The National Parking Platform is a digital platform in the United Kingdom providing interoperability between car park operators, parking apps, and other service providers. It enables all parking apps that support the system: RingGo, JustPark, PayByPhone, Apcoa Connect, AppyParking, and Caura to work at all participating car parks. It has been rolled out in 13 local authorities so far. It was first developed by the Department for Transport starting in 2019, and since May 2025 is controlled by the British Parking Association on a not-for-profit basis. == Participating local authorities == Buckinghamshire Cheshire West and Chester Coventry City East Hertfordshire East Suffolk Liverpool City Manchester City Oxfordshire County Peterborough City Stevenage Sutton Walsall Welwyn Hatfield
Crackme
A crackme is a small computer program designed to test a programmer's reverse engineering skills. Crackmes are made as a legal way to crack software, since no intellectual property is being infringed. == Description == Crackmes often incorporate protection schemes and algorithms similar to those used in proprietary software. However, they can sometimes be more challenging because they may use advanced packing or protection techniques, making the underlying algorithm harder to analyze and modify. == Keygenme == A keygenme is specifically designed for the reverser to not only identify the protection algorithm used in the application but also create a small key generator (keygen) in the programming language of their choice. Most keygenmes, when properly manipulated, can be made self-keygenning. For example, during validation, they might generate the correct key internally and compare it to the user's input. This allows the key generation algorithm to be easily replicated. Anti-debugging and anti-disassembly routines are often used to confuse debuggers or render disassembly output useless. Code obfuscation is also used to further complicate reverse engineering.
Taxonomic database
A taxonomic database is a database created to hold information on biological taxa – for example groups of organisms organized by species name or other taxonomic identifier – for efficient data management and information retrieval. Taxonomic databases are routinely used for the automated construction of biological checklists such as floras and faunas, both for print publication and online; to underpin the operation of web-based species information systems; as a part of biological collection management (for example in museums and herbaria); as well as providing, in some cases, the taxon management component of broader science or biology information systems. They are also a fundamental contribution to the discipline of biodiversity informatics. == Goals == Taxonomic databases digitize scientific biodiversity data and provide access to taxonomic data for research. Taxonomic databases vary in breadth of the groups of taxa and geographical space they seek to include, for example: beetles in a defined region, mammals globally, or all described taxa in the tree of life. A taxonomic database may incorporate organism identifiers (scientific name, author, and – for zoological taxa – year of original publication), synonyms, taxonomic opinions, literature sources or citations, illustrations or photographs, and biological attributes for each taxon (such as geographic distribution, ecology, descriptive information, threatened or vulnerable status, etc.). Some databases, such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility(GBIF) database and the Barcode of Life Data System, store the DNA barcode of a taxon if one exists (also called the Barcode Index Number (BIN) which may be assigned, for example, by the International Barcode of Life project (iBOL) or UNITE, a database for fungal DNA barcoding). A taxonomic database aims to accurately model the characteristics of interest that are relevant to the organisms which are in scope for the intended coverage and usage of the system. For example, databases of fungi, algae, bryophytes and vascular plants ("higher plants") encode conventions from the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature while their counterparts for animals and most protists encode equivalent rules from the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Modelling the relevant taxonomic hierarchy for any taxon is a natural fit with the relational model employed in almost all database systems. Scientific consensus is not reached for all taxon groups, and new species continue to be described; therefore, another goal of taxonomic databases is to aid in resolving conflicts of scientific opinion and unify taxonomy. == History == Possibly the earliest documented management of taxonomic information in computerised form comprised the taxonomic coding system developed by Richard Swartz et al. at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science for the Biota of Chesapeake Bay and described in a published report in 1972. This work led directly or indirectly to other projects with greater profile including the NODC Taxonomic Code system which went through 8 versions before being discontinued in 1996, to be subsumed and transformed into the still current Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). A number of other taxonomic databases specializing in particular groups of organisms that appeared in the 1970s through to the present jointly contribute to the Species 2000 project, which since 2001 has been partnering with ITIS to produce a combined product, the Catalogue of Life. While the Catalogue of Life currently concentrates on assembling basic name information as a global species checklist, numerous other taxonomic database projects such as Fauna Europaea, the Australian Faunal Directory, and more supply rich ancillary information including descriptions, illustrations, maps, and more. Many taxonomic database projects are currently listed at the TDWG "Biodiversity Information Projects of the World" site. == Issues == The representation of taxonomic information in machine-encodable form raises a number of issues not encountered in other domains, such as variant ways to cite the same species or other taxon name, the same name used for multiple taxa (homonyms), multiple non-current names for the same taxon (synonyms), changes in name and taxon concept definition through time, and more. Non-standardized categories and metadata in taxonomic databases hampers the ability for researchers to analyze the data. One forum that has promoted discussion and possible solutions to these and related problems since 1985 is the Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG), originally called the Taxonomic Database Working Group. While online databases have great benefits (for example, increased access to taxonomic information), they also have issues such as data integrity risks due to on- and off-line versions and continuous updates, technical access issues due to server or internet outage, and differing capacities for complex queries to extract taxonomic data into lists. As the quantity of information in online taxonomic databases rapidly expands, data aggregation, and the integration and alignment of non-standardized data across databases, is a big challenge in taxonomy and biodiversity informatics.
