AI Grammar Sentence Checker

AI Grammar Sentence Checker — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Digital Michelangelo Project

The Digital Michelangelo Project was a pioneering initiative undertaken during the 1998–1999 academic year to digitize the sculptures and architecture of Michelangelo using advanced laser scanning technology. The project was led by a team of 30 faculty, staff, and students from Stanford University and the University of Washington, with the aim of creating high-resolution 3D models of Michelangelo's works for scholarly, educational, and preservation purposes. == Objectives == The primary goals of the Digital Michelangelo Project were: To apply recent advancements in laser rangefinder technology for digitizing large cultural artifacts. To create detailed digital archives of Michelangelo's sculptures and architectural spaces for future study and analysis. To explore potential educational and curatorial applications for 3D scanned data. === Artworks digitized === The project involved scanning several iconic works by Michelangelo, including: David The Unfinished Slaves (Atlas, Awakening, Bearded, and Youthful) St. Matthew The allegorical statues from the Medici tombs (Night, Day, Dawn, and Dusk) The architectural interiors of the Tribuna del David at the Galleria dell'Accademia and the New Sacristy in the Medici Chapels. == Technology and methodology == === 3D scanning === The project's primary scanner was a laser triangulation rangefinder mounted on a motorized gantry, custom-built by Cyberware Inc. The scanner used a laser sheet to project onto an object, capturing its shape through triangulation. Multiple scans were taken from various angles and combined into a single, detailed 3D mesh. The resolution achieved was fine enough to capture even Michelangelo's chisel marks, with triangles approximately 0.25 mm on each side. In addition to shape data, color data was captured using a spotlight and a secondary camera, enabling the creation of textured 3D models. === Data processing === The project developed a software suite for processing the scanned data. This included: Aligning and merging multiple scans into a seamless 3D model. Filling holes in the geometry caused by inaccessible areas. Correcting color data for lighting inconsistencies and shadowing. Non-photorealistic rendering techniques were also applied, highlighting surface features such as Michelangelo’s chisel marks for enhanced visualization. == Logistical challenges == The scale and complexity of the project presented several challenges: Data size: The dataset for David alone comprised 2 billion polygons and 7,000 color images, occupying 60 GB of storage. Artifact safety: Ensuring the safety of the statues during scanning required extensive crew training, foam-encased equipment, and collision-prevention mechanisms. == Applications and impact == The digitized models have numerous potential applications: Art history: Allowing precise measurements and geometric analysis, such as determining chisel types or evaluating structural balance. Education: Providing new ways to study art, including interactive viewing from unconventional angles and with custom lighting. Museum curation: Enhancing visitor experiences through interactive kiosks and virtual models. The project demonstrated the potential for 3D technology to preserve and disseminate cultural heritage. == Data distribution == The project's models are available through Stanford University for scholarly purposes, under strict licensing due to Italian intellectual property laws. === ScanView === To provide public access to the 3D models while respecting usage restrictions, the project developed ScanView, a client/server rendering system. ScanView allows users to view and interact with high-resolution 3D models without downloading the data. The client component consists of a freely available viewer program and simplified 3D models. Users can navigate these models locally, adjusting position, orientation, lighting, and surface appearance. When a user finalizes a view, the client queries a remote server for a high-resolution rendering of the model, which is sent back to overwrite the simplified version on the user’s screen. A typical query-response cycle takes 1–2 seconds, depending on network conditions. To protect the models from unauthorized reconstruction, the system employs several security measures, including: Encrypting queries Perturbing viewpoint and lighting parameters Adding noise and warping rendered images Compressing images before transmission ScanView operates on Windows-based PCs and provides access to selected models, including David and St. Matthew, as well as other artifacts such as fragments of the Forma Urbis Romae and items from the Stanford 3D Scanning Repository. == Sponsors == The Digital Michelangelo Project was supported by Stanford University, Interval Research Corporation, and the Paul G. Allen Foundation for the Arts.
Read more →
AI-assisted reverse engineering

AI-assisted reverse engineering (AIARE) is a branch of computer science that leverages artificial intelligence (AI), notably machine learning (ML) strategies, to augment and automate the process of reverse engineering. The latter involves breaking down a product, system, or process to comprehend its structure, design, and functionality. AIARE was primarily introduced in the early years of the 21st century, witnessing substantial advancements from the mid-2010s onwards. == Overview == Conventionally, reverse engineering is conducted by specialists who dismantle a system to grasp its working principles, often for the purposes of reproduction, modification, enhancement of compatibility, or forensic examination. This method, while efficient, can be laborious and time-intensive, particularly when dealing with intricate software or hardware systems. AIARE integrates machine learning algorithms to either partially automate or augment this process. It is capable of detecting patterns, relationships, structures, and potential vulnerabilities within the analyzed system, frequently surpassing human experts in speed and accuracy. This has rendered AIARE a critical tool in numerous fields, including cybersecurity, software development, and hardware design and analysis. == Techniques == AIARE encompasses several AI methodologies: === Supervised learning === Supervised learning employs tagged data to train models to recognize system components, their operations, and their interconnections. This method is particularly helpful in software analysis to discover vulnerabilities or enhance compatibility. === Unsupervised learning === Unsupervised learning is utilized to detect concealed patterns and structures in untagged data. It proves beneficial in comprehending complex systems where there's no evident labeling or mapping of components. === Reinforcement learning === Reinforcement learning is employed to build models that progressively refine their system understanding through a process of trial and error. This method is often implemented when deciphering a system's functionality under various circumstances or configurations. === Deep learning === Deep learning is employed for analysis of high-dimensional data. For instance, deep learning techniques can aid in examining the layout and connections of integrated circuits (ICs), substantially reducing the manual effort required for reverse engineering. == Benefits == === Usable Security === AIARE expands usable security as reverse engineering is traditionally slow and highly specialized as it produces dense, low-level information (usually in Assembly or C) when using tools like Ghidra. The use of multiple different methods to interface with models today (such as through chat bots like ChatGPT) greatly reduces the barrier to entry by providing a clear way to interact with the user and even providing meaningful decompiled source code. In addition, either done automatically or through prompt engineering, a model is capable of producing a high-level summary and explanation of its reverse engineering efforts in human-readable form that doesn't require much knowledge on code. === Speedup === AIARE is capable of processing data much faster than humans, providing a boost in speed when analyzing said data. In the context of computer security, this can greatly speed up incident management or response and malware detection as AIARE can be automated to drastically reduce the manual effort usually associated with reverse engineering. == Limitations == In an effort to improve readability for reverse engineering, AI-generated code may introduce erroneous bugs not present in the source. This compromises the correctness of the code if not carefully validated and will throw off reverse engineering efforts. Additionally, AIARE's weakness in zero-shot prompting makes gathering accurate data without reference data in the prompt more inconsistent, thus requiring a user to provide some quality data of their own that hurts its usability.
Read more →
Randomized rounding

