Software diversity is a research field about the comprehension and engineering of diversity in the context of software. == Areas == The different areas of software diversity are discussed in surveys on diversity for fault-tolerance or for security. The main areas are: design diversity, n-version programming, data diversity for fault tolerance randomization software variability == Techniques == === Code transformations === It is possible to amplify software diversity through automated transformation processes that create synthetic diversity. A "multicompiler" is compiler embedding a diversification engine. A multi-variant execution environment (MVEE) is responsible for selecting the variant to execute and compare the output. Fred Cohen was among the very early promoters of such an approach. He proposed a series of rewriting and code reordering transformations that aim at producing massive quantities of different versions of operating systems functions. These ideas have been developed over the years and have led to the construction of integrated obfuscation schemes to protect key functions in large software systems. Another approach to increase software diversity of protection consists in adding randomness in certain core processes, such as memory loading. Randomness implies that all versions of the same program run differently from each other, which in turn creates a diversity of program behaviors. This idea was initially proposed and experimented by Stephanie Forrest and her colleagues. Recent work on automatic software diversity explores different forms of program transformations that slightly vary the behavior of programs. The goal is to evolve one program into a population of diverse programs that all provide similar services to users, but with a different code. This diversity of code enhances the protection of users against one single attack that could crash all programs at the same time. Transformation operators include: code layout randomization: reorder functions in code globals layout randomization: reorder and pad globals stack variable randomization: reorder variables in each stack frame heap layout randomization === Natural software diversity === It is known that some functionalities are available in multiple interchangeable implementations. This natural diversity can be exploited, for example it has been shown valuable to increase security in cloud systems.
And–or tree
An and–or tree is a graphical representation of the reduction of problems (or goals) to conjunctions and disjunctions of subproblems (or subgoals). == Example == The and–or tree: represents the search space for solving the problem P, using the goal-reduction methods: P if Q and R P if S Q if T Q if U == Definitions == Given an initial problem P0 and set of problem solving methods of the form: P if P1 and … and Pn the associated and–or tree is a set of labelled nodes such that: The root of the tree is a node labelled by P0. For every node N labelled by a problem or sub-problem P and for every method of the form P if P1 and ... and Pn, there exists a set of children nodes N1, ..., Nn of the node N, such that each node Ni is labelled by Pi. The nodes are conjoined by an arc, to distinguish them from children of N that might be associated with other methods. A node N, labelled by a problem P, is a success node if there is a method of the form P if nothing (i.e., P is a "fact"). The node is a failure node if there is no method for solving P. If all of the children of a node N, conjoined by the same arc, are success nodes, then the node N is also a success node. Otherwise the node is a failure node. == Search strategies == An and–or tree specifies only the search space for solving a problem. Different search strategies for searching the space are possible. These include searching the tree depth-first, breadth-first, or best-first using some measure of desirability of solutions. The search strategy can be sequential, searching or generating one node at a time, or parallel, searching or generating several nodes in parallel. == Relationship with logic programming == The methods used for generating and–or trees are propositional logic programs (without variables). In the case of logic programs containing variables, the solutions of conjoint sub-problems must be compatible. Subject to this complication, sequential and parallel search strategies for and–or trees provide a computational model for executing logic programs. == Relationship with two-player games == And–or trees can also be used to represent the search spaces for two-person games. The root node of such a tree represents the problem of one of the players winning the game, starting from the initial state of the game. Given a node N, labelled by the problem P of the player winning the game from a particular state of play, there exists a single set of conjoint children nodes, corresponding to all of the opponents responding moves. For each of these children nodes, there exists a set of non-conjoint children nodes, corresponding to all of the player's defending moves. For solving game trees with proof-number search family of algorithms, game trees are to be mapped to and–or trees. MAX-nodes (i.e. maximizing player to move) are represented as OR nodes, MIN-nodes map to AND nodes. The mapping is possible, when the search is done with only a binary goal, which usually is "player to move wins the game".