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.
Learning augmented algorithm
A learning augmented algorithm (also called algorithm with predictions) is an algorithm that can make use of a prediction to improve its performance. Whereas in regular algorithms just the problem instance is inputted, learning augmented algorithms accept an extra parameter. This extra parameter often is a prediction of some property of the solution. This prediction is then used by the algorithm to improve its running time or the quality of its output. The most common application are online algorithms, where a prediction on the uncertain instance is provided. == Description == A learning augmented algorithm typically takes an input ( I , A ) {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {I}},{\mathcal {A}})} . Here I {\displaystyle {\mathcal {I}}} is a problem instance and A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is the prediction. A prediction can be any object. Common are the following types: Prediction of an optimal solution. The prediction gives a solution to the problem or characterizes an optimal solution. Prediction of the input. This is mainly used for online problems. Prediction of algorithmic actions. A prediction tailored to a specific algorithm that suggests a specific algorithm execution. Learning augmented algorithms usually satisfy the following three properties: Consistency. A learning augmented algorithm is said to be consistent if the algorithm can be proven to have a good performance when it is provided with an accurate prediction. Smoothness. A learning augmented algorithm is called smooth if its performance can be bounded by a function of the quality of the prediction. Here, the quality can be measured in a problem specific way. This is also called the prediction error. Robustness. A learning augmented algorithm is called robust if its worst-case performance can be bounded even if the given prediction is inaccurate. Learning augmented algorithms generally do not prescribe how the prediction should be done. For this purpose machine learning can be used. == Applications == A few examples of problems where learning augmented algorithms have been applied are the following. === Online algorithms === The ski rental problem The weighted paging problem The set cover problem Nonclairvoyant scheduling The online bipartite matching problem === Warm starting === ==== Data structures ==== The binary search algorithm is an algorithm for finding elements of a sorted list x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}} . It needs O ( log ( n ) ) {\displaystyle O(\log(n))} steps to find an element with some known value y {\displaystyle y} in a list of length n {\displaystyle n} . With a prediction i {\displaystyle i} for the position of y {\displaystyle y} , the following learning augmented algorithm can be used. First, look at position i {\displaystyle i} in the list. If x i = y {\displaystyle x_{i}=y} , the element has been found. If x i < y {\displaystyle x_{i}
List of large language models
A large language model (LLM) is a type of machine learning model designed for natural language processing tasks such as language generation. LLMs are language models with many parameters, and are trained with self-supervised learning on a vast amount of text. == List == For the training cost column, 1 petaFLOP-day equals 1 petaFLOP/sec × 1 day, or 8.64×1019 FLOP (floating point operations). Only the cost of the largest model is shown. The number of parameters is measured in billions, and the training cost is measured in petaFLOP-days. === 2018 === === 2019 === === 2020 === === 2021 === === 2022 === === 2023 === === 2024 === === 2025 === === 2026 ===
Least-squares spectral analysis
