AI For Students Copilot

AI For Students Copilot — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Grammar systems theory

  Grammar systems theory is a field of theoretical computer science that studies systems of finite collections of formal grammars generating a formal language. Each grammar works on a string, a so-called sequential form that represents an environment. Grammar systems can thus be used as a formalization of decentralized or distributed systems of agents in artificial intelligence. Let A {\displaystyle \mathbb {A} } be a simple reactive agent moving on the table and trying not to fall down from the table with two reactions, t for turning and ƒ for moving forward. The set of possible behaviors of A {\displaystyle \mathbb {A} } can then be described as formal language L A = { ( f m t n f r ) + : 1 ≤ m ≤ k ; 1 ≤ n ≤ ℓ ; 1 ≤ r ≤ k } , {\displaystyle \mathbb {L_{A}} =\{(f^{m}t^{n}f^{r})^{+}:1\leq m\leq k;1\leq n\leq \ell ;1\leq r\leq k\},} where ƒ can be done maximally k times and t can be done maximally ℓ times considering the dimensions of the table. Let G A {\displaystyle \mathbb {G_{A}} } be a formal grammar which generates language L A {\displaystyle \mathbb {L_{A}} } . The behavior of A {\displaystyle \mathbb {A} } is then described by this grammar. Suppose the A {\displaystyle \mathbb {A} } has a subsumption architecture; each component of this architecture can be then represented as a formal grammar, too, and the final behavior of the agent is then described by this system of grammars. The schema on the right describes such a system of grammars which shares a common string representing an environment. The shared sequential form is sequentially rewritten by each grammar, which can represent either a component or generally an agent. If grammars communicate together and work on a shared sequential form, it is called a Cooperating Distributed (DC) grammar system. Shared sequential form is a similar concept to the blackboard approach in AI, which is inspired by an idea of experts solving some problem together while they share their proposals and ideas on a shared blackboard. Each grammar in a grammar system can also work on its own string and communicate with other grammars in a system by sending their sequential forms on request. Such a grammar system is then called a Parallel Communicating (PC) grammar system. PC and DC are inspired by distributed AI. If there is no communication between grammars, the system is close to the decentralized approaches in AI. These kinds of grammar systems are sometimes called colonies or Eco-Grammar systems, depending (besides others) on whether the environment is changing on its own (Eco-Grammar system) or not (colonies).

  Read more →
• 

  Lancichinetti–Fortunato–Radicchi benchmark

  Lancichinetti–Fortunato–Radicchi benchmark is an algorithm that generates benchmark networks (artificial networks that resemble real-world networks). They have a priori known communities and are used to compare different community detection methods. The advantage of the benchmark over other methods is that it accounts for the heterogeneity in the distributions of node degrees and of community sizes. == The algorithm == The node degrees and the community sizes are distributed according to a power law, with different exponents. The benchmark assumes that both the degree and the community size have power law distributions with different exponents, γ {\displaystyle \gamma } and β {\displaystyle \beta } , respectively. N {\displaystyle N} is the number of nodes and the average degree is ⟨ k ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle k\rangle } . There is a mixing parameter μ {\displaystyle \mu } , which is the average fraction of neighboring nodes of a node that do not belong to any community that the benchmark node belongs to. This parameter controls the fraction of edges that are between communities. Thus, it reflects the amount of noise in the network. At the extremes, when μ = 0 {\displaystyle \mu =0} all links are within community links, if μ = 1 {\displaystyle \mu =1} all links are between nodes belonging to different communities. One can generate the benchmark network using the following steps. Step 1: Generate a network with nodes following a power law distribution with exponent γ {\displaystyle \gamma } and choose extremes of the distribution k min {\displaystyle k_{\min }} and k max {\displaystyle k_{\max }} to get desired average degree is ⟨ k ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle k\rangle } . Step 2: ( 1 − μ ) {\displaystyle (1-\mu )} fraction of links of every node is with nodes of the same community, while fraction μ {\displaystyle \mu } is with the other nodes. Step 3: Generate community sizes from a power law distribution with exponent β {\displaystyle \beta } . The sum of all sizes must be equal to N {\displaystyle N} . The minimal and maximal community sizes s min {\displaystyle s_{\min }} and s max {\displaystyle s_{\max }} must satisfy the definition of community so that every non-isolated node is in at least in one community: s min > k min {\displaystyle s_{\min }>k_{\min }} s max > k max {\displaystyle s_{\max }>k_{\max }} Step 4: Initially, no nodes are assigned to communities. Then, each node is randomly assigned to a community. As long as the number of neighboring nodes within the community does not exceed the community size a new node is added to the community, otherwise stays out. In the following iterations the “homeless” node is randomly assigned to some community. If that community is complete, i.e. the size is exhausted, a randomly selected node of that community must be unlinked. Stop the iteration when all the communities are complete and all the nodes belong to at least one community. Step 5: Implement rewiring of nodes keeping the same node degrees but only affecting the fraction of internal and external links such that the number of links outside the community for each node is approximately equal to the mixing parameter μ {\displaystyle \mu } . == Testing == Consider a partition into communities that do not overlap. The communities of randomly chosen nodes in each iteration follow a p ( C ) {\displaystyle p(C)} distribution that represents the probability that a randomly picked node is from the community C {\displaystyle C} . Consider a partition of the same network that was predicted by some community finding algorithm and has p ( C 2 ) {\displaystyle p(C_{2})} distribution. The benchmark partition has p ( C 1 ) {\displaystyle p(C_{1})} distribution. The joint distribution is p ( C 1 , C 2 ) {\displaystyle p(C_{1},C_{2})} . The similarity of these two partitions is captured by the normalized mutual information. I n = ∑ C 1 , C 2 p ( C 1 , C 2 ) log 2 ⁡ p ( C 1 , C 2 ) p ( C 1 ) p ( C 2 ) 1 2 H ( { p ( C 1 ) } ) + 1 2 H ( { p ( C 2 ) } ) {\displaystyle I_{n}={\frac {\sum _{C_{1},C_{2}}p(C_{1},C_{2})\log _{2}{\frac {p(C_{1},C_{2})}{p(C_{1})p(C_{2})}}}{{\frac {1}{2}}H(\{p(C_{1})\})+{\frac {1}{2}}H(\{p(C_{2})\})}}} If I n = 1 {\displaystyle I_{n}=1} the benchmark and the detected partitions are identical, and if I n = 0 {\displaystyle I_{n}=0} then they are independent of each other.

