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.

Confusion matrix

In machine learning, a confusion matrix, also known as error matrix, is a specific table layout that allows visualization of the performance of an algorithm, typically a supervised learning one. In unsupervised learning it is usually called a matching matrix. The term is used specifically in the problem of statistical classification. Each row of the matrix represents the instances in an actual class while each column represents the instances in a predicted class, or vice versa – both variants are found in the literature. The diagonal of the matrix therefore represents all instances that are correctly predicted. The name stems from the fact that it makes it easy to identify whether the system is confusing two classes (i.e., commonly mislabeling one class as another). The confusion matrix has its origins in human perceptual studies of auditory stimuli. It was adapted for machine learning studies and used by Frank Rosenblatt, among other early researchers, to compare human and machine classifications of visual (and later auditory) stimuli. It is a special kind of contingency table, with two dimensions ("actual" and "predicted"), and identical sets of "classes" in both dimensions (each combination of dimension and class is a variable in the contingency table). == Example == Given a sample of 12 individuals, 8 that have been diagnosed with cancer and 4 that are cancer-free, where individuals with cancer belong to class 1 (positive) and non-cancer individuals belong to class 0 (negative), we can display that data as follows: Assume that we have a classifier that distinguishes between individuals with and without cancer in some way, we can take the 12 individuals and run them through the classifier. The classifier then makes 9 accurate predictions and misses 3: 2 individuals with cancer wrongly predicted as being cancer-free (sample 1 and 2), and 1 person without cancer that is wrongly predicted to have cancer (sample 9). Notice, that if we compare the actual classification set to the predicted classification set, there are 4 different outcomes that could result in any particular column: The actual classification is positive and the predicted classification is positive (1,1). This is called a true positive result because the positive sample was correctly identified by the classifier. The actual classification is positive and the predicted classification is negative (1,0). This is called a false negative result because the positive sample is incorrectly identified by the classifier as being negative. The actual classification is negative and the predicted classification is positive (0,1). This is called a false positive result because the negative sample is incorrectly identified by the classifier as being positive. The actual classification is negative and the predicted classification is negative (0,0). This is called a true negative result because the negative sample gets correctly identified by the classifier. We can then perform the comparison between actual and predicted classifications and add this information to the table, making correct results appear in green so they are more easily identifiable. The template for any binary confusion matrix uses the four kinds of results discussed above (true positives, false negatives, false positives, and true negatives) along with the positive and negative classifications. The four outcomes can be formulated in a 2×2 confusion matrix, as follows: The color convention of the three data tables above were picked to match this confusion matrix, in order to easily differentiate the data. Now, we can simply total up each type of result, substitute into the template, and create a confusion matrix that will concisely summarize the results of testing the classifier: In this confusion matrix, of the 8 samples with cancer, the system judged that 2 were cancer-free, and of the 4 samples without cancer, it predicted that 1 did have cancer. All correct predictions are located in the diagonal of the table (highlighted in green), so it is easy to visually inspect the table for prediction errors, as values outside the diagonal will represent them. By summing up the 2 rows of the confusion matrix, one can also deduce the total number of positive (P) and negative (N) samples in the original dataset, i.e. P = T P + F N {\displaystyle P=TP+FN} and N = F P + T N {\displaystyle N=FP+TN} . == Table of confusion == In predictive analytics, a table of confusion (sometimes also called a confusion matrix) is a table with two rows and two columns that reports the number of true positives, false negatives, false positives, and true negatives. This allows more detailed analysis than simply observing the proportion of correct classifications (accuracy). Accuracy will yield misleading results if the data set is unbalanced; that is, when the numbers of observations in different classes vary greatly. For example, if there were 95 cancer samples and only 5 non-cancer samples in the data, a particular classifier might classify all the observations as having cancer. The overall accuracy would be 95%, but in more detail the classifier would have a 100% recognition rate (sensitivity) for the cancer class but a 0% recognition rate for the non-cancer class. F1 score is even more unreliable in such cases, and here would yield over 97.4%, whereas informedness removes such bias and yields 0 as the probability of an informed decision for any form of guessing (here always guessing cancer). According to Davide Chicco and Giuseppe Jurman, the most informative metric to evaluate a confusion matrix is the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC). Other metrics can be included in a confusion matrix, each of them having their significance and use. Some researchers have argued that the confusion matrix, and the metrics derived from it, do not truly reflect a model's knowledge. In particular, the confusion matrix cannot show whether correct predictions were reached through sound reasoning or merely by chance (a problem known in philosophy as epistemic luck). It also does not capture situations where the facts used to make a prediction later change or turn out to be wrong (defeasibility). This means that while the confusion matrix is a useful tool for measuring classification performance, it may give an incomplete picture of a model’s true reliability. == Confusion matrices with more than two categories == Confusion matrix is not limited to binary classification and can be used in multi-class classifiers as well. The confusion matrices discussed above have only two conditions: positive and negative. For example, the table below summarizes communication of a whistled language between two speakers, with zero values omitted for clarity. == Confusion matrices in multi-label and soft-label classification == Confusion matrices are not limited to single-label classification (where only one class is present) or hard-label settings (where classes are either fully present, 1, or absent, 0). They can also be extended to Multi-label classification (where multiple classes can be predicted at once) and soft-label classification (where classes can be partially present). One such extension is the Transport-based Confusion Matrix (TCM), which builds on the theory of optimal transport and the principle of maximum entropy. TCM applies to single-label, multi-label, and soft-label settings. It retains the familiar structure of the standard confusion matrix: a square matrix sized by the number of classes, with diagonal entries indicating correct predictions and off-diagonal entries indicating confusion. In the single-label case, TCM is identical to the standard confusion matrix. TCM follows the same reasoning as the standard confusion matrix: if class A is overestimated (its predicted value is greater than its label value) and class B is underestimated (its predicted value is less than its label value), A is considered confused with B, and the entry (B, A) is increased. If a class is both predicted and present, it is correctly identified, and the diagonal entry (A, A) increases. Optimal transport and maximum entropy are used to determine the extent to which these entries are updated. TCM enables clearer comparison between predictions and labels in complex classification tasks, while maintaining a consistent matrix format across settings.