In computer science and operations research, randomized rounding is a widely used approach for designing and analyzing approximation algorithms. Many combinatorial optimization problems are computationally intractable to solve exactly (to optimality). For such problems, randomized rounding can be used to design fast (polynomial time) approximation algorithms—that is, algorithms that are guaranteed to return an approximately optimal solution given any input. The basic idea of randomized rounding is to convert an optimal solution of a relaxation of the problem into an approximately-optimal solution to the original problem. The resulting algorithm is usually analyzed using the probabilistic method. == Overview == The basic approach has three steps: Formulate the problem to be solved as an integer linear program (ILP). Compute an optimal fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} to the linear programming relaxation (LP) of the ILP. Round the fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} of the LP to an integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of the ILP. (Although the approach is most commonly applied with linear programs, other kinds of relaxations are sometimes used. For example, see Goemans' and Williamson's semidefinite programming-based Max-Cut approximation algorithm.) In the first step, the challenge is to choose a suitable integer linear program. Familiarity with linear programming, in particular modelling using linear programs and integer linear programs, is required. For many problems, there is a natural integer linear program that works well, such as in the Set Cover example below. (The integer linear program should have a small integrality gap; indeed randomized rounding is often used to prove bounds on integrality gaps.) In the second step, the optimal fractional solution can typically be computed in polynomial time using any standard linear programming algorithm. In the third step, the fractional solution must be converted into an integer solution (and thus a solution to the original problem). This is called rounding the fractional solution. The resulting integer solution should (provably) have cost not much larger than the cost of the fractional solution. This will ensure that the cost of the integer solution is not much larger than the cost of the optimal integer solution. The main technique used to do the third step (rounding) is to use randomization, and then to use probabilistic arguments to bound the increase in cost due to the rounding (following the probabilistic method from combinatorics). Therein, probabilistic arguments are used to show the existence of discrete structures with desired properties. In this context, one uses such arguments to show the following: Given any fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} of the LP, with positive probability the randomized rounding process produces an integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} that approximates x {\displaystyle x} according to some desired criterion. Finally, to make the third step computationally efficient, one either shows that x ′ {\displaystyle x'} approximates x {\displaystyle x} with high probability (so that the step can remain randomized) or one derandomizes the rounding step, typically using the method of conditional probabilities. The latter method converts the randomized rounding process into an efficient deterministic process that is guaranteed to reach a good outcome. == Example: the set cover problem == The following example illustrates how randomized rounding can be used to design an approximation algorithm for the set cover problem. Fix any instance ⟨ c , S ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle c,{\mathcal {S}}\rangle } of set cover over a universe U {\displaystyle {\mathcal {U}}} . === Computing the fractional solution === For step 1, let IP be the standard integer linear program for set cover for this instance. For step 2, let LP be the linear programming relaxation of IP, and compute an optimal solution x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} to LP using any standard linear programming algorithm. This takes time polynomial in the input size. The feasible solutions to LP are the vectors x {\displaystyle x} that assign each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} a non-negative weight x s {\displaystyle x_{s}} , such that, for each element e ∈ U {\displaystyle e\in {\mathcal {U}}} , x ′ {\displaystyle x'} covers e {\displaystyle e} —the total weight assigned to the sets containing e {\displaystyle e} is at least 1, that is, ∑ s ∋ e x s ≥ 1. {\displaystyle \sum _{s\ni e}x_{s}\geq 1.} The optimal solution x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a feasible solution whose cost ∑ s ∈ S c ( S ) x s ∗ {\displaystyle \sum _{s\in {\mathcal {S}}}c(S)x_{s}^{}} is as small as possible. Note that any set cover C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} for S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} gives a feasible solution x {\displaystyle x} (where x s = 1 {\displaystyle x_{s}=1} for s ∈ C {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {C}}} , x s = 0 {\displaystyle x_{s}=0} otherwise). The cost of this C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} equals the cost of x {\displaystyle x} , that is, ∑ s ∈ C c ( s ) = ∑ s ∈ S c ( s ) x s . {\displaystyle \sum _{s\in {\mathcal {C}}}c(s)=\sum _{s\in {\mathcal {S}}}c(s)x_{s}.} In other words, the linear program LP is a relaxation of the given set-cover problem. Since x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} has minimum cost among feasible solutions to the LP, the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a lower bound on the cost of the optimal set cover. === Randomized rounding step === In step 3, we must convert the minimum-cost fractional set cover x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} into a feasible integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} (corresponding to a true set cover). The rounding step should produce an x ′ {\displaystyle x'} that, with positive probability, has cost within a small factor of the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} .Then (since the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a lower bound on the cost of the optimal set cover), the cost of x ′ {\displaystyle x'} will be within a small factor of the optimal cost. As a starting point, consider the most natural rounding scheme: For each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} in turn, take x s ′ = 1 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=1} with probability min ( 1 , x s ∗ ) {\displaystyle \min(1,x_{s}^{})} , otherwise take x s ′ = 0 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=0} . With this rounding scheme, the expected cost of the chosen sets is at most ∑ s c ( s ) x s ∗ {\displaystyle \sum _{s}c(s)x_{s}^{}} , the cost of the fractional cover. This is good. Unfortunately the coverage is not good. When the variables x s ∗ {\displaystyle x_{s}^{}} are small, the probability that an element e {\displaystyle e} is not covered is about ∏ s ∋ e 1 − x s ∗ ≈ ∏ s ∋ e exp ⁡ ( − x s ∗ ) = exp ⁡ ( − ∑ s ∋ e x s ∗ ) ≈ exp ⁡ ( − 1 ) . {\displaystyle \prod _{s\ni e}1-x_{s}^{}\approx \prod _{s\ni e}\exp(-x_{s}^{})=\exp {\Big (}-\sum _{s\ni e}x_{s}^{}{\Big )}\approx \exp(-1).} So only a constant fraction of the elements will be covered in expectation. To make x ′ {\displaystyle x'} cover every element with high probability, the standard rounding scheme first scales up the rounding probabilities by an appropriate factor λ > 1 {\displaystyle \lambda >1} . Here is the standard rounding scheme: Fix a parameter λ ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \lambda \geq 1} . For each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} in turn, take x s ′ = 1 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=1} with probability min ( λ x s ∗ , 1 ) {\displaystyle \min(\lambda x_{s}^{},1)} , otherwise take x s ′ = 0 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=0} . Scaling the probabilities up by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } increases the expected cost by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } , but makes coverage of all elements likely. The idea is to choose λ {\displaystyle \lambda } as small as possible so that all elements are provably covered with non-zero probability. Here is a detailed analysis. ==== Lemma (approximation guarantee for rounding scheme) ==== Fix λ = ln ⁡ ( 2 | U | ) {\displaystyle \lambda =\ln(2|{\mathcal {U}}|)} . With positive probability, the rounding scheme returns a set cover x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of cost at most 2 ln ⁡ ( 2 | U | ) c ⋅ x ∗ {\displaystyle 2\ln(2|{\mathcal {U}}|)c\cdot x^{}} (and thus of cost O ( log ⁡ | U | ) {\displaystyle O(\log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} times the cost of the optimal set cover). (Note: with care the O ( log ⁡ | U | ) {\displaystyle O(\log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} can be reduced to ln ⁡ ( | U | ) + O ( log ⁡ log ⁡ | U | ) {\displaystyle \ln(|{\mathcal {U}}|)+O(\log \log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} .) ==== Proof ==== The output x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of the random rounding scheme has the desired properties as long as none of the following "bad" events occur: the cost c ⋅ x ′ {\displaystyle c\cdot x'} of x ′ {\displaystyle x'} exceeds 2 λ c ⋅ x ∗ {\displaystyle 2\lambda c\cdot x^{}} , or for some element e {\displaystyle e} , x ′ {\displaystyle x'} fails to cover e {\displaystyle e} . The expectation of each x s ′ {\displaystyle x'_{s}} is at most λ x s ∗ {\displaystyle \lambda x_{s
Read more →
Rendezvous hashing