  Read more →
• 

  Recommender system

  A recommender system, also called a recommendation algorithm, recommendation engine, or recommendation platform, is a type of information filtering system that suggests items most relevant to a particular user. The value of these systems becomes particularly evident in scenarios where users must select from a large number of options, such as products, media, or content. Major social media platforms and streaming services rely on recommender systems that employ machine learning to analyze user behavior and preferences, thereby enabling personalized content feeds. Typically, the suggestions refer to a variety decision-making processes, including the selection of a product, musical selection, or online news source to read. The implementation of recommender systems is pervasive, with commonly recognised examples including the generation of playlist for video and music services, the provision of product recommendations for e-commerce platforms, and the recommendation of content on social media platforms and the open web. These systems can operate using a single type of input, such as music, or multiple inputs from diverse platforms, including news, books and search queries. Additionally, popular recommender systems have been developed for specific topics, such as restaurants and online dating services. Recommender systems have also been developed to explore research articles and experts, collaborators, and financial services. A content discovery platform is a software recommendation platform that employs recommender system tools. It utilizes user metadata in order to identify and suggest relevant content, whilst reducing ongoing maintenance and development costs. A content discovery platform delivers personalized content to websites, mobile devices, and set-top boxes. A large range of content discovery platforms currently exist for various forms of content ranging from news articles and academic journal articles to television. As operators compete to serve as the gateway to home entertainment, personalized television emerges as a key service differentiator. Academic content discovery has recently become another area of interest, the emergence of numerous companies dedicated to assisting academic researchers in keeping up to date with relevant academic content and facilitating serendipitous discovery of new content. == Overview == Recommender systems usually make use of either or both collaborative filtering and content-based filtering, as well as other systems such as knowledge-based systems. Collaborative filtering approaches build a model from a user's past behavior (e.g., items previously purchased or selected and/or numerical ratings given to those items) as well as similar decisions made by other users. This model is then used to predict items (or ratings for items) that the user may have an interest in. Content-based filtering approaches utilize a series of discrete, pre-tagged characteristics of an item in order to recommend additional items with similar properties. === Example === The differences between collaborative and content-based filtering can be demonstrated by comparing two early music recommender systems, Last.fm and Pandora Radio. We can also look at how these methods are applied in e-commerce, for example, on platforms like Amazon. Last.fm creates a "station" of recommended songs by observing what bands and individual tracks the user has listened to on a regular basis and comparing those against the listening behavior of other users. Last.fm will play tracks that do not appear in the user's library, but are often played by other users with similar interests. As this approach leverages the behavior of users, it is an example of a collaborative filtering technique. Pandora uses the properties of a song or artist (a subset of the 450 attributes provided by the Music Genome Project) to seed a "station" that plays music with similar properties. User feedback is used to refine the station's results, deemphasizing certain attributes when a user "dislikes" a particular song and emphasizing other attributes when a user "likes" a song. This is an example of a content-based approach. In e-commerce, Amazon's well-known "customers who bought X also bought Y" feature is a prime example of collaborative filtering. It also uses content-based filtering when it recommends a book by the same author you've previously read or a pair of shoes in a similar style to ones you've viewed. Each type of system has its strengths and weaknesses. In the above example, Last.fm requires a large amount of information about a user to make accurate recommendations. This is an example of the cold start problem, and is common in collaborative filtering systems. Whereas Pandora needs very little information to start, it is far more limited in scope (for example, it can only make recommendations that are similar to the original seed). === Alternative implementations === Recommender systems are a useful alternative to search algorithms since they help users discover items they might not have found otherwise. Of note, recommender systems are often implemented using search engines indexing non-traditional data. In some cases, like in the Gonzalez v. Google Supreme Court case, may argue that search and recommendation algorithms are different technologies. Recommender systems have been the focus of several granted patents, and there are more than 50 software libraries that support the development of recommender systems including LensKit, RecBole, ReChorus and RecPack. == History == Elaine Rich created the first recommender system in 1979, called Grundy. She looked for a way to recommend users books they might like. Her idea was to create a system that asks users specific questions and classifies them into classes of preferences, or "stereotypes", depending on their answers. Depending on users' stereotype membership, they would then get recommendations for books they might like. Another early recommender system, called a "digital bookshelf", was described in a 1990 technical report by Jussi Karlgren at Columbia University, and implemented at scale and worked through in technical reports and publications from 1994 onwards by Jussi Karlgren, then at SICS, and research groups led by Pattie Maes at MIT, Will Hill at Bellcore, and Paul Resnick, also at MIT, whose work with GroupLens was awarded the 2010 ACM Software Systems Award. Montaner provided the first overview of recommender systems from an intelligent agent perspective. Adomavicius provided a new, alternate overview of recommender systems. Herlocker provides an additional overview of evaluation techniques for recommender systems, and Beel et al. discussed the problems of offline evaluations. Beel et al. have also provided literature surveys on available research paper recommender systems and existing challenges. == Approaches == === Collaborative filtering === One approach to the design of recommender systems that has wide use is collaborative filtering. Collaborative filtering is based on the assumption that people who agreed in the past will agree in the future, and that they will like similar kinds of items as they liked in the past. The system generates recommendations using only information about rating profiles for different users or items. By locating peer users/items with a rating history similar to the current user or item, they generate recommendations using this neighborhood. This approach is a cornerstone for e-commerce sites that analyze the purchasing patterns of thousands of users to suggest what you might like. Collaborative filtering methods are classified as memory-based and model-based. A well-known example of memory-based approaches is the user-based algorithm, while that of model-based approaches is matrix factorization (recommender systems). A key advantage of the collaborative filtering approach is that it does not rely on machine analyzable content and therefore it is capable of accurately recommending complex items such as movies without requiring an "understanding" of the item itself. Many algorithms have been used in measuring user similarity or item similarity in recommender systems. For example, the k-nearest neighbor (k-NN) approach and the Pearson Correlation as first implemented by Allen. When building a model from a user's behavior, a distinction is often made between explicit and implicit forms of data collection. Examples of explicit data collection include the following: Asking a user to rate an item on a sliding scale. Asking a user to search. Asking a user to rank a collection of items from favorite to least favorite. Presenting two items to a user and asking him/her to choose the better one of them. Asking a user to create a list of items that he/she likes (see Rocchio classification or other similar techniques). Examples of implicit data collection include the following: Observing the items that a user views in an online store, media library, or other repository of med

  Read more →
• 

  Browsing

  Browsing is a kind of orienting strategy. It is supposed to identify something of relevance for the browsing organism. In context of humans, it is a metaphor taken from the animal kingdom. It is used, for example, about people browsing open shelves in libraries, window shopping, or browsing databases or the Internet. In library and information science, it is an important subject, both purely theoretically and as applied science aiming at designing interfaces which support browsing activities for the user. == Definition == In 2011, Birger Hjørland provided the following definition: "Browsing is a quick examination of the relevance of a number of objects which may or may not lead to a closer examination or acquisition/selection of (some of) these objects. It is a kind of orienting strategy that is formed by our "theories", "expectations" and "subjectivity". == Controversies == As with any kind of human psychology, browsing can be understood in biological, behavioral, or cognitive terms on the one hand or in social, historical, and cultural terms on the other hand. In 2007, Marcia Bates researched browsing from "behavioural" approaches, while Hjørland (2011a+b) defended a social view. Bates found that browsing is rooted in our history as exploratory, motile animals hunting for food and nesting opportunities. According to Hjørland (2011a), on the other hand, Marcia Bates' browsing for information about browsing is governed by her behavioral assumptions, while Hjørland's browsing for information about browsing is governed by his socio-cultural understanding of human psychology. In short: Human browsing is based on our conceptions and interests. === Is browsing a random activity? === Browsing is often understood as a random activity. Dictionary.com, for example, has this definition: "to glance at random through a book, magazine, etc.". Hjørland suggests, however, that browsing is an activity that is governed by our metatheories. We may dynamically change our theories and conceptions but when we browse, the activity is governed by the interests, conceptions, priorities and metatheories that we have at that time. Therefore, browsing is not totally random. == Browsing versus analytical search strategies == In 1997, Gary Marchionini wrote: "A fundamental distinction is made between analytical and browsing strategies [...]. Analytical strategies depend on careful planning, the recall of query terms, and iterative query reformulations and examinations of results. Browsing strategies are heuristic and opportunistic and depend on recognizing relevant information. Analytic strategies are batch oriented and half duplex (turn talking) like human conversation, whereas browsing strategies are more interactive, real-time exchanges and collaborations between the information seeker and the information system. Browsing strategies demand a lower cognitive load in advance and a steadier attentional load throughout the information-seeking process. When it comes to Browsing, giblets are amazing." == Orienting strategies == Some sociologists, such as Berger and Zelditch in 1993, Wagner in 1984, and Wagner & Berger in 1985, have used the term "orienting strategies". They find that orienting strategies should be understood as metatheories: "Consider the very large proportion of sociological theory that is in the form of metatheory. It is discussion about theory: about what concepts it should include, about how those concepts should be linked, and about how theory should be studied. Similar to Kuhn’s paradigms, theories of this sort provide guidelines or strategies for understanding social phenomena and suggest the proper orientation of the theorist to these phenomena; they are orienting strategies. Textbooks in theory frequently focus on orienting strategies such as functionalism, exchange, or ethnomethodology." Sociologists thus use metatheories as orienting strategies. We may generalize and say that all people use metatheories as orienting strategies and that this is what direct our attention and also our browsing – also when we are not conscious about it.