IJCAI Award for Research Excellence

The IJCAI Award for Research Excellence is a biannual award before given at the IJCAI conference to researcher in artificial intelligence as a recognition of excellence of their career. Beginning in 2016, the conference is held annually and so is the award. == Laureates == The recipients of this award have been: John McCarthy (1985) Allen Newell (1989) Marvin Minsky (1991) Raymond Reiter (1993) Herbert A. Simon (1995) Aravind Joshi (1997) Judea Pearl (1999) Donald Michie (2001) Nils Nilsson (2003) Geoffrey E. Hinton (2005) Alan Bundy (2007) Victor R. Lesser (2009) Robert Kowalski (2011) Hector Levesque (2013) Barbara Grosz (2015) for her pioneering research in Natural Language Processing and in theories and applications of Multiagent Collaboration. Michael I. Jordan (2016) for his groundbreaking and impactful research in both the theory and application of statistical machine learning. Andrew Barto (2017) for his pioneering work in the theory of reinforcement learning. Jitendra Malik (2018) Yoav Shoham (2019) Eugene Freuder (2020) Richard S. Sutton (2021) Stuart J. Russell (2022) Sarit Kraus (2023) for her pioneering work of the study of interactions among self-interested agents, creating the field of automated negotiation, and developing methods for coalition formation and teamwork, both as formal models and real-world implementations. == Winners of also Turing Award == John McCarthy (1971) Allen Newell (1975) Marvin Minsky (1969) Herbert A. Simon (1975) Judea Pearl (2011) Geoffrey Hinton (2018) Andrew Barto (2024) Richard S. Sutton (2024)

Mata v. Avianca, Inc.

Mata v. Avianca, Inc. was a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York case in which the Court dismissed a personal injury case against the airline Avianca and issued a $5,000 fine to the plaintiffs' lawyers who had submitted fake precedents generated by ChatGPT in their legal briefs. == Background == In February 2022, Roberto Mata filed a personal injury lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Avianca, alleging that he was injured when a metal serving cart struck his knee during an international flight. The plaintiff's lawyers used ChatGPT to generate a legal motion, which contained numerous fake legal cases involving fictitious airlines with fabricated quotations and internal citations. Avianca's lawyers notified the Court that they had been "unable to locate" a few legal cases cited in the legal motion. The Court could not locate the cases either and ordered the plaintiff's lawyers to provide copies of the cited legal cases. Mata's lawyers provided copies of documents purportedly containing all but one of the legal cases, after ChatGPT assured that the cases "indeed exist" and "can be found in reputable legal databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw." == Opinion == In May 2023, Judge P. Kevin Castel dismissed the personal injury case against Avianca and ordered the plaintiff's attorneys to pay a $5,000 fine. Judge Castel noted numerous inconsistencies in the opinion summaries, describing one of the legal analyses as "gibberish." Judge Castel held that Mata's lawyers had acted with "subjective bad faith" sufficient for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11. == Impact == In July 2024, the American Bar Association issued its first formal ethics opinion on the responsibilities of lawyers using generative AI (GAI). The 15-page opinion outlines how the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to the use of GAI in the practice of law. Experts caution that lawyers cannot reasonably rely on the accuracy, completeness, or validity of content generated by GAI tools. Due to the continued usage of GAI in the practice of law, Mata has been described as a landmark case by legal professionals, as it is frequently cited by courts in cases where usage of GAI during the course of proceedings leads to the creation and citation of nonexistent caselaw.