Rendezvous or highest random weight (HRW) hashing is an algorithm that allows clients to achieve distributed agreement on a set of k {\displaystyle k} options out of a possible set of n {\displaystyle n} options. A typical application is when clients need to agree on which sites (or proxies) objects are assigned to. Consistent hashing addresses the special case k = 1 {\displaystyle k=1} using a different method. Rendezvous hashing is both much simpler and more general than consistent hashing (see below). == History == Rendezvous hashing was invented by David Thaler and Chinya Ravishankar at the University of Michigan in 1996. Consistent hashing appeared a year later in the literature. Given its simplicity and generality, rendezvous hashing is now being preferred to consistent hashing in real-world applications. Rendezvous hashing was used very early on in many applications including mobile caching, router design, secure key establishment, and sharding and distributed databases. Other examples of real-world systems that use Rendezvous Hashing include the GitHub load balancer, the Apache Ignite distributed database, the Tahoe-LAFS file store, the CoBlitz large-file distribution service, Apache Druid, IBM's Cloud Object Store, the Arvados Data Management System, Apache Kafka, and the Twitter EventBus pub/sub platform. One of the first applications of rendezvous hashing was to enable multicast clients on the Internet (in contexts such as the MBONE) to identify multicast rendezvous points in a distributed fashion. It was used in 1998 by Microsoft's Cache Array Routing Protocol (CARP) for distributed cache coordination and routing. Some Protocol Independent Multicast routing protocols use rendezvous hashing to pick a rendezvous point. == Problem definition and approach == === Algorithm === Rendezvous hashing solves a general version of the distributed hash table problem: We are given a set of n {\displaystyle n} sites (servers or proxies, say). How can any set of clients, given an object O {\displaystyle O} , agree on a k-subset of sites to assign to O {\displaystyle O} ? The standard version of the problem uses k = 1. Each client is to make its selection independently, but all clients must end up picking the same subset of sites. This is non-trivial if we add a minimal disruption constraint, and require that when a site fails or is removed, only objects mapping to that site need be reassigned to other sites. The basic idea is to give each site S j {\displaystyle S_{j}} a score (a weight) for each object O i {\displaystyle O_{i}} , and assign the object to the highest scoring site. All clients first agree on a hash function h ( ⋅ ) {\displaystyle h(\cdot )} . For object O i {\displaystyle O_{i}} , the site S j {\displaystyle S_{j}} is defined to have weight w i , j = h ( O i , S j ) {\displaystyle w_{i,j}=h(O_{i},S_{j})} . Each client independently computes these weights w i , 1 , w i , 2 … w i , n {\displaystyle w_{i,1},w_{i,2}\dots w_{i,n}} and picks the k sites that yield the k largest hash values. The clients have thereby achieved distributed k {\displaystyle k} -agreement. If a site S {\displaystyle S} is added or removed, only the objects mapping to S {\displaystyle S} are remapped to different sites, satisfying the minimal disruption constraint above. The HRW assignment can be computed independently by any client, since it depends only on the identifiers for the set of sites S 1 , S 2 … S n {\displaystyle S_{1},S_{2}\dots S_{n}} and the object being assigned. HRW easily accommodates different capacities among sites. If site S k {\displaystyle S_{k}} has twice the capacity of the other sites, we simply represent S k {\displaystyle S_{k}} twice in the list, say, as S k , 1 , S k , 2 {\displaystyle S_{k,1},S_{k,2}} . Clearly, twice as many objects will now map to S k {\displaystyle S_{k}} as to the other sites. === Properties === Consider the simple version of the problem, with k = 1, where all clients are to agree on a single site for an object O. Approaching the problem naively, it might appear sufficient to treat the n sites as buckets in a hash table and hash the object name O into this table. Unfortunately, if any of the sites fails or is unreachable, the hash table size changes, forcing all objects to be remapped. This massive disruption makes such direct hashing unworkable. Under rendezvous hashing, however, clients handle site failures by picking the site that yields the next largest weight. Remapping is required only for objects currently mapped to the failed site, and disruption is minimal. Rendezvous hashing has the following properties: Low overhead: The hash function used is efficient, so overhead at the clients is very low. Load balancing: Since the hash function is randomizing, each of the n sites is equally likely to receive the object O. Loads are uniform across the sites. Site capacity: Sites with different capacities can be represented in the site list with multiplicity in proportion to capacity. A site with twice the capacity of the other sites will be represented twice in the list, while every other site is represented once. High hit rate: Since all clients agree on placing an object O into the same site SO, each fetch or placement of O into SO yields the maximum utility in terms of hit rate. The object O will always be found unless it is evicted by some replacement algorithm at SO. Minimal disruption: When a site fails, only the objects mapped to that site need to be remapped. Disruption is at the minimal possible level. Distributed k-agreement: Clients can reach distributed agreement on k sites simply by selecting the top k sites in the ordering. == O(log n) running time via skeleton-based hierarchical rendezvous hashing == The standard version of Rendezvous Hashing described above works quite well for moderate n, but when n {\displaystyle n} is extremely large, the hierarchical use of Rendezvous Hashing achieves O ( log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle O(\log n)} running time. This approach creates a virtual hierarchical structure (called a "skeleton"), and achieves O ( log ⁡ n ) {\displaystyle O(\log n)} running time by applying HRW at each level while descending the hierarchy. The idea is to first choose some constant m {\displaystyle m} and organize the n {\displaystyle n} sites into c = ⌈ n / m ⌉ {\displaystyle c=\lceil n/m\rceil } clusters C 1 = { S 1 , S 2 … S m } , C 2 = { S m + 1 , S m + 2 … S 2 m } … {\displaystyle C_{1}=\left\{S_{1},S_{2}\dots S_{m}\right\},C_{2}=\left\{S_{m+1},S_{m+2}\dots S_{2m}\right\}\dots } Next, build a virtual hierarchy by choosing a constant f {\displaystyle f} and imagining these c {\displaystyle c} clusters placed at the leaves of a tree T {\displaystyle T} of virtual nodes, each with fanout f {\displaystyle f} . In the accompanying diagram, the cluster size is m = 4 {\displaystyle m=4} , and the skeleton fanout is f = 3 {\displaystyle f=3} . Assuming 108 sites (real nodes) for convenience, we get a three-tier virtual hierarchy. Since f = 3 {\displaystyle f=3} , each virtual node has a natural numbering in octal. Thus, the 27 virtual nodes at the lowest tier would be numbered 000 , 001 , 002 , . . . , 221 , 222 {\displaystyle 000,001,002,...,221,222} in octal (we can, of course, vary the fanout at each level - in that case, each node will be identified with the corresponding mixed-radix number). The easiest way to understand the virtual hierarchy is by starting at the top, and descending the virtual hierarchy. We successively apply Rendezvous Hashing to the set of virtual nodes at each level of the hierarchy, and descend the branch defined by the winning virtual node. We can in fact start at any level in the virtual hierarchy. Starting lower in the hierarchy requires more hashes, but may improve load distribution in the case of failures. For example, instead of applying HRW to all 108 real nodes in the diagram, we can first apply HRW to the 27 lowest-tier virtual nodes, selecting one. We then apply HRW to the four real nodes in its cluster, and choose the winning site. We only need 27 + 4 = 31 {\displaystyle 27+4=31} hashes, rather than 108. If we apply this method starting one level higher in the hierarchy, we would need 9 + 3 + 4 = 16 {\displaystyle 9+3+4=16} hashes to get to the winning site. The figure shows how, if we proceed starting from the root of the skeleton, we may successively choose the virtual nodes ( 2 ) 3 {\displaystyle (2)_{3}} , ( 20 ) 3 {\displaystyle (20)_{3}} , and ( 200 ) 3 {\displaystyle (200)_{3}} , and finally end up with site 74. The virtual hierarchy need not be stored, but can be created on demand, since the virtual nodes names are simply prefixes of base- f {\displaystyle f} (or mixed-radix) representations. We can easily create appropriately sorted strings from the digits, as required. In the example, we would be working with the strings 0 , 1 , 2 {\displaystyle 0,1,2} (at tier 1), 20 , 21 , 22 {\displaystyle 20,21,22} (at tier 2), and 200 , 201 , 202
Read more →
Google Messages