Linguistic categories
Linguistic categories include Lexical category, a part of speech such as noun, preposition, etc. Syntactic category, a similar concept which can also include phrasal categories Grammatical category, a grammatical feature such as tense, gender, etc. The definition of linguistic categories is a major concern of linguistic theory, and thus, the definition and naming of categories varies across different theoretical frameworks and grammatical traditions for different languages. The operationalization of linguistic categories in lexicography, computational linguistics, natural language processing, corpus linguistics, and terminology management typically requires resource-, problem- or application-specific definitions of linguistic categories. In Cognitive linguistics it has been argued that linguistic categories have a prototype structure like that of the categories of common words in a language. == Linguistic category inventories == To facilitate the interoperability between lexical resources, linguistic annotations and annotation tools and for the systematic handling of linguistic categories across different theoretical frameworks, a number of inventories of linguistic categories have been developed and are being used, with examples as given below. The practical objective of such inventories is to perform quantitative evaluation (for language-specific inventories), to train NLP tools, or to facilitate cross-linguistic evaluation, querying or annotation of language data. At a theoretical level, the existence of universal categories in human language has been postulated, e.g., in Universal grammar, but also heavily criticized. === Part-of-Speech tagsets === Schools commonly teach that there are 9 parts of speech in English: noun, verb, article, adjective, preposition, pronoun, adverb, conjunction, and interjection. However, there are clearly many more categories and sub-categories. For nouns, the plural, possessive, and singular forms can be distinguished. In many languages words are also marked for their case (role as subject, object, etc.), grammatical gender, and so on; while verbs are marked for tense, aspect, and other things. In some tagging systems, different inflections of the same root word will get different parts of speech, resulting in a large number of tags. For example, NN for singular common nouns, NNS for plural common nouns, NP for singular proper nouns (see the POS tags used in the Brown Corpus). Other tagging systems use a smaller number of tags and ignore fine differences or model them as features somewhat independent from part-of-speech. In part-of-speech tagging by computer, it is typical to distinguish from 50 to 150 separate parts of speech for English. POS tagging work has been done in a variety of languages, and the set of POS tags used varies greatly with language. Tags usually are designed to include overt morphological distinctions, although this leads to inconsistencies such as case-marking for pronouns but not nouns in English, and much larger cross-language differences. The tag sets for heavily inflected languages such as Greek and Latin can be very large; tagging words in agglutinative languages such as Inuit languages may be virtually impossible. Work on stochastic methods for tagging Koine Greek (DeRose 1990) has used over 1,000 parts of speech and found that about as many words were ambiguous in that language as in English. A morphosyntactic descriptor in the case of morphologically rich languages is commonly expressed using very short mnemonics, such as ncmsan for category = noun, type = common, gender = masculine, number = singular, case = accusative, animate = no. The most popular tag set for POS tagging for American English is probably the Penn tag set, developed in the Penn Treebank project. === Multilingual annotation schemes === For Western European languages, cross-linguistically applicable annotation schemes for parts-of-speech, morphosyntax and syntax have been developed with the EAGLES Guidelines. The "Expert Advisory Group on Language Engineering Standards" (EAGLES) was an initiative of the European Commission that ran within the DG XIII Linguistic Research and Engineering programme from 1994 to 1998, coordinated by Consorzio Pisa Ricerche, Pisa, Italy. The EAGLES guidelines provide guidance for markup to be used with text corpora, particularly for identifying features relevant in computational linguistics and lexicography. Numerous companies, research centres, universities and professional bodies across the European Union collaborated to produce the EAGLES Guidelines, which set out recommendations for de facto standards and rules of best practice for: Large-scale language resources (such as text corpora, computational lexicons and speech corpora); Means of manipulating such knowledge, via computational linguistic formalisms, mark up languages