS, Sybase SQL Server, etc.). In the ANSI/SPARC Architecture three schema approach, the internal schema is the view of data that involved data management technology. This is as opposed to an external schema that reflects an individual's view of the data, or the conceptual schema that is the integration of a set of external schemas. The logical schema was the way data were represented to conform to the constraints of a particular approach to database management. At that time the choices were hierarchical and network. Describing the logical schema, however, still did not describe how physically data would be stored on disk drives. That is the domain of the physical schema. Now logical schemas describe data in terms of relational tables and columns, object-oriented classes, and XML tags. A single set of tables, for example, can be implemented in numerous ways, up to and including an architecture where table rows are maintained on computers in different countries.

  Read more →
• 

  Organizational metacognition

  Organizational metacognition is knowing what an organization knows, a concept related to metacognition, organizational learning, the learning organization and sensemaking. It is used to describe how organizations and teams develop an awareness of their own thinking, learning how to learn, where awareness of ignorance can motivate learning. The organizational deutero-learning concept identified by Argyris and Schon defines when organizations learn how to carry out single-loop and double-loop learning. It has also been described as learning how to learn through a process of collaborative inquiry and reflection (evaluative inquiry). "When an organization engages in deutero-learning its members learn about the previous context for learning. They reflect on and inquire into previous episodes of organizational learning, or failure to learn. They discover what they did that facilitated or inhibited learning, they invent new strategies for learning, they produce these strategies, and they evaluate and generalize what they have produced" Learning what facilitates and inhibits learning enables organizations to develop new strategies to develop their knowledge. For example, identification of a gap between perceived performance (such as satisfaction) and actual performance (outcomes) creates an awareness that makes the organization understand that learning needs to occur, driving appropriate changes to the environment and processes. == Learning prototypes == Wijnhoven (2001) grouped four learning prototypes that best meet learning needs, the match between these needs and learning norms dictating an organization's learning capabilities; deutero-learning is the acquisition of these capabilities. knowledge gap analysis classification of problems to select operationally required knowledge and skills coping with organizational tremors and jolts by anticipation, response and adjustments of behavioural repertoires decisional uncertainty measurement == Terminological ambiguities == Organizational metacognition and organizational deutero-learning have both been described as the concept or phenomenon where organizations learn how to learn. Argyris and Schon (1978) place deutero-learning into their cognitive theory of action framework, neglecting aspects of adaptive behaviour and context core to Bateson's (1972) original definitions. In order to resolve terminological ambiguities, Visser (2007) reviewed and reformulated the concept of deutero-learning as, "the behavioral adaptation to patterns of conditioning in relationships in organizational contexts, distinguishing it from meta-learning and planned learning" (pg. 659). == Significance == Organizational metacognition is considered a key norm to the prescriptive concept of the learning organization. Its significance has been recognized by industry, the military and in disaster response. == Examples in practice == Examples of poor metacognition (deutero-learning) have been described in knowledge network environments, "Knowledge networking is important to most competitive enterprises today. Enterprise knowledge is becoming ever more specialized in nature, so no single person or organization can know everything in detail. Hence addressing complex, multidisciplinary problems requires developing and accessing a network of knowledgeable people and organizations. The problem is, many otherwise knowledgeable people and organizations are not fully aware of their knowledge networks, and even more problematic, they are not aware that they are not aware. This focuses our attention toward organizational metacognition."

  Read more →
• 

  Level-set method

  The Level-set method (LSM) is a conceptual framework for using level sets as a tool for numerical analysis of surfaces and shapes. LSM can perform numerical computations involving curves and surfaces on a fixed Cartesian grid without having to parameterize these objects. LSM makes it easier to perform computations on shapes with sharp corners and shapes that change topology (such as by splitting in two or developing holes). These characteristics make LSM effective for modeling objects that vary in time, such as an airbag inflating or a drop of oil floating in water. == Overview == The figure on the right illustrates several ideas about LSM. In the upper left corner is a bounded region with a well-behaved boundary. Below it, the red surface is the graph of a level set function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } determining this shape, and the flat blue region represents the X-Y plane. The boundary of the shape is then the zero-level set of φ {\displaystyle \varphi } , while the shape itself is the set of points in the plane for which φ {\displaystyle \varphi } is positive (interior of the shape) or zero (at the boundary). In the top row, the shape's topology changes as it is split in two. It is challenging to describe this transformation numerically by parameterizing the boundary of the shape and following its evolution. An algorithm can be used to detect the moment the shape splits in two and then construct parameterizations for the two newly obtained curves. On the bottom row, however, the plane at which the level set function is sampled is translated upwards, on which the shape's change in topology is described. It is less challenging to work with a shape through its level-set function rather than with itself directly, in which a method would need to consider all the possible deformations the shape might undergo. Thus, in two dimensions, the level-set method amounts to representing a closed curve Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } (such as the shape boundary in our example) using an auxiliary function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } , called the level-set function. The curve Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } is represented as the zero-level set of φ {\displaystyle \varphi } by Γ = { ( x , y ) ∣ φ ( x , y ) = 0 } , {\displaystyle \Gamma =\{(x,y)\mid \varphi (x,y)=0\},} and the level-set method manipulates Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } implicitly through the function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } . This function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } is assumed to take positive values inside the region delimited by the curve Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } and negative values outside. == The level-set equation == If the curve Γ {\displaystyle \Gamma } moves in the normal direction with a speed v {\displaystyle v} , then by chain rule and implicit differentiation, it can be determined that the level-set function φ {\displaystyle \varphi } satisfies the level-set equation ∂ φ ∂ t = v | ∇ φ | . {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial \varphi }{\partial t}}=v|\nabla \varphi |.} Here, | ⋅ | {\displaystyle |\cdot |} is the Euclidean norm (denoted customarily by single bars in partial differential equations), and t {\displaystyle t} is time. This is a partial differential equation, in particular a Hamilton–Jacobi equation, and can be solved numerically, for example, by using finite differences on a Cartesian grid. However, the numerical solution of the level set equation may require advanced techniques. Simple finite difference methods fail quickly. Upwinding methods such as the Godunov method are considered better; however, the level set method does not guarantee preservation of the volume and shape of the set level in an advection field that maintains shape and size, for example, a uniform or rotational velocity field. Instead, the shape of the level set may become distorted, and the level set may disappear over a few time steps. Therefore, high-order finite difference schemes, such as high-order essentially non-oscillatory (ENO) schemes, are often required, and even then, the feasibility of long-term simulations is questionable. More advanced methods have been developed to overcome this; for example, combinations of the leveling method with tracking marker particles suggested by the velocity field. == Example == Consider a unit circle in R 2 {\textstyle \mathbb {R} ^{2}} , shrinking in on itself at a constant rate, i.e. each point on the boundary of the circle moves along its inwards pointing normally at some fixed speed. The circle will shrink and eventually collapse down to a point. If an initial distance field is constructed (i.e. a function whose value is the signed Euclidean distance to the boundary, positive interior, negative exterior) on the initial circle, the normalized gradient of this field will be the circle normal. If the field has a constant value subtracted from it in time, the zero level (which was the initial boundary) of the new fields will also be circular and will similarly collapse to a point. This is due to this being effectively the temporal integration of the Eikonal equation with a fixed front velocity. == Applications == In mathematical modeling of combustion, LSM is used to describe the instantaneous flame surface, known as the G equation. Level-set data structures have been developed to facilitate the use of the level-set method in computer applications. Computational fluid dynamics Trajectory planning Optimization Image processing Computational biophysics Discrete complex dynamics (visualization of the parameter plane and the dynamic plane) == History == The level-set method was developed in 1979 by Alain Dervieux, and subsequently popularized by Stanley Osher and James Sethian. It has since become popular in many disciplines, such as image processing, computer graphics, computational geometry, optimization, computational fluid dynamics, and computational biology.