Google Messages (formerly known as Messenger, Android Messages, and Messages by Google) is a text messaging software application developed by Google for its Android and Wear OS mobile operating systems. It is also available as a web app. Google's official universal messaging platform for the Android ecosystem, Messages employs SMS, MMS, and Rich Communication Services (RCS). Starting in 2023, Google has RCS activated by default on participating Android devices, similar to the implementation of iMessage on Apple devices. Samsung Messages will be discontinued on July 6th 2026, with Samsung transitioning users to Google Messages as the default messaging application. == History == The original code for Android SMS messaging was released in 2009 integrated into the operating system. It was released as a standalone application independent of Android with the release of Android 5.0 Lollipop in 2014, replacing Google Hangouts as the default SMS app on Google's Nexus line of phones. In 2018, Messages adopted RCS messages and evolved to send larger data files, sync with other apps, and even create mass messages. This was in preparation for when Google launched Messages for web. In December 2019, Google began to introduce support for Rich Communication Services (RCS) messaging via an RCS service hosted by Google, referred to in the user interface as "chat features". This was followed by a wider global rollout throughout 2020. The app surpassed 1 billion installs in April 2020, doubling its number of installs in less than a year. Initially, RCS did not support end-to-end encryption. In June 2021, Google introduced end-to-end encryption in Messages by default using the Signal Protocol, for all one-to-one RCS-based conversations, for all RCS group chats in December 2022 for beta users, and for all RCS users by August 2023, as well as enabling RCS for all users by default to encourage encryption. In July 2023, Google announced it would build the Message Layer Security (MLS) end-to-end encryption protocol into Google Messages. Beginning with the Samsung Galaxy S21, Messages replaces Samsung's in-house Messages app as the default text messaging app for One UI for some regions and carriers. In April 2021, the app began to receive UI modifications on Samsung devices to follow aspects of One UI, including pushing the top of the message list towards the middle of the screen to improve ergonomics. In February 2023, Google began to replace references to "chat features" in the Messages user interface with "RCS". In August 2023, Google announced that Messages will use RCS by default for all users unless they opt out, to allow them to benefit from secure messaging. In December 2023, with the arrival of several new features, the app was renamed "Google Messages". In July 2024, Samsung announced it would no longer pre-install Samsung Messages on its Galaxy devices in some regions, starting with the Galaxy Z Fold 6 and Flip, favoring Google Messages instead. In April 2026, Samsung announced that Samsung Messages would be discontinued in July 2026. It encouraged users to switch to Google Messages. == Features == Some of the most important features in Google Messages are: Send instant text and voice messages in 1:1 or group chat conversations over mobile data and Wi-Fi, via Android, Wear OS or the web. End-to-end encryption for RCS chats. Typing, sent, delivered and read status Reply and react to specific messages Share files and high-resolution photos Voice message transcriptions Schedule messages In-app reminders for birthdays and messages you didn't respond to after some time with Nudges Tight integration with the Google ecosystem, e.g. Google Calendar, Meet, Maps, YouTube, Photos, Contacts, Assistant, Search, Safe Browsing etc. Web interface: Users can visit https://messages.google.com/web and either sign in with their Google account or scan the QR code that is shown with their smartphone to access a limited web version of the app that allows them to send and receive messages, provided the smartphone remains connected. Phone number recognition: The app shows the country and province of the caller. Additionally, it can show the company's name or a warning for spam calls if the number is registered in a data base. Access to the Gemini chatbot on select Pixel, Galaxy and Android devices.
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 →
AlphaTensor