and various software tools; Means of assessing and evaluating resources, tools and products. The Eagles guidelines have inspired subsequent work on other regions, as well, e.g., Eastern Europe. A generation later, a similar effort was initiated by the research community under the umbrella of Universal Dependencies. Petrov et al. have proposed a "universal", but highly reductionist, tag set, with 12 categories (for example, no subtypes of nouns, verbs, punctuation, etc.; no distinction of "to" as an infinitive marker vs. preposition (hardly a "universal" coincidence), etc.). Subsequently, this was complemented with cross-lingual specifications for dependency syntax (Stanford Dependencies), and morphosyntax (Interset interlingua, partially building on the Multext-East/Eagles tradition) in the context of the Universal Dependencies (UD), an international cooperative project to create treebanks of the world's languages with cross-linguistically applicable ("universal") annotations for parts of speech, dependency syntax, and (optionally) morphosyntactic (morphological) features. Core applications are automated text processing in the field of natural language processing (NLP) and research into natural language syntax and grammar, especially within linguistic typology. The annotation scheme has it roots in three related projects: The UD annotation scheme uses a representation in the form of dependency trees as opposed to a phrase structure trees. At as of February 2019, there are just over 100 treebanks of more than 70 languages available in the UD inventory. The project's primary aim is to achieve cross-linguistic consistency of annotation. However, language-specific extensions are permitted for morphological features (individual languages or resources can introduce additional features). In a more restricted form, dependency relations can be extended with a secondary label that accompanies the UD label, e.g., aux:pass for an auxiliary (UD aux) used to mark passive voice. The Universal Dependencies have inspired similar efforts for the areas of inflectional morphology, frame semantics and coreference. For phrase structure syntax, a comparable effort does not seem to exist, but the specifications of the Penn Treebank have been applied to (and extended for) a broad range of languages, e.g., Icelandic, Old English, Middle English, Middle Low German, Early Modern High German, Yiddish, Portuguese, Japanese, Arabic and Chinese. === Conventions for interlinear glosses === In linguistics, an interlinear gloss is a gloss (series of brief explanations, such as definitions or pronunciations) placed between lines (inter- + linear), such as between a line of original text and its translation into another language. When glossed, each line of the original text acquires one or more lines of transcription known as an interlinear text or interlinear glossed text (IGT)—interlinear for short. Such glosses help the reader follow the relationship between the source text and its translation, and the structure of the original language. There is no standard inventory for glosses, but common labels are collected in the Leipzig Glossing Rules. Wikipedia also provides a List of glossing abbreviations that draws on this and other sources. === General Ontology for Linguistic Description (GOLD) === GOLD ("General Ontology for Linguistic Description") is an ontology for descriptive linguistics. It gives a formalized account of the most basic categories and relations used in the scientific description of human language, e.g., as a formalization of interlinear glosses. GOLD was first introduced by Farrar and Langendoen (2003). Originally, it was envisioned as a solution to the problem of resolving disparate markup schemes for linguistic data, in particular data from endangered languages. However, GOLD is much more general and can be applied to all languages. In this function, GOLD overlaps with the ISO 12620 Data Category Registry (ISOcat); it is, however, more stringently structured. GOLD was maintained by the LINGUIST List and others from 2007 to 2010. The RELISH project created a mirro
Information flow
In discourse-based grammatical theory, information flow is any tracking of referential information by speakers. Information may be new, i.e., just introduced into the conversation; given, i.e., already active in the speakers' consciousness; or old, i.e., no longer active. The various types of activation, and how these are defined, are model-dependent. Information flow affects grammatical structures such as: Word order (topic, focus, and afterthought constructions). Active, passive, or middle voice. Choice of deixis, such as articles; "medial" deictics such as Spanish ese and Japanese sore are generally determined by the familiarity of a referent rather than by physical distance. Overtness of information, such as whether an argument of a verb is indicated by a lexical noun phrase, a pronoun, or not mentioned at all. Clefting: Splitting a single clause into two clauses, each with its own verb, e.g. ‘The chicken turtles tasted like chicken.’ becomes ‘It was the chicken turtle | that tasted like chicken.’ In this case, clefting is used to shift the focus of the sentence to the subject, the chicken turtle. Front focus: Placing at the start (front) of a sentence information that would normally occur later in the sentence, to give it extra prominence. For example, in pop culture, Yoda's speech often utilizes such syntactic construction, such as when he says 'much to learn you still have' to Luke Skywalker. End focus (or end weight): Given or familiar information followed by new information. This gives prominence to the final part of the sentences and can enable suspense to build, e.g. ‘Through the door came a gigantic wolf’.(Umer Prince)
Sardinas–Patterson algorithm
In coding theory, the Sardinas–Patterson algorithm is a classical algorithm for determining in polynomial time whether a given variable-length code is uniquely decodable, named after August Albert Sardinas and George W. Patterson, who published it in 1953. The algorithm carries out a systematic search for a string which admits two different decompositions into codewords. As Knuth reports, the algorithm was rediscovered about ten years later in 1963 by Floyd, despite the fact that it was at the time already well known in coding theory. == Idea of the algorithm == Consider the code { a ↦ 1 , b ↦ 011 , c ↦ 01110 , d ↦ 1110 , e ↦ 10011 } {\displaystyle \{\,{\texttt {a}}\mapsto {\texttt {1}},{\texttt {b}}\mapsto {\texttt {011}},{\texttt {c}}\mapsto {\texttt {01110}},{\texttt {d}}\mapsto {\texttt {1110}},{\texttt {e}}\mapsto {\texttt {10011}}\,\}} . This code, which is based on an example by Berstel, is an example of a code which is not uniquely decodable, since the string 011101110011 can be interpreted as the sequence of codewords 01110 – 1110 – 011, but also as the sequence of codewords 011 – 1 – 011 – 10011. Two possible decodings of this encoded string are thus given by cdb and babe. In general, a codeword can be found by the following idea: In the first round, we choose two codewords x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} and y 1 {\displaystyle y_{1}} such that x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} is a prefix of y 1 {\displaystyle y_{1}} , that is, x 1 w = y 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}w=y_{1}} for some "dangling suffix" w {\displaystyle w} . If one tries first x 1 = 011 {\displaystyle x_{1}={\texttt {011}}} and y 1 = 01110 {\displaystyle y_{1}={\texttt {01110}}} , the dangling suffix is w = 10 {\displaystyle {\texttt {w}}={\texttt {10}}} . If we manage to find two sequences x 2 , … , x p {\displaystyle x_{2},\ldots ,x_{p}} and y 2 , … , y q {\displaystyle y_{2},\ldots ,y_{q}} of codewords such that x 2 ⋯ x p = w y 2 ⋯ y q {\displaystyle x_{2}\cdots x_{p}=wy_{2}\cdots y_{q}} , then we are finished: For then the string x = x 1 x 2 ⋯ x p {\displaystyle x=x_{1}x_{2}\cdots x_{p}} can alternatively be decomposed as y 1 y 2 ⋯ y q {\displaystyle y_{1}y_{2}\cdots y_{q}} , and we have found the desired string having at least two different decompositions into codewords. In the second round, we try out two different approaches: the first trial is to look for a codeword that has w as prefix. Then we obtain a new dangling suffix w, with which we can continue our search. If we eventually encounter a dangling suffix that is itself a codeword (or the empty word), then the search will terminate, as we know there exists a string with two decompositions. The second trial is to seek for a codeword that is itself a prefix of w. In our example, we have w = 10 {\displaystyle w={\texttt {10}}} , and the sequence 1 is a codeword. We can thus also continue with w = 0 {\displaystyle w={\texttt {0}}} as the new dangling suffix. == Precise description of the algorithm == The algorithm is described most conveniently using quotients of formal languages. In general, for two sets of strings D and N, the (left) quotient N − 1 D {\displaystyle N^{-1}D} is defined as the residual words obtained from D by removing some prefix in N. Formally, N − 1 D = { y ∣ x y ∈ D and x ∈ N } {\displaystyle N^{-1}D=\{\,y\mid xy\in D~{\textrm {and}}~x\in N\,\}} . Now let C {\displaystyle C} denote the (finite) set of codewords in the given code. The algorithm proceeds in rounds, where we maintain in each round not only one dangling suffix as described above, but the (finite) set of all potential dangling suffixes. Starting with round i = 1 {\displaystyle i=1} , the set of potential dangling suffixes will be denoted by S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} . The sets S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} are defined inductively as follows: S 1 = C − 1 