Netflix Prize

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

Random (software)

Random was an iOS mobile app that used algorithms and human-curation to create an adaptive interface to the Internet. The app served a remix of relevance and serendipity that allowed people to find diverse topics and interesting content that they might not have encountered otherwise. Random did not require a login or sign-up - the use of the app was anonymous. The app was powered by an artificial intelligence that learned from direct and indirect user interactions inside the app. While learning and adapting to a person, Random created a unique anonymous choice profile that was then used for recommending topics and content. The app didn't recommend the same content twice. == User interface == Random's user interface was made of ever-changing topic blocks that contained keywords and images. By choosing any of the blocks, the user would see related web content. By closing the web content, the user could access new related topics. The user interface allowed people to get more information about a specific topic area or then just leap freely from topic to topic. The content recommended by Random could be any type of web content, varying from news articles to long-form stories and from photographs to videos. Every user of the Random was curating content for other users by using the app. == History == Random was launched in March 2014. The startup was backed by Skype co-founder Janus Friis. The Random app received a strong reception from the likes of The New York Times, TechCrunch, New Scientist, Vice, and other leading publications. The app went on to gain traction with an active and loyal user community of several hundreds of thousands. This was not enough to support the free app model the team strongly believed in, and the service was terminated in December 2015. == Reception == Various reviews in media have emphasized that Random enables people to break their filter bubble and find diverse content they might not find elsewhere. Alan Henry of Lifehacker wrote: "Random... breaks you out by intentionally guiding you to new topics and interesting articles at sites you may not otherwise read." Vice Motherboard's Claire Evans says that: "Random never turns into a filter bubble, because it perpetually injects the irrational into my experience… in a cocktail of relevancy and serendipity." The app has been said to have a unique, minimalistic user experience. Kit Eaton of The New York Times commented that Random "let's you browse the news in a different way to all the other news sites you've probably ever used." Mashable reviewed Random by concluding that the "app may be one of the most simple content-discovery apps on the market."

Orange (software)