Least-squares spectral analysis (LSSA) is a class of methods for estimating a frequency spectrum by fitting sinusoids to data using a least-squares fit. Unlike Fourier analysis, the most widely used spectral method in science, data need not be equally spaced to use LSSA. Furthermore, while Fourier analysis generally amplifies long-period noise in long or gapped records, LSSA mitigates such problems. The first strictly least-squares LSSA method was developed in 1969 and 1971, and is known as the Vaníček method or the Gauss–Vaniček method, after its inventor Petr Vaníček and Carl Friedrich Gauss, the inventor of the least-squares method for error minimization. A widely known LSSA variant is the Lomb method or the Lomb–Scargle periodogram, based on dated computational simplifications of the Vaníček method introduced in the 1970s and 1980s, first by Nicholas R. Lomb and later by Jeffrey D. Scargle. Other LSSA variants have been subsequently developed. == Historical background == The close connections between Fourier analysis, the periodogram, and the least-squares fitting of sinusoids have been known for a long time. However, most developments are restricted to complete data sets of equally spaced samples. In 1963, Freek J. M. Barning of Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, handled unequally spaced data by similar techniques, including both a periodogram analysis equivalent to what nowadays is called the Lomb method and least-squares fitting of selected frequencies of sinusoids determined from such periodograms — and connected by a procedure known today as the matching pursuit with post-back fitting or the orthogonal matching pursuit. Petr Vaníček, a Canadian geophysicist and geodesist of the University of New Brunswick, proposed in 1969 also the matching-pursuit approach for equally and unequally spaced data, which he called "successive spectral analysis" and the result a "least-squares periodogram". He generalized this method to account for any systematic components beyond a simple mean, such as a "predicted linear (quadratic, exponential, ...) secular trend of unknown magnitude", and applied it to a variety of samples, in 1971. Vaníček's strictly least-squares method was then simplified in 1976 by Nicholas R. Lomb of the University of Sydney, who pointed out its close connection to periodogram analysis. Subsequently, the definition of a periodogram of unequally spaced data was modified and analyzed by Jeffrey D. Scargle of NASA Ames Research Center, who showed that, with minor changes, it becomes identical to Lomb's least-squares formula for fitting individual sinusoid frequencies. Scargle states that his paper "does not introduce a new detection technique, but instead studies the reliability and efficiency of detection with the most commonly used technique, the periodogram, in the case where the observation times are unevenly spaced," and further points out regarding least-squares fitting of sinusoids compared to periodogram analysis, that his paper "establishes, apparently for the first time, that (with the proposed modifications) these two methods are exactly equivalent." Press summarizes the development this way: A completely different method of spectral analysis for unevenly sampled data, one that mitigates these difficulties and has some other very desirable properties, was developed by Lomb, based in part on earlier work by Barning and Vanicek, and additionally elaborated by Scargle. In 1989, Michael J. Korenberg of Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, developed the "fast orthogonal search" method of more quickly finding a near-optimal decomposition of spectra or other problems, similar to the technique that later became known as the orthogonal matching pursuit. == Development of LSSA and variants == === The Vaníček method === In the Vaníček method, a discrete data set is approximated by a weighted sum of sinusoids of progressively determined frequencies using a standard linear regression or least-squares fit. The frequencies are chosen using a method similar to Barning's, but going further in optimizing the choice of each successive new frequency by picking the frequency that minimizes the residual after least-squares fitting (equivalent to the fitting technique now known as matching pursuit with pre-backfitting). The number of sinusoids must be less than or equal to the number of data samples (counting sines and cosines of the same frequency as separate sinusoids). The relationship between the DFT and the approximation of trigonometric functions using the least-squares method is well explained in (Strutz, 2017). A data vector Φ is represented as a weighted sum of sinusoidal basis functions, tabulated in a matrix A by evaluating each function at the sample times, with weight vector x: ϕ ≈ A x , {\displaystyle \phi \approx {\textbf {A}}x,} where the weights vector x is chosen to minimize the sum of squared errors in approximating Φ. The solution for x is closed-form, using standard linear regression: x = ( A T A ) − 1 A T ϕ . {\displaystyle x=({\textbf {A}}^{\mathrm {T} }{\textbf {A}})^{-1}{\textbf {A}}^{\mathrm {T} }\phi .