AlphaTensor is an artificial intelligence system developed by DeepMind for discovering efficient matrix multiplication algorithms using reinforcement learning. Introduced in 2022, the system was based on AlphaZero and formulated the search for matrix multiplication algorithms as a single-player game called TensorGame. AlphaTensor was designed to search for new ways to multiply matrices with fewer scalar multiplication operations. Matrix multiplication is a fundamental operation in linear algebra, numerical analysis, scientific computing, computer graphics, and machine learning. The system discovered thousands of matrix multiplication algorithms, including algorithms that rediscovered known human-designed methods and others that improved on previously known results for particular matrix sizes and mathematical settings. == Background == Matrix multiplication is one of the basic operations in numerical computing. The standard algorithm for multiplying two square matrices has cubic time complexity, while faster algorithms such as the Strassen algorithm reduce the number of multiplication operations by using more complex algebraic decompositions. Finding optimal matrix multiplication algorithms can be difficult because it involves searching through a large space of possible tensor decompositions. AlphaTensor approached this problem by representing algorithm discovery as TensorGame, in which each move corresponds to an operation that reduces a tensor representing matrix multiplication. The goal of the game is to find a low-rank decomposition of the matrix multiplication tensor, corresponding to an efficient multiplication algorithm. == Development == AlphaTensor was developed by DeepMind and described in a paper published in Nature in October 2022. The system built on the reinforcement-learning approach used in AlphaZero, which had previously been applied to games such as Go, chess, and shogi. Unlike those games, TensorGame involved a very large search space, requiring changes to the AlphaZero-style search method and neural network architecture. DeepMind released source code and discovered algorithms associated with the publication through a public GitHub repository. == Results == AlphaTensor discovered matrix multiplication algorithms over both standard arithmetic and finite fields. One widely reported result was a method for multiplying 4 × 4 matrices over the field with two elements using 47 multiplication operations, improving on the 49 operations required by applying Strassen's algorithm recursively in that setting. The system also found algorithms optimized for particular computer hardware, including algorithms designed for graphics processing units and Tensor Processing Units. DeepMind stated that some of the hardware-specific algorithms improved practical execution time compared with commonly used algorithms on the tested hardware. == Significance == AlphaTensor was described as an example of using machine learning not only to apply existing algorithms, but to assist in discovering new ones. The work was connected to broader research in algorithm discovery, automated machine learning, program synthesis, and computational complexity theory, especially the open problem of determining the optimal complexity of matrix multiplication. AlphaTensor later became part of a broader group of Google DeepMind systems for algorithm and mathematical discovery, alongside systems such as AlphaDev and AlphaEvolve.
Read more →
Algorithm characterizations

Algorithm characterizations are attempts to formalize the word algorithm. Algorithm does not have a generally accepted formal definition. Researchers are actively working on this problem. This article will present some of the "characterizations" of the notion of "algorithm" in more detail. == The problem of definition == Over the last 200 years, the definition of the algorithm has become more complicated and detailed as researchers have tried to pin down the term. Indeed, there may be more than one type of "algorithm". But most agree that algorithm has something to do with defining generalized processes for the creation of "output" integers from other "input" integers – "input parameters" arbitrary and infinite in extent, or limited in extent but still variable—by the manipulation of distinguishable symbols (counting numbers) with finite collections of rules that a person can perform with paper and pencil. The most common number-manipulation schemes—both in formal mathematics and in routine life—are: (1) the recursive functions calculated by a person with paper and pencil, and (2) the Turing machine or its Turing equivalents—the primitive register-machine or "counter-machine" model, the random-access machine model (RAM), the random-access stored-program machine model (RASP) and its functional equivalent "the computer". When we are doing "arithmetic" we are really calculating by the use of "recursive functions" in the shorthand algorithms we learned in grade school, for example, adding and subtracting. The proofs that every "recursive function" we can calculate by hand we can compute by machine and vice versa—note the usage of the words calculate versus compute—is remarkable. But this equivalence together with the thesis (unproven assertion) that this includes every calculation/computation indicates why so much emphasis has been placed upon the use of Turing-equivalent machines in the definition of specific algorithms, and why the definition of "algorithm" itself often refers back to "the Turing machine". This is discussed in more detail under Stephen Kleene's characterization. The following are summaries of the more famous characterizations (Kleene, Markov, Knuth) together with those that introduce novel elements—elements that further expand the definition or contribute to a more precise definition. [ A mathematical problem and its result can be considered as two points in a space, and the solution consists of a sequence of steps or a path linking them. Quality of the solution is a function of the path. There might be more than one attribute defined for the path, e.g. length, complexity of shape, an ease of generalizing, difficulty, and so on. ] == Chomsky hierarchy == There is more consensus on the "characterization" of the notion of "simple algorithm". All algorithms need to be specified in a formal language, and the "simplicity notion" arises from the simplicity of the language. The Chomsky (1956) hierarchy is a containment hierarchy of classes of formal grammars that generate formal languages. It is used for classifying of programming languages and abstract machines. From the Chomsky hierarchy perspective, if the algorithm can be specified on a simpler language (than unrestricted), it can be characterized by this kind of language, else it is a typical "unrestricted algorithm". Examples: a "general purpose" macro language, like M4 is unrestricted (Turing complete), but the C preprocessor macro language is not, so any algorithm expressed in C preprocessor is a "simple algorithm". See also Relationships between complexity classes. == Features of a good algorithm == The following are desirable features of a well-defined algorithm, as discussed in Scheider and Gersting (1995): Unambiguous Operations: an algorithm must have specific, outlined steps. The steps should be exact enough to precisely specify what to do at each step. Well-Ordered: The exact order of operations performed in an algorithm should be concretely defined. Feasibility: All steps of an algorithm should be possible (also known as effectively computable). Input: an algorithm should be able to accept a well-defined set of inputs. Output: an algorithm should produce some result as an output, so that its correctness can be reasoned about. Finiteness: an algorithm should terminate after a finite number of instructions. Properties of specific algorithms that may be desirable include space and time efficiency, generality (i.e. being able to handle many inputs), or determinism. == 1881 John Venn's negative reaction to W. Stanley Jevons's Logical Machine of 1870 == In early 1870 W. Stanley Jevons presented a "Logical Machine" (Jevons 1880:200) for analyzing a syllogism or other logical form e.g. an argument reduced to a Boolean equation. By means of what Couturat (1914) called a "sort of logical piano [,] ... the equalities which represent the premises ... are "played" on a keyboard like that of a typewriter. ... When all the premises have been "played", the panel shows only those constituents whose sum is equal to 1, that is, ... its logical whole. This mechanical method has the advantage over VENN's geometrical method..." (Couturat 1914:75). For his part John Venn, a logician contemporary to Jevons, was less than thrilled, opining that "it does not seem to me that any contrivances at present known or likely to be discovered really deserve the name of logical machines" (italics added, Venn 1881:120). But of historical use to the developing notion of "algorithm" is his explanation for his negative reaction with respect to a machine that "may subserve a really valuable purpose by enabling us to avoid otherwise inevitable labor": (1) "There is, first, the statement of our data in accurate logical language", (2) "Then secondly, we have to throw these statements into a form fit for the engine to work with – in this case the reduction of each proposition to its elementary denials", (3) "Thirdly, there is the combination or further treatment of our premises after such reduction," (4) "Finally, the results have to be interpreted or read off. This last generally gives rise to much opening for skill and sagacity." He concludes that "I cannot see that any machine can hope to help us except in the third of these steps; so that it seems very doubtful whether any thing of this sort really deserves the name of a logical engine."(Venn 1881:119–121). == 1943, 1952 Stephen Kleene's characterization == This section is longer and more detailed than the others because of its importance to the topic: Kleene was the first to propose that all calculations/computations—of every sort, the totality of—can equivalently be (i) calculated by use of five "primitive recursive operators" plus one special operator called the mu-operator, or be (ii) computed by the actions of a Turing machine or an equivalent model. Furthermore, he opined that either of these would stand as a definition of algorithm. A reader first confronting the words that follow may well be confused, so a brief explanation is in order. Calculation means done by hand, computation means done by Turing machine (or equivalent). (Sometimes an author slips and interchanges the words). A "function" can be thought of as an "input-output box" into which a person puts natural numbers called "arguments" or "parameters" (but only the counting numbers including 0—the nonnegative integers) and gets out a single nonnegative integer (conventionally called "the answer"). Think of the "function-box" as a little man either calculating by hand using "general recursion" or computing by Turing machine (or an equivalent machine). "Effectively calculable/computable" is more generic and means "calculable/computable by some procedure, method, technique ... whatever...". "General recursive" was Kleene's way of writing what today is called just "recursion"; however, "primitive recursion"—calculation by use of the five recursive operators—is a lesser form of recursion that lacks access to the sixth, additional, mu-operator that is needed only in rare instances. Thus most of life goes on requiring only the "primitive recursive functions." === 1943 "Thesis I", 1952 "Church's Thesis" === In 1943 Kleene proposed what has come to be known as Church's thesis: "Thesis I. Every effectively calculable function (effectively decidable predicate) is general recursive" (First stated by Kleene in 1943 (reprinted page 274 in Davis, ed. The Undecidable; appears also verbatim in Kleene (1952) p.300) In a nutshell: to calculate any function the only operations a person needs (technically, formally) are the 6 primitive operators of "general" recursion (nowadays called the operators of the mu recursive functions). Kleene's first statement of this was under the section title "12. Algorithmic theories". He would later amplify it in his text (1952) as follows: "Thesis I and its converse provide the exact definition of the notion of a calculation (decision) procedure or algorithm, for the
Read more →
Qapital