  Read more →
• 

  Algorithm IMED

  In multi-armed bandit problems, IMED (for Indexed Minimum Empirical Divergence) is an algorithm developed in 2015 by Junya Honda and Akimichi Takemura. It is the first algorithm proved to be asymptotically optimal respect to the problem-dependant Lai–Robbins lower bound for distributions in ( − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle (-\infty ,1]} . == Multi-armed bandit problem == The Multi-armed bandit problem is a sequential game where one player has to choose at each turn between K {\displaystyle K} actions (arms). Behind every arm a {\displaystyle a} there is an unknown distribution ν a {\displaystyle \nu _{a}} that lies in a set D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} known by the player (for example, D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} can be the set of Gaussian distributions or Bernoulli distributions). At each turn t {\displaystyle t} the player chooses (pulls) an arm a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} , he then gets an observation X t {\displaystyle X_{t}} of the distribution ν a t {\displaystyle \nu _{a_{t}}} . === Regret minimization === The goal is to minimize the regret at time T {\displaystyle T} that is defined as R T := ∑ a = 1 K Δ a E [ N a ( T ) ] {\displaystyle R_{T}:=\sum _{a=1}^{K}\Delta _{a}\mathbb {E} [N_{a}(T)]} where μ a := E [ ν a ] {\displaystyle \mu _{a}:=\mathbb {E} [\nu _{a}]} is the mean of arm a {\displaystyle a} μ ∗ := max a μ a {\displaystyle \mu ^{}:=\max _{a}\mu _{a}} is the highest mean Δ a := μ ∗ − μ a {\displaystyle \Delta _{a}:=\mu ^{}-\mu _{a}} N a ( t ) {\displaystyle N_{a}(t)} is the number of pulls of arm a {\displaystyle a} up to turn t {\displaystyle t} The player has to find an algorithm that chooses at each turn t {\displaystyle t} which arm to pull based on the previous actions and observations ( a s , X s ) s < t {\displaystyle (a_{s},X_{s})_{s μ } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{inf}(\nu ,\mu ,{\mathcal {D}}):=\inf \left\{\mathrm {KL} (\nu ,{\tilde {\nu }})\ |\ {\tilde {\nu }}\in {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1]),\ \mathbb {E} [{\tilde {\nu }}]>\mu \right\}} K L {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} } is the Kullback–Leibler divergence P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1])} is the set of distribution in [ − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle [-\infty ,1]} ν ^ a ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t)} is the empirical distribution of arm a {\displaystyle a} at turn t {\displaystyle t} μ ^ ∗ ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\mu }}^{}(t)} is the highest empirical mean of turn t {\displaystyle t} Remark : For arms a {\displaystyle a} that verify μ ^ a ( t ) = μ ^ ∗ ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\mu }}_{a}(t)={\hat {\mu }}^{}(t)} we have K i n f ( ν ^ a ( t ) , μ ^ ∗ ( t ) ) = 0 {\displaystyle K_{inf}({\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t),{\hat {\mu }}^{}(t))=0} . Then there index is equal to ln ⁡ ( N a ( t ) ) {\displaystyle \ln(N_{a}(t))} === Pseudocode === for each arm i do: n[i] ← 1; nu[i] ← None; mu[i] ← None for t from 1 to K do: select arm t observe reward r n[t] ← n[t] + 1 nu[t] ← update empirical distribution mu[t] ← update empirical mean for t from K+1 to T do: mu ← highest mu for each arm i do: scoreK[i] ← n[i] K_inf(nu[i],mu) scoreN[i] ← ln(n[i]) index[i] ← scoreK[i] + scoreN[i] select arm a with smallest index[a] observe reward r n[a] ← n[a] + 1 nu[a] ← update empirical distribution mu[a] ← update empirical mean == Theoretical results == In the multi-armed bandit problem we have the asymptotic Lai–Robbins lower bound asymptotic lower bound on regret. The algorithm IMED is the first algorithm that matches this lower bound for distribution in ( − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle (-\infty ,1]} in the first order. If the distribution are also bounded then it also match the second order. It is the first algorithm that match the second under of this lower bound. === Lai–Robbins lower bound === In 1985 Lai and Robbins proved an asymptotic, problem-dependent lower bound on regret. In 2018, Aurelien Garivier, Pierre Menard and Gilles Stoltz proved a refined lower bound that gives the second order It states that for every consistent algorithm on the set P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1])} — that is, an algorithm for which, for every ( ν 1 , … , ν K ) ∈ P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) K {\displaystyle (\nu _{1},\dots ,\nu _{K})\in {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1])^{K}} , the regret R T {\displaystyle R_{T}} is subpolynomial (i.e. R T = o T → + ∞ ( T α ) {\displaystyle R_{T}=o_{T\to +\infty }(T^{\alpha })} for all α > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha >0} ) — we have: R T ≥ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ ) ) ln ⁡ T − Ω T → + ∞ ( ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T ) . {\displaystyle R_{T}\geq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{})}}\right)\ln T-\Omega _{T\to +\infty }(\ln \ln T).} This bound is asymptotic (as T → + ∞ {\displaystyle T\to +\infty } ) and gives a first-order lower bound of order ln ⁡ T {\displaystyle \ln T} with the optimal constant in front of it and the second order in − Ω ( ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T ) {\displaystyle -\Omega (\ln \ln T)} . === Regret bound for IMED === If the distribution of every arm a {\displaystyle a} is ( − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle (-\infty ,1]} ( i.e. ν a ∈ P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) ) {\displaystyle \nu _{a}\in {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1]))} then the regret of the algorithm IMED verify R T ≤ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ ) ) ln ⁡ T + O ( 1 ) {\displaystyle R_{T}\leq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{})}}\right)\ln T+O(1)} If all the distribution ν a {\displaystyle \nu _{a}} are bounded then it exists a constant C > 0 {\displaystyle C>0} such that for T {\displaystyle T} large enough the regret of IMED is upper bounded by R T ≤ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ ) ) ln ⁡ T − C ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T {\displaystyle R_{T}\leq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{})}}\right)\ln T-C\ln \ln T} == Computation time == The algorithm only requiere to compute the K i n f {\displaystyle K_{inf}} for suboptimal arms who are pulled O ( ln ⁡ T ) {\displaystyle O(\ln T)} times, which make it a lot faster than KL-UCB. A faster version of IMED was developed in 2023 to make it even faster, using a Taylor development of the K i n f {\displaystyle K_{inf}} in the first order .