  Read more →
• 

  Fyuse

  Fyuse is a spatial photography app which lets users capture and share interactive 3D images. By tilting or swiping one's smartphone, one can view such "fyuses" from various angles — as if one were walking around an object or subject. The app blends photography and video to create an interactive medium and was first published for iOS in April 2014. The Android version was released at the end of 2014. == The app == Fyuse lets users capture panoramas, selfies, and full 360° views of objects and allows one to view captured moments from different angles. It has its own personal gallery, social network and standalone web integration. With the app, Fyusion also created a social networking platform similar to Instagram. Fyuses can be shared, commented on, liked and re-shared to one's followers (called Echoes). One can build a network of followers and with engagement tracking, one can see how many times an image has been interacted with The images can also be saved for private, offline view, or shared to other social networks, like Facebook or Twitter, or embedded on a website where the images can be interacted with by desktop users via dragging the mouse. Furthermore, in the compass tab other fyuses can be discovered using the app's system of tags and categories. One's Fyuse feed is prepopulated with top users, and one can follow people to see when they post a new fyuse. The app will also find one's friends if one signs up with Facebook or connects it with one's Twitter account. To create a fyuse one moves around a person or object with one's phone's camera in one direction or moving/tilting one's phone around while holding one's finger on the screen. By combining photography and video the app allows one to capture moments that one may not have otherwise been able to capture by recording not one moment in time but stitched together little moments. According to Fyusion CEO Radu Rusu, a photo freezes a moment in time, while a video captures moments in a linear timeline — both still flat, when viewed. A fyuse image captures a moment in space, where one can not only see one side of something, but also around it. When it is done rendering, fyuses can also be edited – one can trim the fyuse for length and edit the brightness, contrast, exposure, saturation and sharpness. One can also add a vignette and apply a filters, with options to adjust their intensity. After editing, one can write a description, add hashtags, and tag parts of the fyuse before one can (voluntarily) publish and share it. Version 1.0 has been described as "alpha prototype" and version 2.0 was released on 17 December 2014. Version 3.0 introduced 3D tagging by which users can layer 3D graphic that animate accordingly with each interaction to add some context to the content. Version 4.0 was released on December 21, 2016 for iOS. Since January 2016 (v3.2) the app allows the export of fyuses as Live Photos. The app has also been described as a more sophisticated version of 3D stickers and flip images. == Applications == The app has many applications for e-commerce such as for fashion designers who want to showcase a garment from every angle, or real estate listings and Airbnb-type sites that want to make their rental properties seem as enticing as possible. The app can also be used for interactive art, 360° panoramas and selfies. == History == San Francisco-based Fyusion Inc.'s three founders — Radu B. Rusu, CTO Stefan Holzer, and VP of Engineering Stephen Miller — worked together at Willow Garage, the robotics research lab started by early Google employee Scott Hassan in the area of "personal robotics" — Hassan decided to turn the lab into more of an incubator, suggesting that the members spin off their technologies into consumer-facing enterprises. Rusu first set out with an open-source 3D perception software startup called Open Perception. Fyusion was officially founded in 2013, and soon after Rusu and his cofounders patented the technology for spatial photography. The company closed a seed funding round at the end of May, raising $3.35 million from investors, including an angel investment from Sun Microsystems cofounder Andreas Bechtolsheim. In 2014 the Fyuse team consisted of 13 employees, mostly engineers and designers, recruited from around the globe. In March 2015 the team displayed their app at Katy Perry's premiere for the movie "Prismatic World Tour on Epix" where Perry also took Fyuse for a test run. == Augmented reality == In September 2016 Fyusion unveiled its platform for creating augmented reality content using ones smartphone. It takes the images from ones smartphone and converts them into 3D holographic images, which one can then view on an AR headset. According to Rusu "by making it easy for people to capture their surroundings on any mobile device, [Fyusion is] revolutionizing the way that people view the world around them" and also states that for "AR to be successful, anyone should be able to create content for it" opposed to the current "small number of content creators and an even smaller number of hardware players". According to him "the applications of [Fyusion's] technology for consumers and businesses are incredibly limitless". The platform uses the company's patented 3D spatio-temporal platform that uses advanced sensor fusion, machine learning and computer vision algorithms and part of the platform is built into the Fyuse app. Before committing to releasing a separate consumer product the company intends to wait until the HoloLens device becomes available to the public. Until then any Fyuse representation created using Fyuse is AR ready and will be able to be shown in HoloLens in the future. == Fyuse - Point of No Return == Fyuse - Point of No Return is a science fiction short advert for Fyuse 3.0 in which Fyuse's digital medium is extrapolated into the future. In the film a woman uses a mini scanning-drone to 3D scan a tree with Fyuse and later recreate it as an augmented reality object at another place.