C ∖ { ε } {\displaystyle S_{1}=C^{-1}C\setminus \{\varepsilon \}} . Here, the symbol ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } denotes the empty word. S i + 1 = C − 1 S i ∪ S i − 1 C {\displaystyle S_{i+1}=C^{-1}S_{i}\cup S_{i}^{-1}C} , for all i ≥ 1 {\displaystyle i\geq 1} . The algorithm computes the sets S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} in increasing order of i {\displaystyle i} . As soon as one of the S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} contains a word from C or the empty word, then the algorithm terminates and answers that the given code is not uniquely decodable. Otherwise, once a set S i {\displaystyle S_{i}} equals a previously encountered set S j {\displaystyle S_{j}} with j < i {\displaystyle j Foveated imaging is a digital image processing technique in which the image resolution, or amount of detail, varies across the image according to one or more "fixation points". A fixation point indicates the highest resolution region of the image and corresponds to the center of the eye's retina, the fovea. The location of a fixation point may be specified in many ways. For example, when viewing an image on a computer monitor, one may specify a fixation using a pointing device, like a computer mouse. Eye trackers which precisely measure the eye's position and movement are also commonly used to determine fixation points in perception experiments. When the display is manipulated with the use of an eye tracker, this is known as a gaze contingent display. Fixations may also be determined automatically using computer algorithms. Some common applications of foveated imaging include imaging sensor hardware and image compression. For descriptions of these and other applications, see the list below. Miniaturized foveated imaging systems can be realized by high-resolution 3D printing of multi-lens objectives directly on a CMOS (Complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor) chip. Foveated imaging is also commonly referred to as space variant imaging or gaze contingent imaging. == Applications == === Compression === Contrast sensitivity falls off dramatically as one moves from the center of the retina to the periphery. In lossy image compression, one may take advantage of this fact in order to compactly encode images. If one knows the viewer's approximate point of gaze, one may reduce the amount of information contained in the image as the distance from the point of gaze increases. Because the fall-off in the eye's resolution is dramatic, the potential reduction in display information can be substantial. Also, foveation encoding may be applied to the image before other types of image compression are applied and therefore can result in a multiplicative reduction. === Foveated sensors === Foveated sensors are multiresolution hardware devices that allow image data to be collected with higher resolution concentrated at a fixation point. An advantage to using foveated sensor hardware is that the image collection and encoding can occur much faster than in a system that post-processes a high resolution image in software. === Simulation === Foveated imaging has been used to simulate visual fields with arbitrary spatial resolution. For example, one may present video containing a blurred region representing a scotoma. By using an eye-tracker and holding the blurred region fixed relative to the viewer's gaze, the viewer will have a visual experience similar to that of a person with an actual scotoma. === Video gaming === Foveated rendering is a rendering optimization technique which uses an eye tracker integrated with a virtual reality headset to reduce the rendering workload by greatly reducing the image quality in the peripheral vision (outside of the zone gazed by the fovea).. However, other than the near-eye displays (e.g., virtual reality headset), foveated rendering is also suitable for large high-resolution display walls, desktop monitor, and even for smart phones. Over the time different foveated rendering techniques are proposed, for instance, adaptive resolution, geometric simplification, shading simplification and chromatic degradation, spatio-temporal deterioration . If we consider the variable sample distribution of physically-based rendering under the shader (e.g., hit/miss etc.), then this degradation strategies are applied on overall foveated rendering. At the CES 2016, SensoMotoric Instruments (SMI) demoed a new 250 Hz eye tracking system and a working foveated rendering solution. It resulted from a partnership with camera sensor manufacturer Omnivision who provided the camera hardware for the new system. The Apple Vision Pro mixed reality headset features dynamic foveated rendering provided by its visionOS operating system. === Quality assessment === Foveated imaging may be useful in providing a subjective image quality measure. Traditional