  Read more →
• 

  Metadata controller

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

  Read more →
• 

  Principles for a Data Economy

  The Principles for a Data Economy – Data Rights and Transactions is a transatlantic legal project carried out jointly by the American Law Institute (ALI) and the European Law Institute (ELI). The Principles for a Data Economy deals with a range of different legal questions that arise in the data economy. Since data is different from other tradeable items, the Principles draw up legal rules for data transactions and data rights that take into account the interests of different stakeholders involved in the data economy. The Principles are designed to facilitate contractual relations as well as the drafting of model agreements and can guide courts and legislators worldwide. The project proposes a set of principles that can be implemented in any legal system and is designed to work in conjunction with any kind of data privacy/data protection law, intellectual property law or trade secret law. The Principles do not address or seek to change any of the substantive rules of these bodies of law. The Project Team consists of Neil B Cohen and Christiane Wendehorst (as Project Reporters) and Lord John Thomas as well as Steven O. Weise (as Project Chairs). == Characteristics of data == The law governing trades in commerce has historically focused on trade in items that are tangible like goods or on intangible assets, such as shares or licenses. However, data does not fit into any of these traditional categories, nor does it qualify as a service. It is often unclear how traditional legal rules and doctrines can apply to data, as data is different from other assets in many ways. For example, data can be multiplied at basically no cost and can be used in parallel for a variety of different purposes by many different people at the same time (data is a “non-rivalrous” resource). Uncertainty regarding the applicable rules to govern the data economy may inhibit innovation and growth and trouble stakeholders like data-driven industries, start-ups, and consumers. == Stakeholders in the data economy == The Principles have taken the basic types of players and relations which can be found in data ecosystems as a starting point to provide guidance in different situations. The central actors in the data economy are data controllers (also called “data holders”). They are in a position to access the data and decide for which purposes and means this data should be processed. A controller may exercise control all by itself or share it with co-controllers, such as under a data pooling arrangement. Data processors provide the processing of data on a controller’s behalf as a service. Another important group of stakeholders includes those that contribute to the generation of data (e.g. data subjects). Other players in the data economy include data assemblers or data intermediaries (e.g. data trusts). == History of the project and timeline == Before the official adoption of the project by ALI and ELI bodies in 2018, the project team carried out a Feasibility Study from October 2016 to February 2018. In the following years, the project team produced a number of drafts (e.g. “Preliminary Drafts” No. 1 to 4, “Tentative Draft No. 1”) and project progress were regularly discussed with advisory bodies and members of both the ALI and the ELI. The project reporters also included feedback and insights from industry stakeholders and experts that was gained after several meetings and workshops, hosted, inter alia by UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT and several national governmental institutions. Tentative Draft No. 2 was presented at the ALI Annual Meeting in May 2021 and approved by ALI membership. The latest draft ("Final Council Draft") was also approved by the ELI Council and ELI Membership. The Principles for a Data Economy were presented at an international conference with representatives from institutions such as the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), the European Commission, UNIDROIT, the OECD, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the World Economic Forum (WEF) in October 2021. == Project structure == The current draft (“Tentative Draft No. 2”) of the Principles consists of five Parts that each governs different aspects of the data economy: General Provisions, Data Contracts, Data Rights, Third Party Aspects of Data Activities, and Multi-State Issues. === General Provisions === Part I includes general provisions that apply to all other Parts of the Principles for a Data Economy. This Part sets out the purpose of the Principles: they aim to make existing law in the field of the data economy more coherent and support the development of the law in this field by courts and legislators worldwide. It is also clarified that the Principles have a wide scope of application and can be used in a variety of ways by stakeholders in the data economy. The Principles may, for example, serve private parties as a basis for contract formation, guide the deliberations of arbitral tribunals or inspire national legislation. Part I then defines several key terms, such as ‘digital data’ and ‘data right’. The scope of the Principles is limited to matters where information is recorded as an asset, resource or tradeable commodity and where large amounts of data, rather than single pieces of information, are concerned. This Part also clarifies that remedies with respect to data contracts and data rights are left to the applicable national law. === Data Contracts === Part II lists different types of contracts that often occur in the data economy and establishes two broad categories, namely contracts for the supply and sharing of data and contracts for services with regard to data. Contracts for the supply and sharing of data include, e.g. data transfer contracts or data pooling arrangements, while contracts for services with regard to data cover contracts for the processing of data or data intermediary contracts. The Principles provide default terms for each contract type, on issues such as the manner in which data should supply or which characteristics the data supplied should meet. These default terms 'automatically' become part of the contract unless the parties agree otherwise. === Data Rights === Part III governs legally protected interests of players in the data economy that stem from the characteristics of data as a resource (e.g. its non-rivalrous nature) or from public interest considerations. Such data rights may include the right to data access, the right to require the controller to desist from data activities or to correct incorrect/incomplete data, or even to receive an economic share in profits derived from the use of data. For example, the Principles deal with data rights of stakeholders that had a share in the co-generation of data and identify different factors to be considered in determining whether to afford a party a data right. The underlying idea that parties who have contributed to the generation of data should have some rights in the utilization of the data is also recognized by governmental institutions, such as by the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), and the term co-generated data, which was coined by the Principles for a Data Economy, has been adopted, inter alia by the European Commission, the German Data Ethics Commission and the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI). This Part also deals with data rights for the public interest, such as data sharing rights in the field of innovation. === Third Party Aspects === Part IV governs different situations in which data transactions interfere with the rights of third parties. Such rights include intellectual property rights or rights derived from data privacy or data protection law. This Part sets out under which circumstances data activities should be considered wrongful vis à vis another party. For example, a data activity (like data processing or the onward supply of data) could be considered wrongful, if a controller interferes with the rights of data subjects that are protected by data-protection law. A data activity could also be wrongful if the controller is non-compliant with contractual limitations on data activities, enforceable by the protected party (e.g. a controller may only process data for a certain purpose). If someone obtained access to data by unauthorized means (i.e. data “theft”) this could also be considered wrongful. The Part on Third-Party Aspects also takes a detailed look at the effects of the onward supply of data can have on third parties, while balancing the protection of third parties on the one hand, with the interests of data recipients and the desire to encourage data sharing on the other. === Multi-State Issues === As transactions in the data economy are international by nature and hardly occur within one legal system alone, the Part V of the Principles also briefly touches upon the applicability of the rules and doctrines of private international law to such transactions. == Links == Website of the “Principles for a Data Economy – Data Rights and Transaction