  Read more →
• 

  Knuth–Eve algorithm

  In computer science, the Knuth–Eve algorithm is an algorithm for polynomial evaluation. It preprocesses the coefficients of the polynomial to reduce the number of multiplications required at runtime. Ideas used in the algorithm were originally proposed by Donald Knuth in 1962. His procedure opportunistically exploits structure in the polynomial being evaluated. In 1964, James Eve determined for which polynomials this structure exists, and gave a simple method of "preconditioning" polynomials (explained below) to endow them with that structure. == Algorithm == === Preliminaries === Consider an arbitrary polynomial p ∈ R [ x ] {\displaystyle p\in \mathbb {R} [x]} of degree n {\displaystyle n} . Assume that n ≥ 3 {\displaystyle n\geq 3} . Define m {\displaystyle m} such that: if n {\displaystyle n} is odd then n = 2 m + 1 {\displaystyle n=2m+1} , and if n {\displaystyle n} is even then n = 2 m + 2 {\displaystyle n=2m+2} . Unless otherwise stated, all variables in this article represent either real numbers or univariate polynomials with real coefficients. All operations in this article are done over R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } . Again, the goal is to create an algorithm that returns p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} given any x {\displaystyle x} . The algorithm is allowed to depend on the polynomial p {\displaystyle p} itself, since its coefficients are known in advance. === Overview === ==== Key idea ==== Using polynomial long division, we can write p ( x ) = q ( x ) ⋅ ( x 2 − α ) + ( β x + γ ) , {\displaystyle p(x)=q(x)\cdot (x^{2}-\alpha )+(\beta x+\gamma ),} where x 2 − α {\displaystyle x^{2}-\alpha } is the divisor. Picking a value for α {\displaystyle \alpha } fixes both the quotient q {\displaystyle q} and the coefficients in the remainder β {\displaystyle \beta } and γ {\displaystyle \gamma } . The key idea is to cleverly choose α {\displaystyle \alpha } such that β = 0 {\displaystyle \beta =0} , so that p ( x ) = q ( x ) ⋅ ( x 2 − α ) + γ . {\displaystyle p(x)=q(x)\cdot (x^{2}-\alpha )+\gamma .} This way, no operations are needed to compute the remainder polynomial, since it's just a constant. We apply this procedure recursively to q {\displaystyle q} , expressing p ( x ) = ( ( q ( x ) ⋅ ( x 2 − α m ) + γ m ) ⋯ ) ⋅ ( x 2 − α 1 ) + γ 1 . {\displaystyle p(x)=\left(\left(q(x)\cdot (x^{2}-\alpha _{m})+\gamma _{m}\right)\cdots \right)\cdot (x^{2}-\alpha _{1})+\gamma _{1}.} After m {\displaystyle m} recursive calls, the quotient q {\displaystyle q} is either a linear or a quadratic polynomial. In this base case, the polynomial can be evaluated with (say) Horner's method. ==== "Preconditioning" ==== For arbitrary p {\displaystyle p} , it may not be possible to force β = 0 {\displaystyle \beta =0} at every step of the recursion. Consider the polynomials p e {\displaystyle p^{e}} and p o {\displaystyle p^{o}} with coefficients taken from the even and odd terms of p {\displaystyle p} respectively, so that p ( x ) = p e ( x 2 ) + x ⋅ p o ( x 2 ) . {\displaystyle p(x)=p^{e}(x^{2})+x\cdot p^{o}(x^{2}).} If every root of p o {\displaystyle p^{o}} is real, then it is possible to write p {\displaystyle p} in the form given above. Each α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} is a different root of p o {\displaystyle p^{o}} , counting multiple roots as distinct. Furthermore, if at least n − 1 {\displaystyle n-1} roots of p {\displaystyle p} lie in one half of the complex plane, then every root of p o {\displaystyle p^{o}} is real. Ultimately, it may be necessary to "precondition" p {\displaystyle p} by shifting it — by setting p ( x ) ← p ( x + t ) {\displaystyle p(x)\gets p(x+t)} for some t {\displaystyle t} — to endow it with the structure that most of its roots lie in one half of the complex plane. At runtime, this shift has to be "undone" by first setting x ← x − t {\displaystyle x\gets x-t} . === Preprocessing step === The following algorithm is run once for a given polynomial p {\displaystyle p} . At this point, the values of x {\displaystyle x} that p {\displaystyle p} will be evaluated on are not known. ==== Better choice of t ==== While any t ≥ Re ( r 2 ) {\displaystyle t\geq {\text{Re}}(r_{2})} can work, it is possible to remove one addition during evaluation if t {\displaystyle t} is also chosen such that two roots of p ( x + t ) {\displaystyle p(x+t)} are symmetric about the origin. In that case, α 1 {\displaystyle \alpha _{1}} can be chosen such that the shifted polynomial has a factor of x 2 − α 1 {\displaystyle x^{2}-\alpha _{1}} , so γ 1 = 0 {\displaystyle \gamma _{1}=0} . It is always possible to find such a t {\displaystyle t} . One possible algorithm for choosing t {\displaystyle t} is: === Evaluation step === The following algorithm evaluates p {\displaystyle p} at some, now known, point x {\displaystyle x} . Assuming t {\displaystyle t} is chosen optimally, γ 1 = 0 {\displaystyle \gamma _{1}=0} . So, the final iteration of the loop can instead run y ← y ⋅ ( s − α i ) , {\displaystyle y\gets y\cdot (s-\alpha _{i}),} saving an addition. == Analysis == In total, evaluation using the Knuth–Eve algorithm for a polynomial of degree n {\displaystyle n} requires n {\displaystyle n} additions and ⌊ n / 2 ⌋ + 2 {\displaystyle \lfloor n/2\rfloor +2} multiplications, assuming t {\displaystyle t} is chosen optimally. No algorithm to evaluate a given polynomial of degree n {\displaystyle n} can use fewer than n {\displaystyle n} additions or fewer than ⌈ n / 2 ⌉ {\displaystyle \lceil n/2\rceil } multiplications during evaluation. This result assumes only addition and multiplication are allowed during both preprocessing and evaluation. The Knuth–Eve algorithm is not well-conditioned.

  Read more →
• 

  Pointer algorithm

  In computer science, a pointer algorithm (sometimes called a pointer machine, or a reference machine; see the article Pointer machine for a close but non-identical concept) is a type of algorithm that manages a linked data structure. This concept is used as a model for lower-bound proofs and specific restrictions on the linked data structure and on the algorithm's access to the structure vary. This model has been used extensively with problems related to the disjoint-set data structure. Thus, Tarjan and La Poutré used this model to prove lower bounds on the amortized complexity of a disjoint-set data structure (La Poutré also addressed the interval split-find problem). Blum used this model to prove a lower bound on the single operation worst-case time of disjoint set data structure. Blum and Rochow proved a worst-case lower bound for the interval union-find problem. == Example == In Tarjan's lower bound for the disjoint set union problem, the assumptions on the algorithm are: The algorithm maintains a linked structure of nodes. Each element of the problem is associated with a node. Each set is represented by a node. The nodes of each set constitute a distinct connected component in the structure (this property is called separability). The find operation is performed by following links from the element node to the set node. Under these assumptions, the lower bound of Ω ( m α ( m , n ) ) {\displaystyle \Omega (m\alpha (m,n))} on the cost of a sequence of m operations is proven.