Qapital is a personal finance mobile application (app) for the iOS and Android operating systems, developed by Qapital, LLC. The app is designed to motivate users to save money through a gamification of their spending behavior. It moves money from a user's checking account to a separate Qapital account, when certain rules are triggered. Its database is used by psychology professor Dan Ariely to study consumer behavior. Qapital was released in Sweden in 2013, then in the US in early 2015. The application was later withdrawn from the Swedish market in April 2015, in order to focus on the US market. == History == The idea for Qapital was conceived by ex-bankers in Sweden. The software was designed by twin brothers Daniel and Andreas Källbom of Studio Källbom and released in Sweden in December 2013. The original software was a personal finance dashboard, similar to Mint.com, to show its users how they spent their money. Qapital introduced the app into the US market with a different design in 2014 and started focusing exclusively on the US market. The app was re-designed to focus on building savings rather than managing personal finances. The Swedish version shut down in April 2015. The app was initially restricted to the iOS platform, but an Android version was released at the end of 2015. Shortly after its US launch, Qapital invited psychology professor Dan Ariely to join its team as its "chief behavioral economist". He uses the app's database to conduct research into behavioral economics and Qapital in turn uses Ariely's research in design and programming decisions. In 2017, Qapital added checking and debit card services to the app. == Concept and features == Qapital is a free personal finance app for iOS and Android devices, intended to encourage its users to save money. Qapital directs each of its users to set savings goals, then automatically transfers money from their checking account to an account for savings, when a rule established in the app is met. It uses the "if this then that" (IFTTT) rule-based web-service. For example, one rule could be that if a user purchases a cup of coffee, then the app will round up the charge to the nearest dollar and deposit the difference into savings. Users connect their bank accounts to Qapital, so it knows when purchases are made. When a rule is met, money for savings are transferred to a Qapital account operated in partnership with Lincoln Savings Bank. As of 2015, Qapital can connect to more than 180 other apps, such as Facebook, Twitter, Dropbox and Instagram. For example, connecting to Jawbone allows the user to set a rule that if they take a certain number of steps during the day, a set amount of money is transferred to savings. The app also allows users to monitor activity among their other financial accounts, such as deposits and withdrawals. == Reception == In an October 2015 review, PC Magazine gave Qapital four out of five marks and an editor rating of "excellent." The review praised the app for having a "lovely design" and criticized it for being a, "bit simplistic in some of its rules." Bankrate, in a May 2015 review, gave the app a score of 3/5 for "ease of use," 5/5 for "features," 4/5 for "effectiveness," 4/5 for "value," for a total score of 16/20. The reviewer criticized Qapital's savings account for providing a low-interest rate, but concluded that its numerous features make the app "intriguing" and "it would be difficult to find a standard bank app more fun to use than Qapital."
Read more →
Explore-then-commit algorithm

Explore Then Commit (ETC) is an algorithm for the multi-armed bandit problem foc,used on finding the best trade-off between exploration and exploitation. == 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} 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}} , they then get 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 Read more →
Vinelink.com

Vinelink.com (VINE) is a national website in the United States that allows victims of crime, and the general public, to track the movements of prisoners held by the various states and territories. The first four letters in the websites name, "vine", are an acronym for "Victim Information and Notification Everyday". Vinelink.com displays information, based on the information provided by the various states' departments of correction and other law enforcement agencies, on whether an inmate is in custody, has been released, has been granted parole or probation, or has escaped from custody. In some cases, the website will reveal whether a defendant has been granted parole or probation, but then subsequently violated conditions of their release and become a fugitive. Information provided on Vinelink.com represents metadata, in that the website lists a defendant's custody status; but does not list what the individual is charged with, their criminal history, or the amount of their bail, if applicable. Internet users accessing the Vinelink.com website choose from a map of states and provinces within the United States where they wish to perform a search for an inmate. The user may then search for an individual using the inmate's or parolee's name, or by entering the inmate's specific department of corrections inmate number, if known. When the inmate's custody status changes, users who have registered to be notified of such changes will be notified via email, phone or both. This information is currently released upon request, without the website requesting reasons for the users search or requiring payment, as public records available to the general public. Inmate information is available for most states, and for Puerto Rico, on the website. The states of Arizona, Georgia, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire and West Virginia provide very limited information on the site. In March of 2025, The Maine Sheriff's Association entered into a contract to pilot the use of the VINE system in three counties in the state as well as a regional jail, therefore making South Dakota the only state that does not participate in the VINE system to any degree. The website does not provide data on prisoners detained by the Federal Bureau of Prisons which has its own inmate locator web site nor for inmates of the U.S. military prisons.
Read more →
Exploratory search