  Read more →
• 

  Phase correlation

  Phase correlation is an approach to estimate the relative translative offset between two similar images (digital image correlation) or other data sets. It is commonly used in image registration and relies on a frequency-domain representation of the data, usually calculated by fast Fourier transforms. The term is applied particularly to a subset of cross-correlation techniques that isolate the phase information from the Fourier-space representation of the cross-correlogram. == Example == The following image demonstrates the usage of phase correlation to determine relative translative movement between two images corrupted by independent Gaussian noise. The image was translated by (20,23) pixels. Accordingly, one can clearly see a peak in the phase-correlation representation at approximately (20,23). == Method == Given two input images g a {\displaystyle \ g_{a}} and g b {\displaystyle \ g_{b}} : Apply a window function (e.g., a Hamming window) on both images to reduce edge effects (this may be optional depending on the image characteristics). Then, calculate the discrete 2D Fourier transform of both images. G a = F { g a } , G b = F { g b } {\displaystyle \ \mathbf {G} _{a}={\mathcal {F}}\{g_{a}\},\;\mathbf {G} _{b}={\mathcal {F}}\{g_{b}\}} Calculate the cross-power spectrum by taking the complex conjugate of the second result, multiplying the Fourier transforms together elementwise, and normalizing this product elementwise. R = G a ∘ G b ∗ | G a ∘ G b ∗ | {\displaystyle \ R={\frac {\mathbf {G} _{a}\circ \mathbf {G} _{b}^{}}{|\mathbf {G} _{a}\circ \mathbf {G} _{b}^{}|}}} Where ∘ {\displaystyle \circ } is the Hadamard product (entry-wise product) and the absolute values are taken entry-wise as well. Written out entry-wise for element index ( j , k ) {\displaystyle (j,k)} : R j k = G a , j k ⋅ G b , j k ∗ | G a , j k ⋅ G b , j k ∗ | {\displaystyle \ R_{jk}={\frac {G_{a,jk}\cdot G_{b,jk}^{}}{|G_{a,jk}\cdot G_{b,jk}^{}|}}} Obtain the normalized cross-correlation by applying the inverse Fourier transform. r = F − 1 { R } {\displaystyle \ r={\mathcal {F}}^{-1}\{R\}} Determine the location of the peak in r {\displaystyle \ r} . ( Δ x , Δ y ) = arg ⁡ max ( x , y ) { r } {\displaystyle \ (\Delta x,\Delta y)=\arg \max _{(x,y)}\{r\}} === Subpixel registration === Commonly, interpolation methods are used to estimate the peak location in the cross-correlogram to non-integer values, despite the fact that the data are discrete, and this procedure is often termed 'subpixel registration'. A large variety of subpixel interpolation methods are given in the technical literature. Common peak interpolation methods such as parabolic interpolation have been used, and the OpenCV computer vision package uses a centroid-based method, though these generally have inferior accuracy compared to more sophisticated methods. Because the Fourier representation of the data has already been computed, it is especially convenient to use the Fourier shift theorem with real-valued (sub-integer) shifts for this purpose, which essentially interpolates using the sinusoidal basis functions of the Fourier transform. An especially popular FT-based estimator is given by Foroosh et al. In this method, the subpixel peak location is approximated by a simple formula involving peak pixel value and the values of its nearest neighbors, where r ( 0 , 0 ) {\displaystyle r_{(0,0)}} is the peak value and r ( 1 , 0 ) {\displaystyle r_{(1,0)}} is the nearest neighbor in the x direction (assuming, as in most approaches, that the integer shift has already been found and the comparand images differ only by a subpixel shift). Δ x = r ( 1 , 0 ) r ( 1 , 0 ) ± r ( 0 , 0 ) {\displaystyle \ \Delta x={\frac {r_{(1,0)}}{r_{(1,0)}\pm r_{(0,0)}}}} The Foroosh et al. method is quite fast compared to most methods, though it is not always the most accurate. Some methods shift the peak in Fourier space and apply non-linear optimization to maximize the correlogram peak, but these tend to be very slow since they must apply an inverse Fourier transform or its equivalent in the objective function. It is also possible to infer the peak location from phase characteristics in Fourier space without the inverse transformation, as noted by Stone. These methods usually use a linear least squares (LLS) fit of the phase angles to a planar model. The long latency of the phase angle computation in these methods is a disadvantage, but the speed can sometimes be comparable to the Foroosh et al. method depending on the image size. They often compare favorably in speed to the multiple iterations of extremely slow objective functions in iterative non-linear methods. Since all subpixel shift computation methods are fundamentally interpolative, the performance of a particular method depends on how well the underlying data conform to the assumptions in the interpolator. This fact also may limit the usefulness of high numerical accuracy in an algorithm, since the uncertainty due to interpolation method choice may be larger than any numerical or approximation error in the particular method. Subpixel methods are also particularly sensitive to noise in the images, and the utility of a particular algorithm is distinguished not only by its speed and accuracy but its resilience to the particular types of noise in the application. == Rationale == The method is based on the Fourier shift theorem. Let the two images g a {\displaystyle \ g_{a}} and g b {\displaystyle \ g_{b}} be circularly-shifted versions of each other: g b ( x , y ) = d e f g a ( ( x − Δ x ) mod M , ( y − Δ y ) mod N ) {\displaystyle \ g_{b}(x,y)\ {\stackrel {\mathrm {def} }{=}}\ g_{a}((x-\Delta x){\bmod {M}},(y-\Delta y){\bmod {N}})} (where the images are M × N {\displaystyle \ M\times N} in size). Then, the discrete Fourier transforms of the images will be shifted relatively in phase: G b ( u , v ) = G a ( u , v ) e − 2 π i ( u Δ x M + v Δ y N ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {G} _{b}(u,v)=\mathbf {G} _{a}(u,v)e^{-2\pi i({\frac {u\Delta x}{M}}+{\frac {v\Delta y}{N}})}} One can then calculate the normalized cross-power spectrum to factor out the phase difference: R ( u , v ) = G a G b ∗ | G a G b ∗ | = G a G a ∗ e 2 π i ( u Δ x M + v Δ y N ) | G a G a ∗ e 2 π i ( u Δ x M + v Δ y N ) | = G a G a ∗ e 2 π i ( u Δ x M + v Δ y N ) | G a G a ∗ | = e 2 π i ( u Δ x M + v Δ y N ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}R(u,v)&={\frac {\mathbf {G} _{a}\mathbf {G} _{b}^{}}{|\mathbf {G} _{a}\mathbf {G} _{b}^{}|}}\\&={\frac {\mathbf {G} _{a}\mathbf {G} _{a}^{}e^{2\pi i({\frac {u\Delta x}{M}}+{\frac {v\Delta y}{N}})}}{|\mathbf {G} _{a}\mathbf {G} _{a}^{}e^{2\pi i({\frac {u\Delta x}{M}}+{\frac {v\Delta y}{N}})}|}}\\&={\frac {\mathbf {G} _{a}\mathbf {G} _{a}^{}e^{2\pi i({\frac {u\Delta x}{M}}+{\frac {v\Delta y}{N}})}}{|\mathbf {G} _{a}\mathbf {G} _{a}^{}|}}\\&=e^{2\pi i({\frac {u\Delta x}{M}}+{\frac {v\Delta y}{N}})}\end{aligned}}} since the magnitude of an imaginary exponential always is one, and the phase of G a G a ∗ {\displaystyle \ \mathbf {G} _{a}\mathbf {G} _{a}^{}} always is zero. The inverse Fourier transform of a complex exponential is a Dirac delta function, i.e. a single peak: r ( x , y ) = δ ( x + Δ x , y + Δ y ) {\displaystyle \ r(x,y)=\delta (x+\Delta x,y+\Delta y)} This result could have been obtained by calculating the cross correlation directly. The advantage of this method is that the discrete Fourier transform and its inverse can be performed using the fast Fourier transform, which is much faster than correlation for large images. === Benefits === Unlike many spatial-domain algorithms, the phase correlation method is resilient to noise, occlusions, and other defects typical of medical or satellite images. The method can be extended to determine rotation and scaling differences between two images by first converting the images to log-polar coordinates. Due to properties of the Fourier transform, the rotation and scaling parameters can be determined in a manner invariant to translation. === Limitations === In practice, it is more likely that g b {\displaystyle \ g_{b}} will be a simple linear shift of g a {\displaystyle \ g_{a}} , rather than a circular shift as required by the explanation above. In such cases, r {\displaystyle \ r} will not be a simple delta function, which will reduce the performance of the method. In such cases, a window function (such as a Gaussian or Tukey window) should be employed during the Fourier transform to reduce edge effects, or the images should be zero padded so that the edge effects can be ignored. If the images consist of a flat background, with all detail situated away from the edges, then a linear shift will be equivalent to a circular shift, and the above derivation will hold exactly. The peak can be sharpened by using edge or vector correlation. For periodic images (such as a chessboard or picket fence), phase correlation may yield ambiguous results with several peaks in the resulting output. == Applications == Phase correlation is the preferred m

  Read more →
• 

  Novell Storage Manager

  Novell Storage Manager is a system software package released by Novell in 2004 that uses identity, policy and directory events to automate full lifecycle management of file storage for individual users and organizational groups. By tying storage management to an organization's existing identity infrastructure, it has been pointed out, Novell Storage Manager enables the administration of users across all file servers "as a single pool rather than [in] separate independently managed domains." Novell Storage Manager is a component of the Novell File Management Suite. == How It Works == Novell Storage Manager dynamically manages and provisions storage based on user and group events that occur in the directory, including user creations, group assignments, moves, renames, and deletions. When a change happens in the directory that affects a user’s file storage needs or user storage policy, Storage Manager applies the appropriate policy and makes the necessary changes at the file system level to address those storage needs. The following key components comprise Novell Storage Manager's identity and policy-driven state machine architecture: Directory services; Storage policies; Novell Storage Manager event monitors; Novell Storage Manager policy engine; Novell Storage Manager agents; and Action objects. This state machine architecture enables the engine to properly deal with transient waits with directory synchronization issues. It also allows recovery from failures involving network communications, a target server or a server running a component of Storage Manager—including the policy engine itself. If a failure or interruption occurs at any point during operation, Storage Manager will be able to successfully continue the operation from where it was when the interruption occurred. == Reviews == Jon Toigo called Novell Storage Manager "a robust and smart approach to corralling user files... into an organized and efficient management scheme". He also said it was "best in class" of the products he'd reviewed.