Orange is an open-source data visualization, machine learning and data mining toolkit. It features a visual programming front-end for exploratory qualitative data analysis and interactive data visualization. == Description == Orange is a component-based visual programming software package for data visualization, machine learning, data mining, and data analysis. Orange components are called widgets. They range from simple data visualization, subset selection, and preprocessing to empirical evaluation of learning algorithms and predictive modeling. Visual programming is implemented through an interface in which workflows are created by linking predefined or user-designed widgets, while advanced users can use Orange as a Python library for data manipulation and widget alteration. == Software == Orange is an open-source software package released under GPL and hosted on GitHub. Versions up to 3.0 include core components in C++ with wrappers in Python. From version 3.0 onwards, Orange uses common Python open-source libraries for scientific computing, such as numpy, scipy and scikit-learn, while its graphical user interface operates within the cross-platform Qt framework. The default installation includes a number of machine learning, preprocessing and data visualization algorithms in 6 widget sets (data, transform, visualize, model, evaluate and unsupervised). Additional functionalities are available as add-ons (text-mining, image analytics, bioinformatics, etc.). Orange is supported on macOS, Windows and Linux and can also be installed from the Python Package Index repository (pip install Orange3). == Features == Orange consists of a canvas interface onto which the user places widgets and creates a data analysis workflow. Widgets offer basic functionalities such as reading the data, showing a data table, selecting features, training predictors, comparing learning algorithms, visualizing data elements, etc. The user can interactively explore visualizations or feed the selected subset into other widgets. Canvas: graphical front-end for data analysis Widgets: Data: widgets for data input, data filtering, sampling, imputation, feature manipulation and feature selection Visualize: widgets for common visualization (box plot, histograms, scatter plot) and multivariate visualization (mosaic display, sieve diagram). Classify: a set of supervised machine learning algorithms for classification Regression: a set of supervised machine learning algorithms for regression Evaluate: cross-validation, sampling-based procedures, reliability estimation and scoring of prediction methods Unsupervised: unsupervised learning algorithms for clustering (k-means, hierarchical clustering) and data projection techniques (multidimensional scaling, principal component analysis, correspondence analysis). == Add-ons == Orange users can extend their core set of components with components in the add-ons. Supported add-ons include: Associate: components for mining frequent itemsets and association rule learning. Bioinformatics: components for gene expression analysis, enrichment, and access to expression databases (e.g., Gene Expression Omnibus) and pathway libraries. Data fusion: components for fusing different data sets, collective matrix factorization, and exploration of latent factors. Educational: components for teaching machine learning concepts, such as k-means clustering, polynomial regression, stochastic gradient descent, ... Explain: provides an extension with components for the model explanation, including Shapley value analysis Geo: components for working with geospatial data. Image analytics: components for working with images and ImageNet embeddings Network: components for graph and network analysis. Text mining: components for natural language processing and text mining. Time series: widget components for time series analysis and modeling. Single-cell: support for single-cell gene expression analysis, including components for loading single-cell data, filtering and batch effect removal, marker genes discovery, scoring of cells and genes, and cell type prediction. Spectroscopy: components for analyzing and visualization of (hyper)spectral datasets. Survival analysis: add-on for data analysis dealing with survival data. It includes widgets for standard survival analysis techniques, such as the Kaplan-Meier plot, the Cox regression model, and several derivative widgets. World Happiness: support for downloading socioeconomic data from a database, including OECD and World Development Indicators. Provides access to thousands of country indicators from various economic databases. Fairness: add-on for evaluation and creation of fair machine learning models without discrimination. Widgets range from computing fairness metrics like statistical parity to post-, pre-, in-processing methods to build fair models. == Objectives == The program provides a platform for experiment selection, recommendation systems, and predictive modelling and is used in biomedicine, bioinformatics, genomic research, and teaching. In science, it is used as a platform for testing new machine learning algorithms and for implementing new techniques in genetics and bioinformatics. In education, it was used for teaching machine learning and data mining methods to students of biology, biomedicine, and informatics. == Extensions == Various projects build on Orange either by extending the core components with add-ons or using only the Orange Canvas to exploit the implemented visual programming features and GUI. OASYS — ORange SYnchrotron Suite scOrange — single cell biostatistics Quasar — data analysis in natural sciences == History == In 1996, the University of Ljubljana and Jožef Stefan Institute started development of ML, a machine learning framework in C++, and Python bindings were developed for this framework in 1997, which, together with emerging Python modules, formed a joint framework called Orange. Over the following years, most contemporary major algorithms for data mining and machine learning were implemented in C++ (Orange's core) or Python modules. In 2002, first prototypes to create a flexible graphical user interface were designed using Pmw Python megawidgets. In 2003, the graphical user interface was redesigned and re-developed for Qt framework using PyQt Python bindings. The visual programming framework was defined, and the development of widgets (graphical components of the data analysis pipeline) began. In 2005, extensions for data analysis in bioinformatics was created. In 2008, Mac OS X DMG and Fink-based installation packages were developed. In 2009, over 100 widgets were created and maintained. In 2009, Orange 2.0 beta was released, offering installation packages on the website based on the daily compiling cycle. In 2012, a new object hierarchy was imposed, replacing the old module-based structure. In 2013, a significant redesign of the graphical user interface included a new toolbox and depiction of workflows. In 2015, Orange 3.0 was released. Orange stores the data in NumPy arrays; machine learning algorithms mostly use scikit-learn. In 2015, a text analysis add-on for Orange3 was released. In 2016, Orange released version 3.3. Development scheduled a monthly cycle for stable releases. In 2016, Orange began development and release of an Image Analytics add-on, with server-side deep neural networks for image embedding In 2017, a Spectroscopy add-on for the analysis of spectral data was introduced. In 2017, Geo, an add-on for dealing with geo-location data and visualisation of geo maps was introduced In 2018, Orange began development and release of an add-on for single-cell data analysis. In 2019, Orange separated its graphical interface for development as a separate project, orange-canvas-core In 2020, Orange introduced the Explain add-on with widgets for explaining classification models and regression models, highlighting the strength and contributions specific features make towards predicting a specific class. In 2022, World Happiness, an add-on for the Orange3 data mining suite, was introduced, providing widgets for accessing socioeconomic data from various databases such as World Happiness Report, World Development Indicators, OECD. In 2022, Orange extended the Explain add-on with an Individual Conditional Expectation plot and the Permutation Feature Importance technique. In 2023, Orange introduced the Fairness add-on, including widgets to calculate bias metrics, as well as widgets for pre-, post-, and in-processing methods, allowing the creation of models less susceptible to systematic error due to the vagaries of the data set.