  Read more →
• 

  Source criticism

  Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating an information source, i.e.: a document, a person, a speech, a fingerprint, a photo, an observation, or anything used in order to obtain knowledge. In relation to a given purpose, a given information source may be more or less valid, reliable or relevant. Broadly, "source criticism" is the interdisciplinary study of how information sources are evaluated for given tasks. == Meaning == Problems in translation: The Danish word kildekritik, like the Norwegian word kildekritikk and the Swedish word källkritik, derived from the German Quellenkritik and is closely associated with the German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886). Historian Wolfgang Hardtwig wrote: His [Ranke's] first work Geschichte der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494–1514 (History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514) (1824) was a great success. It already showed some of the basic characteristics of his conception of Europe, and was of historiographical importance particularly because Ranke made an exemplary critical analysis of his sources in a separate volume, Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber (On the Critical Methods of Recent Historians). In this work he raised the method of textual criticism used in the late eighteenth century, particularly in classical philology to the standard method of scientific historical writing. (Hardtwig, 2001, p. 12739) Historical theorist Chris Lorenz wrote: The larger part of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries would be dominated by the research-oriented conception of historical method of the so-called Historical School in Germany, led by historians as Leopold Ranke and Berthold Niebuhr. Their conception of history, long been regarded as the beginning of modern, 'scientific' history, harked back to the 'narrow' conception of historical method, limiting the methodical character of history to source criticism. (Lorenz, 2001) In the early 21st century, source criticism is a growing field in, among other fields, library and information science. In this context source criticism is studied from a broader perspective than just, for example, history, classical philology, or biblical studies (but there, too, it has more recently received new attention). == Principles == The following principles are from two Scandinavian textbooks on source criticism, written by the historians Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997): Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narratives. A given source may be forged or corrupted; strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability. The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, which in turn is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on. If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased. The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations. If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased. Two other principles are: Knowledge of source criticism cannot substitute for subject knowledge: "Because each source teaches you more and more about your subject, you will be able to judge with ever-increasing precision the usefulness and value of any prospective source. In other words, the more you know about the subject, the more precisely you can identify what you must still find out". (Bazerman, 1995, p. 304). The reliability of a given source is relative to the questions put to it. "The empirical case study showed that most people find it difficult to assess questions of cognitive authority and media credibility in a general sense, for example, by comparing the overall credibility of newspapers and the Internet. Thus these assessments tend to be situationally sensitive. Newspapers, television and the Internet were frequently used as sources of orienting information, but their credibility varied depending on the actual topic at hand" (Savolainen, 2007). The following questions are often good ones to ask about any source according to the American Library Association (1994) and Engeldinger (1988): How was the source located? What type of source is it? Who is the author and what are the qualifications of the author in regard to the topic that is discussed? When was the information published? In which country was it published? What is the reputation of the publisher? Does the source show a particular cultural or political bias? For literary sources complementing criteria are: Does the source contain a bibliography? Has the material been reviewed by a group of peers, or has it been edited? How does the article/book compare with similar articles/books? == Levels of generality == Some principles of source criticism are universal, other principles are specific for certain kinds of information sources. There is today no consensus about the similarities and differences between source criticism in the natural science and humanities. Logical positivism claimed that all fields of knowledge were based on the same principles. Much of the criticism of logical positivism claimed that positivism is the basis of the sciences, whereas hermeneutics is the basis of the humanities. This was, for example, the position of Jürgen Habermas. A newer position, in accordance with, among others, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Thomas Kuhn, understands both science and humanities as determined by researchers' preunderstanding and paradigms. Hermeneutics is thus a universal theory. The difference is, however, that the sources of the humanities are themselves products of human interests and preunderstanding, whereas the sources of the natural sciences are not. Humanities are thus "doubly hermeneutic". Natural scientists, however, are also using human products (such as scientific papers) which are products of preunderstanding (and can lead to, for example, academic fraud). == Contributing fields == === Epistemology === Epistemological theories are the basic theories about how knowledge is obtained and are thus the most general theories about how to evaluate information sources. Empiricism evaluates sources by considering the observations (or sensations) on which they are based. Sources without basis in experience are not seen as valid. Rationalism provides low priority to sources based on observations. In order to be meaningful, observations must be explained by clear ideas or concepts. It is the logical structure and the well definedness that is in focus in evaluating information sources from the rationalist point of view. Historicism evaluates information sources on the basis of their reflection of their sociocultural context and their theoretical development. Pragmatism evaluate sources on the basis of how their values and usefulness to accomplish certain outcomes. Pragmatism is skeptical about claimed neutral information sources. The evaluation of knowledge or information sources cannot be more certain than is the construction of knowledge. If one accepts the principle of fallibilism then one also has to accept that source criticism can never 100% verify knowledge claims. As discussed in the next section, source criticism is intimately linked to scientific methods. The presence of fallacies of argument in sources is another kind of philosophical criterion for evaluating sources. Fallacies are presented by Walton (1998). Among the fallacies are the ad hominem fallacy (the use of personal attack to try to undermine or refute a person's argument) and the straw man fallacy (when one arguer misrepresents another's position to make it appear less plausible than it really is, in order more easily to criticize or refute it.) === Research methodology === Research methods are methods used to produce scholarly knowledge. The methods that are relevant for producing knowledge are also relevant for evaluating knowledge. An example of a book that turns methodology upside-down and uses it to evaluate produced knowledge is Katzer; Cook & Crouch (1998). === Science studies === Studies of quality evaluation processes such as peer review, book reviews and of the normative criteria used in evaluation of scientific and scholarly research. Another field is the study of scientific misconduct. Harris (1979) provides a case study of how a famous experiment in psychology, Little Albert, has been distorted throughout the history of psychology, starting with the author (Watson) himself, general textbook authors, behavior therapists, and a prominent learning theorist. Harris proposes possible causes for these distortions and analyzes the Albert study as an ex

  Read more →
• 

  EPages

  ePages is an e-commerce software that allows merchants to create and run online shops in the cloud. The number of shops based on ePages is currently 140,000 worldwide. ePages software is regularly updated due to its Software-as-a-Service model. An investor in the company is United Internet, with a 25% stake. ePages focuses upon distributing its products mainly through hosting providers. ePages is headquartered in Hamburg, with additional offices Barcelona, Jena, and Bilbao. == History == The name ePages was used for the first time for software in 1997 to market "Intershop ePages". In 2002, the product line then called Intershop 4 was taken over by ePages GmbH and renamed to ePages. == Features == Depending on the ePages product and packages offered by hosting providers, merchants can sell up to an unlimited number of items. Users can offer their products and services in 15 languages and with all currencies. With ePages, merchants can use web marketing tools; e.g. newsletters, coupons or social media plug-ins for social commerce.