Exploratory search is a specialization of information exploration which represents the activities carried out by searchers who are: unfamiliar with the domain of their goal (i.e. need to learn about the topic in order to understand how to achieve their goal) or unsure about the ways to achieve their goals (either the technology or the process) or unsure about their goals in the first place. Exploratory search is distinguished from known-item search, for which the searcher has a particular target in mind. Consequently, exploratory search covers a broader class of activities than typical information retrieval, such as investigating, evaluating, comparing, and synthesizing, where new information is sought in a defined conceptual area; exploratory data analysis is another example of an information exploration activity. Typically, therefore, such users generally combine querying and browsing strategies to foster learning and investigation. == History == Exploratory search is a topic that has grown from the fields of information retrieval and information seeking but has become more concerned with alternatives to the kind of search that has received the majority of focus (returning the most relevant documents to a Google-like keyword search). The research is motivated by questions like "What if the user doesn't know which keywords to use?" or "What if the user isn't looking for a single answer?" Consequently, research has begun to focus on defining the broader set of information behaviors in order to learn about the situations when a user is, or feels, limited by only having the ability to perform a keyword search. In the last few years, a series of workshops has been held at various related and key events. In 2005, the Exploratory Search Interfaces workshop focused on beginning to define some of the key challenges in the field. Since then a series of other workshops has been held at related conferences: Evaluating Exploratory Search at SIGIR06 and Exploratory Search and HCI at CHI07 (in order to meet with the experts in human–computer interaction). In March 2008, an Information Processing and Management special issue focused particularly on the challenges of evaluating exploratory search, given the reduced assumptions that can be made about scenarios of use. In June 2008, the National Science Foundation sponsored an invitational workshop to identify a research agenda for exploratory search and similar fields for the coming years. == Research challenges == === Important scenarios === With the majority of research in the information retrieval community focusing on typical keyword search scenarios, one challenge for exploratory search is to further understand the scenarios of use for when keyword search is not sufficient. An example scenario, often used to motivate the research by mSpace, states: if a user does not know much about classical music, how should they even begin to find a piece that they might like. Similarly, for patients or their carers, if they don't know the right keywords for their health problems, how can they effectively find useful health information for themselves? === Designing new interfaces === With one of the motivations being to support users when keyword search is not enough, some research has focused on identifying alternative user interfaces and interaction models that support the user in different ways. An example is faceted search which presents diverse category-style options to the users, so that they can choose from a list instead of guess a possible keyword query. Many of the interactive forms of search, including faceted browsers, are being considered for their support of exploratory search conditions. Computational cognitive models of exploratory search have been developed to capture the cognitive complexities involved in exploratory search. Model-based dynamic presentation of information cues are proposed to facilitate exploratory search performance. === Evaluating interfaces === As the tasks and goals involved with exploratory search are largely undefined or unpredictable, it is very hard to evaluate systems with the measures often used in information retrieval. Accuracy was typically used to show that a user had found a correct answer, but when the user is trying to summarize a domain of information, the correct answer is near impossible to identify, if not entirely subjective (for example: possible hotels to stay in Paris). In exploration, it is also arguable that spending more time (where time efficiency is typically desirable) researching a topic shows that a system provides increased support for investigation. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, giving study participants a well specified task could immediately prevent them from exhibiting exploratory behavior. === Models of exploratory search behavior === There have been recent attempts to develop a process model of exploratory search behavior, especially in social information system (e.g., see models of collaborative tagging. The process model assumes that user-generated information cues, such as social tags, can act as navigational cues that facilitate exploration of information that others have found and shared with other users on a social information system (such as social bookmarking system). These models provided extension to existing process model of information search that characterizes information-seeking behavior in traditional fact-retrievals using search engines. Recent development in exploratory search is often concentrated in predicting users' search intents in interaction with the user. Such predictive user modeling, also referred as intent modeling, can help users to get accustomed to a body of domain knowledge and help users to make sense of the potential directions to be explored around their initial, often vague, expression of information needs. == Major figures == Key figures, including experts from both information seeking and human–computer interaction, are: Marcia Bates Nicholas Belkin Gary Marchionini m.c. schraefel Ryen W. White
Read more →
Anthem medical data breach

The Anthem medical data breach was a medical data breach of information held by Elevance Health, known at that time as Anthem Inc. On February 4, 2015, Anthem, Inc. disclosed that criminal hackers had broken into its servers and had potentially stolen over 37.5 million records that contain personally identifiable information from its servers. On February 24, 2015 Anthem raised the number to 78.8 million people whose personal information had been affected. According to Anthem, Inc., the data breach extended into multiple brands Anthem, Inc. uses to market its healthcare plans, including, Anthem Blue Cross, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia, Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Amerigroup, Caremore, and UniCare. Healthlink says that it was also a victim. Anthem says users' medical information and financial data were not compromised. Anthem has offered free credit monitoring in the wake of the breach. Michael Daniel, chief adviser on cybersecurity for President Barack Obama, said he would be changing his own password. According to The New York Times, about 80 million company records were hacked, and there is a fear that the stolen data will be used for identity theft. The compromised information contained names, birthdays, medical IDs, social security numbers, street addresses, e-mail addresses and employment information, including income data. == Theft of the data == The data was stolen over a period of weeks the month before the data breach was discovered. Because no medical information was compromised, Anthem was not required by law to encrypt the data. However, Anthem faced several civil class-action lawsuits, which were settled in 2017 at a cost of $115 million. Anthem did not admit any wrongdoing in the settlement. Data from the attack is expected to be sold on the black market. == Impact == Persons whose data was stolen could have resulting problems about identity theft for the rest of their lives. Anthem had a US$100 million insurance policy for cyber problems from American International Group. One report suggested that all of this money could be consumed by the process of notifying customers of the breach. == Responses == Anthem hired Mandiant, a cybersecurity firm, to review their security systems and advised people whose data was stolen to monitor their accounts and remain vigilant. The theft of the data raised fears generally about the theft of medical information. A writer from Harvard Law School suggested that this data breach might spark reform of security practices and government data safety regulation. An investigation conducted by several state insurance commissioners blames the breach on an attacker whose identity was withheld, and claims that the breach was likely ordered by a foreign government whose name was withheld. It also concluded that Anthem had taken reasonable measures to protect its data before the breach and that its remediation plan was effective at shutting down the breach once it was discovered. It also marks the starting date of the breach as February 18, 2014. The lead investigator was the Indiana Department of Insurance (DOI) -- Anthem's principal regulator, because Anthem is headquartered in Indiana. The Indiana DOI hired independent auditors to conduct a security assessment at Anthem, which concluded, "While deficiencies within Anthem’s cybersecurity posture were noted by the Examination Team, these deficiencies were not, in our experience, uncommon to companies comparable to Anthem in size and scope. While the pre-breach deficiencies impacted Anthem’s ability to reduce the likelihood of and quickly detect the Data Breach, the controls implemented subsequent to the Data Breach should improve Anthem’s ability to detect future breaches and enable Anthem to respond more effectively to a future attack than was the case in this instance." Federal regulators also conducted an investigation of the Anthem data breach, resulting in a $16 million settlement between Anthem and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) -- by far the largest HHS data breach settlement. An HHS Director overseeing the investigation said, "The largest health data breach in U.S. history fully merits the largest HIPAA settlement in history. Unfortunately, Anthem failed to implement appropriate measures for detecting hackers who had gained access to their system to harvest passwords and steal people's private information." The HHS settlement also required Anthem to perform a risk assessment and correct any identified deficiencies in its cybersecurity, with HHS oversight of Anthem's progress. Approximately 100 private class action lawsuits were filed against Anthem over the data breach and consolidated in California federal court, in front of Judge Koh, a respected authority in data breach litigation. After contested briefing over who should lead the litigation efforts, Judge Koh appoints Eve Cervantez of Altshuler Berzon and Andy Friedman of Cohen Milstein as co-lead counsel, and appointed Eric Gibbs of Gibbs Law Group and Michael Sobel of Lieff Cabraser to head a Plaintiffs' Steering Committee. In 2017, Anthem agreed to settle the litigation for $115 million, the largest ever data breach settlement at the time. The attorneys requested $38 million in fees for their work on the case, but Judge Koh slashed the fee request, finding that only $31 million in fees were merited.
Read more →
Iteration