image quality measures, such as peak signal-to-noise ratio, are typically performed on fixed resolution images and do not take into account some aspects of the human visual system, like the change in spatial resolution across the retina. A foveated quality index may therefore more accurately determine image quality as perceived by humans. === Image database retrieval === In databases that contain very high resolution images, such as a satellite image database, it may be desirable to interactively retrieve images in order to reduce retrieval time. Foveated imaging allows one to scan low resolution images and retrieve only high resolution portions as they are needed. This is sometimes called progressive transmission. == Example images == Informetrics is the study of quantitative aspects of information, it is an extension and evolution of traditional bibliometrics and scientometrics. Informetrics uses bibliometrics and scientometrics methods to study mainly the problems of literature information management and evaluation of science and technology. Informetrics is an independent discipline that uses quantitative methods from mathematics and statistics to study the process, phenomena, and law of informetrics. Informetrics has gained more attention as it is a common scientific method for academic evaluation, research hotspots in discipline, and trend analysis. Informetrics includes the production, dissemination, and use of all forms of information, regardless of its form or origin. Informetrics encompasses the following fields: Scientometrics, which studies quantitative aspects of science Webometrics, which studies quantitative aspects of the World Wide Web Bibliometrics, which studies quantitative aspects of recorded information Cybermetrics, which is similar to webometrics, but broadens its definition to include electronic resources == Origin and Development == The term informetrics (French: informétrie) was coined by German scholar Otto Nacke in 1979, and came from the German word 'informetrie’. The corresponding English terminology soon appeared in the subsequent literature. In September 1980, Professor Otto Nacke introduced the term 'informetrics' at the first seminar on Informetrics in Frankfurt, Germany. Later, Committee on Informetrics has established through The International Federation for Information and Documentation (FID). In 1987, informetrics started to be officially recognized by the international information community and several foreign information scientists. In 1988, at First International Conference on Bibliometrics and Theoretical Aspects of Information Retrieval Archived 2022-05-23 at the Wayback Machine, Brooks suggested bibliometrics and scientometrics can be included in the field of informetrics. In 1990, Leo Egghe and Ronald Rousseau proposed the formation of the discipline of informetrics: statistical bibliography (1923) to bibliometrics and scientometrics (1969) and then to informetrics (1979). In 1993, the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI) Archived 2023-11-05 at the Wayback Machine was founded at the International Conference on Bibliometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics in Berlin, and the first one was held in Belgium and organized by Leo Egghe and Ronald Rousseau. The society was formally incorporated in 1994 in the Netherlands and plays a significant role in the development of informetrics. The ISSI aims to promote the "exchange and communication of professional information in the fields of scientometrics and informetrics, including improve standards, theory and practice, as well as promote research, education and training". In addition, to "engage in relevant public conversation and policy discussions". In the western world, 20th century's Informetrics is mostly based on Lotka's law, named after Alfred J. Lotka, Zipf's law, named after George Kingsley Zipf, Bradford's law named after Samuel C. Bradford and on the work of Derek J. de Solla Price, Gerard Salton, Leo Egghe, Ronald Rousseau, Tibor Braun, Olle Persson, Peter Ingwersen, Manfred Bonitz, and Eugene Garfield. == Difference Between Informetrics, Bibliometrics and Scientometrics == Since the 1960s, three similar terms have emerged in the fields of library science, philology and science of science, they are bibliometrics, scientometrics and informetrics, representing three very similar quantitative sub-disciplines. The three metrics terms can be confusing and often misused. Informetrics and bibliometrics interpenetrate each other but have different aspects in research object, research scope, and measuring unit. Informetrics and scientometrics are very different in their research purpose and research object, as well as the research scope and application. Bibliometrics is categorised under the field of library science, it uses mathematical and statistical methods to describe, evaluate, and