  Read more →
• 

  Sieve of Eratosthenes

  In mathematics, the sieve of Eratosthenes is an ancient algorithm for finding all prime numbers up to any given limit. It does so by iteratively marking as composite (i.e., not prime) the multiples of each prime, starting with the first prime number, 2. The multiples of a given prime are generated as a sequence of numbers starting from that prime, with constant difference between them that is equal to that prime. This is the sieve's key distinction from using trial division to sequentially test each candidate number for divisibility by each prime. Once all the multiples of each discovered prime have been marked as composites, the remaining unmarked numbers are primes. The earliest known reference to the sieve (Ancient Greek: κόσκινον Ἐρατοσθένους, kóskinon Eratosthénous) is in Nicomachus of Gerasa's Introduction to Arithmetic, an early 2nd-century CE book which attributes it to Eratosthenes of Cyrene, a 3rd-century BCE Greek mathematician, though describing the sieving by odd numbers instead of by primes. One of a number of prime number sieves, it is one of the most efficient ways to find all of the smaller primes. It may be used to find primes in arithmetic progressions. == Overview == A prime number is a natural number that has exactly two distinct natural number divisors: the number 1 and itself. To find all the prime numbers less than or equal to a given integer n by Eratosthenes's method: Create a list of consecutive integers from 2 through n: (2, 3, 4, ..., n). Initially, let p equal 2, the smallest prime number. Enumerate the multiples of p by counting in increments of p from 2p to n, and mark them in the list (these will be 2p, 3p, 4p, ...; the p itself should not be marked). Find the smallest number in the list greater than p that is not marked. If there was no such number, stop. Otherwise, let p now equal this new number (which is the next prime), and repeat from step 3. When the algorithm terminates, the numbers remaining not marked in the list are all the primes below n. The main idea here is that every value given to p will be prime, because if it were composite it would be marked as a multiple of some other, smaller prime. Note that some of the numbers may be marked more than once (e.g., 15 will be marked both for 3 and 5). The key property of the sieve is that only additions are needed, no multiplications or divisions are used. As a refinement, it is sufficient to mark the numbers in step 3 starting from p2, as all the smaller multiples of p will have already been marked at that point. This means that the algorithm is allowed to terminate in step 4 when p2 is greater than n. Another refinement is to initially list odd numbers only, (3, 5, ..., n), and count in increments of 2p in step 3, thus marking only odd multiples of p. This actually appears in the original algorithm. This can be generalized with wheel factorization, forming the initial list only from numbers coprime with the first few primes and not just from odds (i.e., numbers coprime with 2), and counting in the correspondingly adjusted increments so that only such multiples of p are generated that are coprime with those small primes, in the first place. === Example === To find all the prime numbers less than or equal to 30, proceed as follows. First, generate a list of natural numbers from 2 to 30: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 The first number in the list is 2; cross out every 2nd number in the list after 2 by counting up from 2 in increments of 2 (these will be all the multiples of 2 in the list): 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 The next number in the list after 2 is 3; cross out every 3rd number in the list after 3 by counting up from 3 in increments of 3 (these will be all the multiples of 3 in the list): 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 The next number not yet crossed out in the list after 3 is 5; cross out every 5th number in the list after 5 by counting up from 5 in increments of 5 (i.e. all the multiples of 5): 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 The next number not yet crossed out in the list after 5 is 7; the next step would be to cross out every 7th number in the list after 7, but they are all already crossed out at this point, as these numbers (14, 21, 28) are also multiples of smaller primes because 7 × 7 is greater than 30. The numbers not crossed out at this point in the list are all the prime numbers below 30: 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 == Algorithm and variants == === Pseudocode === The sieve of Eratosthenes can be expressed in pseudocode, as follows: algorithm Sieve of Eratosthenes is input: an integer n > 1. output: all prime numbers from 2 through n. let A be an array of Boolean values, indexed by integers 2 to n, initially all set to true. for i = 2, 3, 4, ..., not exceeding √n do if A[i] is true for j = i2, i2+i, i2+2i, i2+3i, ..., not exceeding n do set A[j] := false return all i such that A[i] is true. This algorithm produces all primes not greater than n. It includes a common optimization, which is to start enumerating the multiples of each prime i from i2. The time complexity of this algorithm is O(n log log n), provided the array update is an O(1) operation, as is usually the case. === Segmented sieve === As Sorenson notes, the problem with the sieve of Eratosthenes is not the number of operations it performs but rather its memory requirements. For large n, the range of primes may not fit in memory; worse, even for moderate n, its cache use is highly suboptimal. The algorithm walks through the entire array A, exhibiting almost no locality of reference. A solution to these problems is offered by segmented sieves, where only portions of the range are sieved at a time. These have been known since the 1970s, and work as follows: Divide the range 2 through n into segments of some size Δ ≥ √n. Find the primes in the first (i.e. the lowest) segment, using the regular sieve. For each of the following segments, in increasing order, with m being the segment's topmost value, find the primes in it as follows: Set up a Boolean array of size Δ. Mark as non-prime the positions in the array corresponding to the multiples of each prime p ≤ √m found so far, by enumerating its multiples in steps of p starting from the lowest multiple of p between m - Δ and m. The remaining non-marked positions in the array correspond to the primes in the segment. It is not necessary to mark any multiples of these primes, because all of these primes are larger than √m, as for k ≥ 1, one has ( k Δ + 1 ) 2 > ( k + 1 ) Δ {\displaystyle (k\Delta +1)^{2}>(k+1)\Delta } . If Δ is chosen to be √n, the space complexity of the algorithm is O(√n), while the time complexity is the same as that of the regular sieve. For ranges with upper limit n so large that the sieving primes below √n as required by the page segmented sieve of Eratosthenes cannot fit in memory, a slower but much more space-efficient sieve like the pseudosquares prime sieve, developed by Jonathan P. Sorenson, can be used instead. === Incremental sieve === An incremental formulation of the sieve generates primes indefinitely (i.e., without an upper bound) by interleaving the generation of primes with the generation of their multiples (so that primes can be found in gaps between the multiples), where the multiples of each prime p are generated directly by counting up from the square of the prime in increments of p (or 2p for odd primes). The generation must be initiated only when the prime's square is reached, to avoid adverse effects on efficiency. It can be expressed symbolically under the dataflow paradigm as primes = [2, 3, ...] \ [[p², p²+p, ...] for p in primes], using list comprehension notation with \ denoting set subtraction of arithmetic progressions of numbers. Primes can also be produced by iteratively sieving out the composites through divisibility testing by sequential primes, one prime at a time. It is not the sieve of Eratosthenes but is often confused with it, even though the sieve of Eratosthenes directly generates the composites instead of testing for them. Trial division has worse theoretical complexity than that of the sieve of Eratosthenes in generating ranges of primes. When testing each prime, the optimal trial division algorithm uses all prime numbers not exceeding its square root, whereas the sieve of Eratosthenes produces each composite from its prime factors only, and gets the primes "for free", between the composites. The widely known 1975 functional sieve code by David Turner is often presented as an example of the sieve of Eratosthenes but is actually a sub-optimal trial division sieve. == Algorithmic complexity == The sieve of Eratosthenes is a popular way to benchmark computer performance. The time complexity of calculating all primes below n in the random access machine model is O(n log log n) ope

  Read more →
• 

  Communication-avoiding algorithm

  Communication-avoiding algorithms minimize movement of data within a memory hierarchy for improving its running-time and energy consumption. These minimize the total of two costs (in terms of time and energy): arithmetic and communication. Communication, in this context refers to moving data, either between levels of memory or between multiple processors over a network. It is much more expensive than arithmetic. == Formal theory == === Two-level memory model === A common computational model in analyzing communication-avoiding algorithms is the two-level memory model: There is one processor and two levels of memory. Level 1 memory is infinitely large. Level 0 memory ("cache") has size M {\displaystyle M} . In the beginning, input resides in level 1. In the end, the output resides in level 1. Processor can only operate on data in cache. The goal is to minimize data transfers between the two levels of memory. === Matrix multiplication === Corollary 6.2: More general results for other numerical linear algebra operations can be found in. The following proof is from. == Motivation == Consider the following running-time model: Measure of computation = Time per FLOP = γ Measure of communication = No. of words of data moved = β ⇒ Total running time = γ·(no. of FLOPs) + β·(no. of words) From the fact that β >> γ as measured in time and energy, communication cost dominates computation cost. Technological trends indicate that the relative cost of communication is increasing on a variety of platforms, from cloud computing to supercomputers to mobile devices. The report also predicts that gap between DRAM access time and FLOPs will increase 100× over coming decade to balance power usage between processors and DRAM. Energy consumption increases by orders of magnitude as we go higher in the memory hierarchy. United States president Barack Obama cited communication-avoiding algorithms in the FY 2012 Department of Energy budget request to Congress: New Algorithm Improves Performance and Accuracy on Extreme-Scale Computing Systems. On modern computer architectures, communication between processors takes longer than the performance of a floating-point arithmetic operation by a given processor. ASCR researchers have developed a new method, derived from commonly used linear algebra methods, to minimize communications between processors and the memory hierarchy, by reformulating the communication patterns specified within the algorithm. This method has been implemented in the TRILINOS framework, a highly-regarded suite of software, which provides functionality for researchers around the world to solve large scale, complex multi-physics problems. == Objectives == Communication-avoiding algorithms are designed with the following objectives: Reorganize algorithms to reduce communication across all memory hierarchies. Attain the lower-bound on communication when possible. The following simple example demonstrates how these are achieved. === Matrix multiplication example === Let A, B and C be square matrices of order n × n. The following naive algorithm implements C = C + A B: for i = 1 to n for j = 1 to n for k = 1 to n C(i,j) = C(i,j) + A(i,k) B(k,j) Arithmetic cost (time-complexity): n2(2n − 1) for sufficiently large n or O(n3). Rewriting this algorithm with communication cost labelled at each step for i = 1 to n {read row i of A into fast memory} - n2 reads for j = 1 to n {read C(i,j) into fast memory} - n2 reads {read column j of B into fast memory} - n3 reads for k = 1 to n C(i,j) = C(i,j) + A(i,k) B(k,j) {write C(i,j) back to slow memory} - n2 writes Fast memory may be defined as the local processor memory (CPU cache) of size M and slow memory may be defined as the DRAM. Communication cost (reads/writes): n3 + 3n2 or O(n3) Since total running time = γ·O(n3) + β·O(n3) and β >> γ the communication cost is dominant. The blocked (tiled) matrix multiplication algorithm reduces this dominant term: ==== Blocked (tiled) matrix multiplication ==== Consider A, B and C to be n/b-by-n/b matrices of b-by-b sub-blocks where b is called the block size; assume three b-by-b blocks fit in fast memory. for i = 1 to n/b for j = 1 to n/b {read block C(i,j) into fast memory} - b2 × (n/b)2 = n2 reads for k = 1 to n/b {read block A(i,k) into fast memory} - b2 × (n/b)3 = n3/b reads {read block B(k,j) into fast memory} - b2 × (n/b)3 = n3/b reads C(i,j) = C(i,j) + A(i,k) B(k,j) - {do a matrix multiply on blocks} {write block C(i,j) back to slow memory} - b2 × (n/b)2 = n2 writes Communication cost: 2n3/b + 2n2 reads/writes << 2n3 arithmetic cost Making b as large possible: 3b2 ≤ M we achieve the following communication lower bound: 31/2n3/M1/2 + 2n2 or Ω (no. of FLOPs / M1/2) == Previous approaches for reducing communication == Most of the approaches investigated in the past to address this problem rely on scheduling or tuning techniques that aim at overlapping communication with computation. However, this approach can lead to an improvement of at most a factor of two. Ghosting is a different technique for reducing communication, in which a processor stores and computes redundantly data from neighboring processors for future computations. Cache-oblivious algorithms represent a different approach introduced in 1999 for fast Fourier transforms, and then extended to graph algorithms, dynamic programming, etc. They were also applied to several operations in linear algebra as dense LU and QR factorizations. The design of architecture specific algorithms is another approach that can be used for reducing the communication in parallel algorithms, and there are many examples in the literature of algorithms that are adapted to a given communication topology.