Iteration means repeating a process to generate a (possibly unbounded) sequence of outcomes. Each repetition of the process is a single iteration, and the outcome of each iteration is the starting point of the next iteration. In mathematics and computer science, iteration (along with the related technique of recursion) is a standard element of algorithms. == Mathematics == In mathematics, iteration may refer to the process of iterating a function, i.e. applying a function repeatedly, using the output from one iteration as the input to the next. Iteration of apparently simple functions can produce complex behaviors and difficult problems – for examples, see the Collatz conjecture and juggler sequences. Another use of iteration in mathematics is in iterative methods which are used to produce approximate numerical solutions to certain mathematical problems. Newton's method is an example of an iterative method. Manual calculation of a number's square root is a common use and a well-known example. == Computing == In computing, iteration is a technique that marks out of a block of statements within a computer program for a defined number of repetitions. That block of statements is said to be iterated. A computer programmer might also refer to that block of statements as an iteration. === Implementations === Loops constitute the most common language constructs for performing iterations. The following pseudocode "iterates" three times the line of code between begin & end through a for loop, and uses the values of i as increments. It is permissible, and often necessary, to use values from other parts of the program outside the bracketed block of statements, to perform the desired function. Iterators constitute alternative language constructs to loops, which ensure consistent iterations over specific data structures. They can eventually save time and effort in later coding attempts. In particular, an iterator allows one to repeat the same kind of operation at each node of such a data structure, often in some pre-defined order. Iteratees are purely functional language constructs, which accept or reject data during the iterations. === Relation with recursion === Recursions and iterations have different algorithmic definitions, even though they can generate identical results. The primary difference is that recursion can be a solution without prior knowledge as to how many times the action must repeat, while a successful iteration requires that foreknowledge. Some types of programming languages, known as functional programming languages, are designed such that they do not set up a block of statements for explicit repetition, as with the for loop. Instead, those programming languages exclusively use recursion. Rather than call out a block of code to repeate a pre-defined number of times, the executing code block instead "divides" the work into a number of separate pieces, after which the code block executes itself on each individual piece. Each piece of work is divided repeatedly until the "amount" of work is as small as possible, at which point the algorithm does that work very quickly. The algorithm then "reverses" and reassembles the pieces into a complete whole. The classic example of recursion is in list-sorting algorithms, such as merge sort. The merge sort recursive algorithm first repeatedly divides the list into consecutive pairs. Each pair is then ordered, then each consecutive pair of pairs, and so forth until the elements of the list are in the desired order. The code below is an example of a recursive algorithm in the Scheme programming language that outputs the same result as the pseudocode under the previous heading. == Education == In some schools of pedagogy, iterations are used to describe the process of teaching or guiding students to repeat experiments, assessments, or projects, until more accurate results are found, or the student has mastered the technical skill. This idea is found in the old adage, "Practice makes perfect." In particular, "iterative" is defined as the "process of learning and development that involves cyclical inquiry, enabling multiple opportunities for people to revisit ideas and critically reflect on their implication." Unlike computing and math, educational iterations are not predetermined; instead, the task is repeated until success according to some external criteria (often a test) is achieved.
Read more →
Operational database

Operational database management systems (also referred to as OLTP databases or online transaction processing databases), are used to update data in real-time. These types of databases allow users to do more than simply view archived data. Operational databases allow you to modify that data (add, change or delete data), doing it in real-time. OLTP databases provide transactions as main abstraction to guarantee data consistency that guarantee the so-called ACID properties. Basically, the consistency of the data is guaranteed in the case of failures and/or concurrent access to the data. == History == Since the early 1990s, the operational database software market has been largely taken over by SQL engines. In 2014, the operational DBMS market (formerly OLTP) was evolving dramatically, with new, innovative entrants and incumbents supporting the growing use of unstructured data and NoSQL DBMS engines, as well as XML databases and NewSQL databases. NoSQL databases typically have focused on scalability and have renounced to data consistency by not providing transactions as OLTP system do. Operational databases are increasingly supporting distributed database architecture that can leverage distribution to provide high availability and fault tolerance through replication and scale out ability. The growing role of operational databases in the IT industry is moving fast from legacy databases to real-time operational databases capable to handle distributed web and mobile demand and to address Big data challenges. Recognizing this, Gartner started to publish the Magic Quadrant for Operational Database Management Systems in October 2013. == List of operational databases == Notable operational databases include: == Use in business == Operational databases are used to store, manage and track real-time business information. For example, a company might have an operational database used to track warehouse/stock quantities. As customers order products from an online web store, an operational database can be used to keep track of how many items have been sold and when the company will need to reorder stock. An operational database stores information about the activities of an organization, for example customer relationship management transactions or financial operations, in a computer database. Operational databases allow a business to enter, gather, and retrieve large quantities of specific information, such as company legal data, financial data, call data records, personal employee information, sales data, customer data, data on assets and many other information. An important feature of storing information in an operational database is the ability to share information across the company and over the Internet. Operational databases can be used to manage mission-critical business data, to monitor activities, to audit suspicious transactions, or to review the history of dealings with a particular customer. They can also be part of the actual process of making and fulfilling a purchase, for example in e-commerce. == Data warehouse terminology == In data warehousing, the term is even more specific: the operational database is the one which is accessed by an operational system (for example a customer-facing website or the application used by the customer service department) to carry out regular operations of an organization. Operational databases usually use an online transaction processing database which is optimized for faster transaction processing (create, read, update and delete operations). An operational database is the source for a data warehouse. Data from an operational database can be loaded into an operational data store at a data warehouse before the data is processed into the data warehouse.
Read more →