  Read more →
• 

  Archetype (information science)

  In the field of informatics, an archetype is a formal re-usable model of a domain concept. Traditionally, the term archetype is used in psychology to mean an idealized model of a person, personality or behaviour (see Archetype). The usage of the term in informatics is derived from this traditional meaning, but applied to domain modelling instead. An archetype is defined by the OpenEHR Foundation (for health informatics) as follows: An archetype is a computable expression of a domain content model in the form of structured constraint statements, based on some reference model. openEHR archetypes are based on the openEHR reference model. Archetypes are all expressed in the same formalism. In general, they are defined for wide re-use, however, they can be specialized to include local particularities. They can accommodate any number of natural languages and terminologies. == Formal specifications == The modern archetype formalism is specified and maintained by the openEHR Foundation, and although originally developed for the health IT domain, is completely domain-independent, and has been used in geospatial modelling, telecommunications, and defence. The archetype formalism consists of a number of specifications including: 'ADL 1.4': original release of Archetype Definition Language (ADL) and Archetype Object Model (AOM); widely implemented in health IT domain; 'ADL 2': modern release of Archetype Definition Language (ADL), Archetype Object Model (AOM), Archetype Identification specification and Archetype Technology Overview. The Archetype Technology Overview provides a short technical overview of the archetype formalism useful for new users. The ADL/AOM 1.4 specifications were provided to ISO TC 215 in 2008 by the openEHR Foundation and became the ISO 13606-2 standard, extant until 2019. ISO TC 215 accepted the AOM 2 specification as the basis for a revision of this standard, which was issued in 2019. In late 2015, the Object Management Group (OMG) accepted an RfP entitled 'Archetype Modeling Language (AML)' as a new candidate standard. This specification is a form of ADL re-engineered as a UML profile so as to enable archetype modelling to be supported within UML tools. == Tools == A number of tools area available for working with archetypes. Most are listed on the openEHR modelling tools page. They include: ADL Designer, a modern AOM2-based web editing application Archetype Editor, an original desktop clinical modelling tool Template Designer, an original desktop clinical templating tool LinkEHR, an archetype and data integration tool ADL Workbench, reference compiler and visualiser tool == Example ==

  Read more →
• 

  Algorithm IMED

  In multi-armed bandit problems, IMED (for Indexed Minimum Empirical Divergence) is an algorithm developed in 2015 by Junya Honda and Akimichi Takemura. It is the first algorithm proved to be asymptotically optimal respect to the problem-dependant Lai–Robbins lower bound for distributions in ( − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle (-\infty ,1]} . == Multi-armed bandit problem == The Multi-armed bandit problem is a sequential game where one player has to choose at each turn between K {\displaystyle K} actions (arms). Behind every arm a {\displaystyle a} there is an unknown distribution ν a {\displaystyle \nu _{a}} that lies in a set D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} known by the player (for example, D {\displaystyle {\mathcal {D}}} can be the set of Gaussian distributions or Bernoulli distributions). At each turn t {\displaystyle t} the player chooses (pulls) an arm a t {\displaystyle a_{t}} , he then gets an observation X t {\displaystyle X_{t}} of the distribution ν a t {\displaystyle \nu _{a_{t}}} . === Regret minimization === The goal is to minimize the regret at time T {\displaystyle T} that is defined as R T := ∑ a = 1 K Δ a E [ N a ( T ) ] {\displaystyle R_{T}:=\sum _{a=1}^{K}\Delta _{a}\mathbb {E} [N_{a}(T)]} where μ a := E [ ν a ] {\displaystyle \mu _{a}:=\mathbb {E} [\nu _{a}]} is the mean of arm a {\displaystyle a} μ ∗ := max a μ a {\displaystyle \mu ^{}:=\max _{a}\mu _{a}} is the highest mean Δ a := μ ∗ − μ a {\displaystyle \Delta _{a}:=\mu ^{}-\mu _{a}} N a ( t ) {\displaystyle N_{a}(t)} is the number of pulls of arm a {\displaystyle a} up to turn t {\displaystyle t} The player has to find an algorithm that chooses at each turn t {\displaystyle t} which arm to pull based on the previous actions and observations ( a s , X s ) s < t {\displaystyle (a_{s},X_{s})_{s μ } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}_{inf}(\nu ,\mu ,{\mathcal {D}}):=\inf \left\{\mathrm {KL} (\nu ,{\tilde {\nu }})\ |\ {\tilde {\nu }}\in {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1]),\ \mathbb {E} [{\tilde {\nu }}]>\mu \right\}} K L {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} } is the Kullback–Leibler divergence P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1])} is the set of distribution in [ − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle [-\infty ,1]} ν ^ a ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t)} is the empirical distribution of arm a {\displaystyle a} at turn t {\displaystyle t} μ ^ ∗ ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\mu }}^{}(t)} is the highest empirical mean of turn t {\displaystyle t} Remark : For arms a {\displaystyle a} that verify μ ^ a ( t ) = μ ^ ∗ ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {\mu }}_{a}(t)={\hat {\mu }}^{}(t)} we have K i n f ( ν ^ a ( t ) , μ ^ ∗ ( t ) ) = 0 {\displaystyle K_{inf}({\hat {\nu }}_{a}(t),{\hat {\mu }}^{}(t))=0} . Then there index is equal to ln ⁡ ( N a ( t ) ) {\displaystyle \ln(N_{a}(t))} === Pseudocode === for each arm i do: n[i] ← 1; nu[i] ← None; mu[i] ← None for t from 1 to K do: select arm t observe reward r n[t] ← n[t] + 1 nu[t] ← update empirical distribution mu[t] ← update empirical mean for t from K+1 to T do: mu ← highest mu for each arm i do: scoreK[i] ← n[i] K_inf(nu[i],mu) scoreN[i] ← ln(n[i]) index[i] ← scoreK[i] + scoreN[i] select arm a with smallest index[a] observe reward r n[a] ← n[a] + 1 nu[a] ← update empirical distribution mu[a] ← update empirical mean == Theoretical results == In the multi-armed bandit problem we have the asymptotic Lai–Robbins lower bound asymptotic lower bound on regret. The algorithm IMED is the first algorithm that matches this lower bound for distribution in ( − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle (-\infty ,1]} in the first order. If the distribution are also bounded then it also match the second order. It is the first algorithm that match the second under of this lower bound. === Lai–Robbins lower bound === In 1985 Lai and Robbins proved an asymptotic, problem-dependent lower bound on regret. In 2018, Aurelien Garivier, Pierre Menard and Gilles Stoltz proved a refined lower bound that gives the second order It states that for every consistent algorithm on the set P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1])} — that is, an algorithm for which, for every ( ν 1 , … , ν K ) ∈ P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) K {\displaystyle (\nu _{1},\dots ,\nu _{K})\in {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1])^{K}} , the regret R T {\displaystyle R_{T}} is subpolynomial (i.e. R T = o T → + ∞ ( T α ) {\displaystyle R_{T}=o_{T\to +\infty }(T^{\alpha })} for all α > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha >0} ) — we have: R T ≥ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ ) ) ln ⁡ T − Ω T → + ∞ ( ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T ) . {\displaystyle R_{T}\geq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{})}}\right)\ln T-\Omega _{T\to +\infty }(\ln \ln T).} This bound is asymptotic (as T → + ∞ {\displaystyle T\to +\infty } ) and gives a first-order lower bound of order ln ⁡ T {\displaystyle \ln T} with the optimal constant in front of it and the second order in − Ω ( ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T ) {\displaystyle -\Omega (\ln \ln T)} . === Regret bound for IMED === If the distribution of every arm a {\displaystyle a} is ( − ∞ , 1 ] {\displaystyle (-\infty ,1]} ( i.e. ν a ∈ P ( [ − ∞ , 1 ] ) ) {\displaystyle \nu _{a}\in {\mathcal {P}}([-\infty ,1]))} then the regret of the algorithm IMED verify R T ≤ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ ) ) ln ⁡ T + O ( 1 ) {\displaystyle R_{T}\leq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{})}}\right)\ln T+O(1)} If all the distribution ν a {\displaystyle \nu _{a}} are bounded then it exists a constant C > 0 {\displaystyle C>0} such that for T {\displaystyle T} large enough the regret of IMED is upper bounded by R T ≤ ( ∑ a : μ a < μ ∗ Δ a K inf ( ν a , μ ∗ ) ) ln ⁡ T − C ln ⁡ ln ⁡ T {\displaystyle R_{T}\leq \left(\sum _{a:\mu _{a}<\mu ^{}}{\frac {\Delta _{a}}{{\mathcal {K}}_{\inf }(\nu _{a},\mu ^{})}}\right)\ln T-C\ln \ln T} == Computation time == The algorithm only requiere to compute the K i n f {\displaystyle K_{inf}} for suboptimal arms who are pulled O ( ln ⁡ T ) {\displaystyle O(\ln T)} times, which make it a lot faster than KL-UCB. A faster version of IMED was developed in 2023 to make it even faster, using a Taylor development of the K i n f {\displaystyle K_{inf}} in the first order .