predict the current status and trends of science and technology. Also to study the "distribution structure, quantitative relationship, change law and quantitative management of literature information, quantitative relationships, patterns and quantitative management of literature and information". The term was first used by Alan Pritchard in 1969 in his paper Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics?. Scientometrics is a branch of science that quantitatively evaluates and predicts the process and management of scientific activities in order to reveal their development patterns and trends. The definition of scientometrics was described by Derek De Solla Price in his book Science to Science as the “quantitative study of science, communication in science, and science policy”. === Links between the three metrics terms === The most prominent connection between the three metrics terms is in their research objects. Since all three disciplines use literature information as their research object, therefore, they have some similarities and overlaps in their research methods and fields. Moreover, they all use mathematical methods as the basic research methods and they all apply the three basic laws, Bradford's law, Lotka's law and Zipf's law. === Distinctions between the three metrics terms === The distinction between the three metrics terms can tell from their research object and research purpose. The research of bibliometrics focuses on the analysis of "scientific output in the form of articles, publications, citations, and others". Scientometrics is to measure the basic characteristics and laws of scientific activities. Where informetrics is to investigate information sources and information distribution process. == Concept and System Structure == === Purpose of Informetrics Research === The main purpose of informetrics is to use its theocratical research to solve the methodological issues in the research process, and to discover and reveal the basic laws of information distribution through the study of information process and phenomenon. In this way, makes information management more scientific and provides a quantitative basis for information services and information management decisions. For informetrics, it is necessary to bring quantitative analysis methods to further reveal the structure of information units and the "quantitative change law of literature information”. Further to this, to improve the scientific accuracy of information science from a theoretical point of view. At the same time, to better solve the basic contradictions in the information service, overcome the information crisis, and make the information management work more effective to serve science and technology, economic and social development. Quantitative analysis of bibliographic data was pioneered by Robert K. Merton in an article called Science, Technology, and Society in Seventeenth Century England and originally published by Merton in 1938. === The Significance of Informetrics Research === The significance of informetrics research is to summarize various empirical laws from the theoretical point of view, at the same time test and modify the various empirical laws in the new information unit conditions, and explore its new applicability, therefore, the scientific nature of information science can be improved, but also to provide theoretical guidance for practical work. === The Objects of Informetrics Research === The object of informetrics is broader than the field of bibliometrics and scientometrics, including "messages, data, events, objects, text, and documents”. Informetrics is often used to inform policies and decisions across a broad range of fields, such as economy, politics, technology and social spheres that "influence the flow and use patterns of information". Tague-Sutcliffe describes the following uses of informetrics: Citation analysis; Characteristics of authors; Use of recorded information; Obsolescence of the literature; Concomitant growth of new concepts; Characteristics of publication sources; Definition and measurement o information; Growth of subject literature, databases, libraries; Types and characteristics of retrieval performance measures; Statistical aspects of language, word, and phrase frequencies. == Basic Laws == In the field of informetrics research, there are many outstanding contributors in the discipline with a solid knowledge of quantitative research methods. In the early 20th century, several scientists contributed empirical applications that have become the three basic laws of informetrics, Bradford's law, Lotka's law, and Zipf's law, which promote the development of informetrics. === Bradford's Law === The British documentalist and librarian Samuel C. Bradford first discovered the law of concentration and scattering of literature, and in 1934, it has beFoveated imaging
Informetrics