} Here the matrix A can be based on any set of functions mutually independent (not necessarily orthogonal) when evaluated at the sample times; functions used for spectral analysis are typically sines and cosines evenly distributed over the frequency range of interest. If we choose too many frequencies in a too-narrow frequency range, the functions will be insufficiently independent, the matrix ill-conditioned, and the resulting spectrum meaningless. When the basis functions in A are orthogonal (that is, not correlated, meaning the columns have zero pair-wise dot products), the matrix ATA is diagonal; when the columns all have the same power (sum of squares of elements), then that matrix is an identity matrix times a constant, so the inversion is trivial. The latter is the case when the sample times are equally spaced and sinusoids chosen as sines and cosines equally spaced in pairs on the frequency interval 0 to a half cycle per sample (spaced by 1/N cycles per sample, omitting the sine phases at 0 and maximum frequency where they are identically zero). This case is known as the discrete Fourier transform, slightly rewritten in terms of measurements and coefficients. x = A T ϕ {\displaystyle x={\textbf {A}}^{\mathrm {T} }\phi } — DFT case for N equally spaced samples and frequencies, within a scalar factor. === The Lomb method === Trying to lower the computational burden of the Vaníček method in 1976 (no longer an issue), Lomb proposed using the above simplification in general, except for pair-wise correlations between sine and cosine bases of the same frequency, since the correlations between pairs of sinusoids are often small, at least when they are not tightly spaced. This formulation is essentially that of the traditional periodogram but adapted for use with unevenly spaced samples. The vector x is a reasonably good estimate of an underlying spectrum, but since we ignore any correlations, Ax is no longer a good approximation to the signal, and the method is no longer a least-squares method — yet in the literature continues to be referred to as such. Rather than just taking dot products of the data with sine and cosine waveforms directly, Scargle modified the standard periodogram formula so to find a time delay τ {\displaystyle \tau } first, such that this pair of sinusoids would be mutually orthogonal at sample times t j {\displaystyle t_{j}} and also adjusted for the potentially unequal powers of these two basis functions, to obtain a better estimate of the power at a frequency. This procedure made his modified periodogram method exactly equivalent to Lomb's method. Time delay τ {\displaystyle \tau } by definition equals to tan 2 ω τ = ∑ j sin 2 ω t j ∑ j cos 2 ω t j . {\displaystyle \tan {2\omega \tau }={\frac {\sum _{j}\sin 2\omega t_{j}}{\sum _{j}\cos 2\omega t_{j}}}.} Then the periodogram at frequency ω {\displaystyle \omega } is estimated as: P x ( ω ) = 1 2 [ [ ∑ j X j cos ω ( t j − τ ) ] 2 ∑ j cos 2 ω ( t j − τ ) + [ ∑ j X j sin ω ( t j − τ ) ] 2 ∑ j sin 2 ω ( t j − τ ) ] , {\displaystyle P_{x}(\omega )={\frac {1}{2}}\left[{\frac {\left[\sum _{j}X_{j}\cos \omega (t_{j}-\tau )\right]^{2}}{\sum _{j}\cos ^{2}\omega (t_{j}-\tau )}}+{\frac {\left[\sum _{j}X_{j}\sin \omega (t_{j}-\tau )\right]^{2}}{\sum _{j}\sin ^{2}\omega (t_{j}-\tau )}}\right],} which, as Scargle reports, has the same statistical distribution as the periodogram in the evenly sampled case. At any individual frequency ω {\displaystyle \omega } , this method gives the same power as does a least-squares fit to sinusoids of that frequency and of the form: ϕ ( t ) = A sin ω t + B cos ω t . {\displaystyle \phi (t)=A\sin \omega t+B\cos \omega t.} In practice, it is always difficult to judge if a given Lomb peak is significant or not, especially when the nature of the noise is unknown, so for example a false-alarm spectr