  Read more →
• 

  Sentence embedding

  In natural language processing, a sentence embedding is a representation of a sentence as a vector of numbers which encodes meaningful semantic information. State of the art embeddings are based on the learned hidden layer representation of dedicated sentence transformer models. BERT pioneered an approach involving the use of a dedicated [CLS] token prepended to the beginning of each sentence inputted into the model; the final hidden state vector of this token encodes information about the sentence and can be fine-tuned for use in sentence classification tasks. In practice however, BERT's sentence embedding with the [CLS] token achieves poor performance, often worse than simply averaging non-contextual word embeddings. SBERT later achieved superior sentence embedding performance by fine tuning BERT's [CLS] token embeddings through the usage of a siamese neural network architecture on the SNLI dataset. Other approaches are loosely based on the idea of distributional semantics applied to sentences. Skip-Thought trains an encoder-decoder structure for the task of neighboring sentences predictions; this has been shown to achieve worse performance than approaches such as InferSent or SBERT. An alternative direction is to aggregate word embeddings, such as those returned by Word2vec, into sentence embeddings. The most straightforward approach is to simply compute the average of word vectors, known as continuous bag-of-words (CBOW). However, more elaborate solutions based on word vector quantization have also been proposed. One such approach is the vector of locally aggregated word embeddings (VLAWE), which demonstrated performance improvements in downstream text classification tasks. == Applications == In recent years, sentence embedding has seen a growing level of interest due to its applications in natural language queryable knowledge bases through the usage of vector indexing for semantic search. LangChain for instance utilizes sentence transformers for purposes of indexing documents. In particular, an indexing is generated by generating embeddings for chunks of documents and storing (document chunk, embedding) tuples. Then given a query in natural language, the embedding for the query can be generated. A top k similarity search algorithm is then used between the query embedding and the document chunk embeddings to retrieve the most relevant document chunks as context information for question answering tasks. This approach is also known formally as retrieval-augmented generation. Though not as predominant as BERTScore, sentence embeddings are commonly used for sentence similarity evaluation which sees common use for the task of optimizing a Large language model's generation parameters is often performed via comparing candidate sentences against reference sentences. By using the cosine-similarity of the sentence embeddings of candidate and reference sentences as the evaluation function, a grid-search algorithm can be utilized to automate hyperparameter optimization. == Evaluation == A way of testing sentence encodings is to apply them on Sentences Involving Compositional Knowledge (SICK) corpus for both entailment (SICK-E) and relatedness (SICK-R). In the best results are obtained using a BiLSTM network trained on the Stanford Natural Language Inference (SNLI) Corpus. The Pearson correlation coefficient for SICK-R is 0.885 and the result for SICK-E is 86.3. A slight improvement over previous scores is presented in: SICK-R: 0.888 and SICK-E: 87.8 using a concatenation of bidirectional Gated recurrent unit.