  Read more →
• 

  Quality of Data

  Quality of Data (QoD) is a designation coined by L. Veiga, that specifies and describes the required Quality of Service of a distributed storage system from the Consistency point of view of its data. It can be used to support big data management frameworks, Workflow management, and HPC systems (mainly for data replication and consistency). It takes into account data semantics, namely the Time interval of data freshness, the Sequence of tolerable number of outstanding versions of the data read before ore refresh, and the Value divergence allowed before displaying it. Initially it was based on a model from an existing research work regarding vector-field Consistency, awarded the best-paper prize in the ACM/IFIP/Usenix Middleware Conference 2007 and later enhanced for increased scalability and fault-tolerance. This consistency model has been successfully applied and proven in big data key/value store Apache HBase, initially designed as a middleware module seating between clusters from separate data centres. The HBase-QoD coupling minimises bandwidth usage and optimises resources allocation during replication achieving the desired consistency level at a more fine-grained level. QoD is defined by the three-dimensions of vector k=(θ,σ,ν), but with a broader view of the issue, applicable also to large-scale data management techniques in regards to their timely delivery. == Other descriptions == Quality of Data should not be confused with other definitions for data quality such as completeness, validity, and accuracy.

  Read more →
• 

  Attention (machine learning)

  In machine learning, attention is a method that determines the importance of each component in a sequence relative to the other components in that sequence. In natural language processing, importance is represented by "soft" weights assigned to each word in a sentence. More generally, attention encodes vectors called token embeddings across a fixed-width sequence that can range from tens to millions of tokens in size. Unlike "hard" weights, which are computed during the backwards training pass, "soft" weights exist only in the forward pass and therefore change with every step of the input. Earlier designs implemented the attention mechanism in a serial recurrent neural network (RNN) language translation system, but a more recent design, namely the transformer, removed the slower sequential RNN and relied more heavily on the faster parallel attention scheme. Inspired by ideas about attention in humans, the attention mechanism was developed to address the weaknesses of using information from the hidden layers of recurrent neural networks. Recurrent neural networks favor information contained in words at the end of a sentence and thus deemed more recent, thereby tending to attenuate the significance and associated predictive weight assigned to information earlier in the sentence. Attention allows a token equal access to any part of a sentence directly, rather than only through the previous state. == History == Additional surveys of the attention mechanism in deep learning are provided by Niu et al. and Soydaner. The major breakthrough came with self-attention, where each element in the input sequence attends to all others, enabling the model to capture global dependencies. This idea was central to the Transformer architecture, which replaced recurrence with attention mechanisms. As a result, Transformers became the foundation for models like BERT, T5 and generative pre-trained transformers (GPT). == Overview == The modern era of machine attention was revitalized by grafting an attention mechanism (Fig 1. orange) to an Encoder-Decoder. Figure 2 shows the internal step-by-step operation of the attention block (A) in Fig 1. === Interpreting attention weights === In translating between languages, alignment is the process of matching words from the source sentence to words of the translated sentence. Networks that perform verbatim translation without regard to word order would show the highest scores along the (dominant) diagonal of the matrix. The off-diagonal dominance shows that the attention mechanism is more nuanced. Consider an example of translating I love you to French. On the first pass through the decoder, 94% of the attention weight is on the first English word I, so the network offers the word je. On the second pass of the decoder, 88% of the attention weight is on the third English word you, so it offers t'. On the last pass, 95% of the attention weight is on the second English word love, so it offers aime. In the I love you example, the second word love is aligned with the third word aime. Stacking soft row vectors together for je, t', and aime yields an alignment matrix: Sometimes, alignment can be multiple-to-multiple. For example, the English phrase look it up corresponds to cherchez-le. Thus, "soft" attention weights work better than "hard" attention weights (setting one attention weight to 1, and the others to 0), as we would like the model to make a context vector consisting of a weighted sum of the hidden vectors, rather than "the best one", as there may not be a best hidden vector. == Variants == Many variants of attention implement soft weights, such as fast weight programmers, or fast weight controllers (1992). A "slow" neural network outputs the "fast" weights of another neural network through outer products. The slow network learns by gradient descent. It was later renamed as "linearized self-attention". Bahdanau-style attention, also referred to as additive attention, Luong-style attention, which is known as multiplicative attention, Early attention mechanisms similar to modern self-attention were proposed using recurrent neural networks. However, the highly parallelizable self-attention was introduced in 2017 and successfully used in the Transformer model, positional attention and factorized positional attention. For convolutional neural networks, attention mechanisms can be distinguished by the dimension on which they operate, namely: spatial attention, channel attention, or combinations. These variants recombine the encoder-side inputs to redistribute those effects to each target output. Often, a correlation-style matrix of dot products provides the re-weighting coefficients. In the figures below, W is the matrix of context attention weights, similar to the formula in Overview section above. == Optimizations == === Flash attention === The size of the attention matrix is proportional to the square of the number of input tokens. Therefore, when the input is long, calculating the attention matrix requires a lot of GPU memory. Flash attention is an implementation that reduces the memory needs and increases efficiency without sacrificing accuracy. It achieves this by partitioning the attention computation into smaller blocks that fit into the GPU's faster on-chip memory, reducing the need to store large intermediate matrices and thus lowering memory usage while increasing computational efficiency. === FlexAttention === FlexAttention is an attention kernel developed by Meta that allows users to modify attention scores prior to softmax and dynamically chooses the optimal attention algorithm. == Applications == Attention is widely used in natural language processing, computer vision, and speech recognition. In NLP, it improves context understanding in tasks like question answering and summarization. In vision, visual attention helps models focus on relevant image regions, enhancing object detection and image captioning. === Attention maps as explanations for vision transformers === From the original paper on vision transformers (ViT), visualizing attention scores as a heat map (called saliency maps or attention maps) has become an important and routine way to inspect the decision making process of ViT models. One can compute the attention maps with respect to any attention head at any layer, while the deeper layers tend to show more semantically meaningful visualization. Attention rollout is a recursive algorithm to combine attention scores across all layers, by computing the dot product of successive attention maps. Because vision transformers are typically trained in a self-supervised manner, attention maps are generally not class-sensitive. When a classification head is attached to the ViT backbone, class-discriminative attention maps (CDAM) combines attention maps and gradients with respect to the class [CLS] token. Some class-sensitive interpretability methods originally developed for convolutional neural networks can be also applied to ViT, such as GradCAM, which back-propagates the gradients to the outputs of the final attention layer. Using attention as basis of explanation for the transformers in language and vision is not without debate. While some pioneering papers analyzed and framed attention scores as explanations, higher attention scores do not always correlate with greater impact on model performances. == Mathematical representation == === Standard scaled dot-product attention === For matrices: Q ∈ R m × d k , K ∈ R n × d k {\displaystyle Q\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times d_{k}},K\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times d_{k}}} and V ∈ R n × d v {\displaystyle V\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times d_{v}}} , the scaled dot-product, or QKV attention, is defined as: Attention ( Q , K , V ) = softmax ( Q K T d k ) V ∈ R m × d v {\displaystyle {\text{Attention}}(Q,K,V)={\text{softmax}}\left({\frac {QK^{T}}{\sqrt {d_{k}}}}\right)V\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times d_{v}}} where T {\displaystyle {}^{T}} denotes transpose and the softmax function is applied independently to every row of its argument. The matrix Q {\displaystyle Q} contains m {\displaystyle m} queries, while matrices K , V {\displaystyle K,V} jointly contain an unordered set of n {\displaystyle n} key-value pairs. Value vectors in matrix V {\displaystyle V} are weighted using the weights resulting from the softmax operation, so that the rows of the m {\displaystyle m} -by- d v {\displaystyle d_{v}} output matrix are confined to the convex hull of the points in R d v {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d_{v}}} given by the rows of V {\displaystyle V} . To understand the permutation invariance and permutation equivariance properties of QKV attention, let A ∈ R m × m {\displaystyle A\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times m}} and B ∈ R n × n {\displaystyle B\in \mathbb {R} ^{n\times n}} be permutation matrices; and D ∈ R m × n {\displaystyle D\in \mathbb {R} ^{m\times n}} an arbitrary matrix. The softmax function is permutation equivariant in the sense that: softmax ( A D B ) = A softmax ( D ) B {\displays

  Read more →
• 

  Visual Peer Review

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

  Read more →
• 

  Information quality

  Information quality (IQ) is a contextual property of or a perspective to the content within information systems. There exist two complementary yet partially conflicting definitions of high-quality: firstly, information is considered high quality if it is fit for its intended purpose ; secondly, it is deemed high quality if it conforms to specified requirements . The primary distinction between these definitions is that Juran's perspective focuses on the suitability of information for its intended purpose, which can be measured by the success of its application even without direct access to or exact knowledge of the data. For example, a black-box AI with access to English Wikipedia can work well for users' purposes but using Estonian Wikipedia fails for the same purposes. Given that the AI remains the same, it can be concluded that English version data would be of higher quality in comparison to Estonian version, even without exact comparison of data contents and their properties in each version. In contrast, Crosby emphasizes adherence to predefined specifications, assuming specific criteria rather than measuring the success of its use; for instance, information in Wikipedia could be proven to be good based on criteria such as existing peer validation and academic references, even if the AI results are poor. This approach falls into problems when data is not completely accessible or all quality properties cannot be known and measured leading to false impression of quality due to lacking and misleading metrics. Numerous IQ frameworks and methodologies provide tangible approach to assess and measure DQ/IQ in a robust and rigorous manner. == Conceptual problems == Although the foundational definitions are usable for most everyday purposes, specialists often use more complex models for information quality. It has been suggested, however, that higher the quality the greater will be the confidence in meeting more general, less specific contexts. == Dimensions and metrics of information quality == "Information quality" is a measure of its fitness for use or conformance to requirements. In this way, "quality" is considered contextual and it can then vary across users and uses of the information. The exact degree of quality is often described with dimensions such as accuracy, timeliness, completeness, and similar scales. Although a huge amount of academic research has been directed to these dimensions, there does not exist consensus on their definitions or practical usefulness . Historically, Richard Wang and Diane Strong proposed a list of dimensions or elements used in assessing Information Quality is: Intrinsic IQ: accuracy, objectivity, believability, reputation Contextual IQ: relevance, value-added, timeliness, completeness, amount of information Representational IQ: interpretability, format, coherence, compatibility Accessibility IQ: accessibility, access security Other authors propose similar but different lists of dimensions for analysis, and emphasize measurement and reporting as information quality metrics. Larry English prefers the term "characteristics" to dimensions. However, a considerable amount of information quality research involves investigating and describing various categories of desirable attributes (or dimensions) of data. Research has recently shown the huge diversity of terms and classification structures used. === Quality metrics === Source: Authority/verifiability Authority refers to the expertise or recognized official status of a source. Consider the reputation of the author and publisher. When working with legal or government information, consider whether the source is the official provider of the information. Verifiability refers to the ability of a reader to verify the validity of the information irrespective of how authoritative the source is. To verify the facts is part of the duty of care of the journalistic deontology, as well as, where possible, to provide the sources of information so that they can be verified Scope of coverage Scope of coverage refers to the extent to which a source explores a topic. Consider time periods, geography or jurisdiction and coverage of related or narrower topics. Composition and organization Composition and organization has to do with the ability of the information source to present its particular message in a coherent, logically sequential manner. Objectivity Objectivity is the bias or opinion expressed when a writer interprets or analyze facts. Consider the use of persuasive language, the source's presentation of other viewpoints, its reason for providing the information and advertising. Integrity Adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character The state of being whole, entire, or undiminished Comprehensiveness Of large scope; covering or involving much; inclusive: a comprehensive study. Comprehending mentally; having an extensive mental grasp. Insurance. covering or providing broad protection against loss. Validity Validity of some information has to do with the degree of obvious truthfulness which the information carries Uniqueness As much as 'uniqueness' of a given piece of information is intuitive in meaning, it also significantly implies not only the originating point of the information but also the manner in which it is presented and thus the perception which it conjures. The essence of any piece of information we process consists to a large extent of those two elements. Timeliness Timeliness refers to information that is current at the time of publication. Consider publication, creation and revision dates. Beware of Web site scripting that automatically reflects the current day's date on a page. Reproducibility (utilized primarily when referring to instructive information) Means that documented methods are capable of being used on the same data set to achieve a consistent result. == Professional associations == IQ International—the International Association for Information and Data Quality IQ International is a not-for-profit, vendor neutral, professional association formed in 2004, dedicated to building the information and data quality profession. CDOIQ Society Chief Data Officers and Information Quality Society is a global professional society supporting data leaders with networking, meetings, best practices, experience, certification, and training. == Information quality conferences == A number of major conferences relevant to information quality are held annually: Annual MIT Chief Data Officer & Information Quality (CDOIQ) Symposium Annual conferences held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA Data Governance and Information Quality Conference Commercial conferences held each year in the USA Data Quality Asia Pacific Commercial conference held annually in Sydney or Melbourne, Australia Enterprise Data and Business Intelligence Conference Europe Commercial conferences held annually in London, England. Information and Data Quality Conference Not for profit conference run annually by IQ International (the International Association for Information and Data Quality) in the USA International Conference on Information Quality Academic Conference launched through MITIQ held annually at a University Master Data Management & Data Governance Conferences Six major conferences are run annually by the MDM Institute in venues such as London, San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Madrid, Frankfurt, Shanghai and New York City.

  Read more →