  Read more →
• 

  Master data management

  Master data management (MDM) is a discipline in which business and information technology collaborate to ensure the uniformity, accuracy, stewardship, semantic consistency, and accountability of the enterprise's official shared master data assets. == Reasons for master data management == Data consistency and accuracy: MDM ensures that the organization's critical data is consistent and accurate across all systems, reducing discrepancies and errors caused by multiple, siloed copies of the same data. Improved decision-making: By providing a single version of the truth (SVOT), MDM enables organizations to deliver the right data to decision makers, allowing them to clearly understand business performance and make informed, data-driven decisions. Operational efficiency: With the consistent and accurate data provided by an MDM, operational processes such as reporting and inventory management can be automated to improve efficiency. Employee learning, onboarding, and customer service also become more efficient, as MDM data facilitates rapid, accurate, and thorough information retrieval, permitting more employee time to be spent on work. Regulatory compliance: MDM tries to help organizations comply with industry standards and regulations by ensuring that master data is accurately recorded, maintained, and audited. However, issues with data quality, classification, and reconciliation may require data transformation. As with other Extract, Transform, Load-based data movements, these processes are expensive and inefficient, reducing return on investment for a project. == Business unit and product line segmentation == As a result of business unit and product line segmentation, the same entity (whether a customer, supplier, or product) will be included in different product lines. This leads to data redundancy and even confusion. For example, a customer takes out a mortgage at a bank. If the marketing and customer service departments have separate databases, advertisements might still be sent to the customer, even though they've already signed up. The two parts of the bank are unaware, and the customer is sent irrelevant communications. Record linkage can associate different records corresponding to the same entity, mitigating this issue. == Mergers and acquisitions == One of the most common problems for master data management is company growth through mergers or acquisitions. Reconciling these separate master data systems can present difficulties, as existing applications have dependencies on the master databases. Ideally, database administrators resolve this problem through deduplication of the master data as part of the merger. Over time, as further mergers and acquisitions occur, the problem can multiply. Data reconciliation processes can become extremely complex or even unreliable. Some organizations end up with 10, 15, or even 100 separate and poorly integrated master databases. This can cause serious problems in customer satisfaction, operational efficiency, decision support, and regulatory compliance. Another problem involves determining the proper degrees of detail and normalization to include in the master data schema. For example, in a federated Human Resources environment, the enterprise software may focus on storing people's data as current status, adding a few fields to identify the date of hire, date of last promotion, etc. However, this simplification can introduce business-impacting errors into dependent systems for planning and forecasting. The stakeholders of such systems may be forced to build a parallel network of new interfaces to track the onboarding of new hires, planned retirements, and divestment, which works against one of the aims of master data management. == People, processes and technology == Master data management is enabled by technology, but is more than the technologies that enable it. An organization's master data management capability will also include people and processes in its definition. === People === Several roles should be staffed within MDM. Most prominently, the Data Owner and the Data Steward. Several people would likely be allocated to each role and each person responsible for a subset of Master Data (e.g. one data owner for employee master data, another for customer master data). The Data Owner is responsible for the requirements for data definition, data quality, data security, etc. as well as for compliance with data governance and data management procedures. The Data Owner should also be funding improvement projects in case of deviations from the requirements. The Data Steward is running the master data management on behalf of the data owner and probably also being an advisor to the Data Owner. === Processes === Master data management can be viewed as a "discipline for specialized quality improvement" defined by the policies and procedures put in place by a data governance organization. It has the objective of providing processes for collecting, aggregating, matching, consolidating, quality-assuring, persisting and distributing master data throughout an organization to ensure a common understanding, consistency, accuracy and control, in the ongoing maintenance and application use of that data. Processes commonly seen in master data management include source identification, data collection, data transformation, normalization, rule administration, error detection and correction, data consolidation, data storage, data distribution, data classification, taxonomy services, item master creation, schema mapping, product codification, data enrichment, hierarchy management, business semantics management and data governance. === Technology === A master data management tool can be used to support master data management by removing duplicates, standardizing data (mass maintaining), and incorporating rules to eliminate incorrect data from entering the system to create an authoritative source of master data. Master data are the products, accounts, and parties for which the business transactions are completed. Where the technology approach produces a "golden record" or relies on a "source of record" or "system of record", it is common to talk of where the data is "mastered". This is accepted terminology in the information technology industry, but care should be taken, both with specialists and with the wider stakeholder community, to avoid confusing the concept of "master data" with that of "mastering data". ==== Implementation models ==== There are several models for implementing a technology solution for master data management. These depend on an organization's core business, its corporate structure, and its goals. These include: Source of record Registry Consolidation Coexistence Transaction/centralized ===== Source of record ===== This model identifies a single application, database, or simpler source (e.g. a spreadsheet) as being the "source of record" (or "system of record" where solely application databases are relied on). The benefit of this model is its conceptual simplicity, but it may not fit with the realities of complex master data distribution in large organizations. The source of record can be federated, for example by groups of attributes (so that different attributes of a master data entity may have different sources of record) or geographically (so that different parts of an organization may have different master sources). Federation is only applicable in certain use cases, where there is a clear delineation of which subsets of records will be found in which sources. The source of record model can be applied more widely than simply to master data, for example to reference data. ==== Transmission of master data ==== There are several ways in which master data may be collated and distributed to other systems. This includes: Data consolidation – The process of capturing master data from multiple sources and integrating it into a single hub (operational data store) for replication to other destination systems. Data federation – The process of providing a single virtual view of master data from one or more sources to one or more destination systems. Data propagation – The process of copying master data from one system to another, typically through point-to-point interfaces in legacy systems. == Change management in implementation == Challenges in adopting master data management within large organizations often arise when stakeholders disagree on a "single version of the truth" concept is not affirmed by stakeholders, who believe that their local definition of the master data is necessary. For example, the product hierarchy used to manage inventory may be entirely different from the product hierarchies used to support marketing efforts or pay sales representatives. It is above all necessary to identify if different master data is genuinely required. If it is required, then the solution implemented (technology and process) must be able to allow multiple versions of the truth to exist but will prov

  Read more →
• 

  Block swap algorithms

  In computer algorithms, block swap algorithms swap two regions of elements of an array. It is simple to swap two non-overlapping regions of an array of equal size. However, it is not as simple to swap two contiguous regions of an array of unequal sizes (algorithms that perform such swapping are called rotation algorithms). A few well-known algorithms can accomplish this: Bentley's juggling (also known as the dolphin algorithm), Gries-Mills rotation, triple reversal algorithm, conjoined triple reversal algorithm (also known as the trinity rotation) and Successive rotation. == Triple reversal algorithm == The triple reversal algorithm is the simplest to explain, using rotations. A rotation is an in-place reversal of array elements. This method swaps two elements of an array from outside in within a range. The rotation works for an even or odd number of array elements. The reversal algorithm uses three in-place rotations to accomplish an in-place block swap: Rotate region A Rotate region B Rotate region AB Where A and B are adjacent regions of an array that together form the region AB. Gries-Mills and reversal algorithms perform better than Bentley's juggling, because of their cache-friendly memory access pattern behavior. The triple reversal algorithm parallelizes well, because rotations can be split into sub-regions, which can be rotated independently of others.

  Read more →