Anomaly Detection at Multiple Scales, or ADAMS was a $35 million DARPA project designed to identify patterns and anomalies in very large data sets. It is under DARPA's Information Innovation office and began in 2011 and ended in August 2014 The project was intended to detect and prevent insider threats such as "a soldier in good mental health becoming homicidal or suicidal", an "innocent insider becoming malicious", or "a government employee [who] abuses access privileges to share classified information". Specific cases mentioned are Nadal Malik Hasan and WikiLeaks source Chelsea Manning. Commercial applications may include finance. The intended recipients of the system output are operators in the counterintelligence agencies. A final report was published on May 11, 2015, detailing a system known as Anomaly Detection Engine for Networks, or ADEN, developed by the University of Maryland, College Park, whose goal was to "identify malicious users within a network." Using multiple datasets from Wikipedia, Slashdot, and others, researchers were able to identify vandals and malicious users on a website using both conventional algorithms and artificial intelligence. The Proactive Discovery of Insider Threats Using Graph Analysis and Learning was part of the ADAMS project. The Georgia Tech team includes noted high-performance computing researcher David Bader (computer scientist).
Ugly duckling theorem
The ugly duckling theorem is an argument showing that classification is not really possible without some sort of bias. More particularly, it assumes finitely many properties combinable by logical connectives, and finitely many objects; it asserts that any two different objects share the same number of (extensional) properties. The theorem is named after Hans Christian Andersen's 1843 story "The Ugly Duckling", because it shows that a duckling is just as similar to a swan as two swans are to each other. It was derived by Satosi Watanabe in 1969. == Mathematical formula == Suppose there are n things in the universe, and one wants to put them into classes or categories. One has no preconceived ideas or biases about what sorts of categories are "natural" or "normal" and what are not. So one has to consider all the possible classes that could be, all the possible ways of making a set out of the n objects. There are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such ways, the size of the power set of n objects. One can use that to measure the similarity between two objects, and one would see how many sets they have in common. However, one cannot. Any two objects have exactly the same number of classes in common if we can form any possible class, namely 2 n − 1 {\displaystyle 2^{n-1}} (half the total number of classes there are). To see this is so, one may imagine each class is represented by an n-bit string (or binary encoded integer), with a zero for each element not in the class and a one for each element in the class. As one finds, there are 2 n {\displaystyle 2^{n}} such strings. As all possible choices of zeros and ones are there, any two bit-positions will agree exactly half the time. One may pick two elements and reorder the bits so they are the first two, and imagine the numbers sorted lexicographically. The first 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} numbers will have bit #1 set to zero, and the second 2 n / 2 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/2} will have it set to one. Within each of those blocks, the top 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have bit #2 set to zero and the other 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} will have it as one, so they agree on two blocks of 2 n / 4 {\displaystyle 2^{n}/4} or on half of all the cases, no matter which two elements one picks. So if we have no preconceived bias about which categories are better, everything is then equally similar (or equally dissimilar). The number of predicates simultaneously satisfied by two non-identical elements is constant over all such pairs. Thus, some kind of inductive bias is needed to make judgements to prefer certain categories over others. === Boolean functions === Let x 1 , x 2 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\dots ,x_{n}} be a set of vectors of k {\displaystyle k} booleans each. The ugly duckling is the vector which is least like the others. Given the booleans, this can be computed using Hamming distance. However, the choice of boolean features to consider could have been somewhat arbitrary. Perhaps there were features derivable from the original features that were important for identifying the ugly duckling. The set of booleans in the vector can be extended with new features computed as boolean functions of the k {\displaystyle k} original features. The only canonical way to do this is to extend it with all possible Boolean functions. The resulting completed vectors have 2 k {\displaystyle 2^{k}} features. The ugly duckling theorem states that there is no ugly duckling because any two completed vectors will either be equal or differ in exactly half of the features. Proof. Let x and y be two vectors. If they are the same, then their completed vectors must also be the same because any Boolean function of x will agree with the same Boolean function of y. If x and y are different, then there exists a coordinate i {\displaystyle i} where the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of x {\displaystyle x} differs from the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate of y {\displaystyle y} . Now the completed features contain every Boolean function on k {\displaystyle k} Boolean variables, with each one exactly once. Viewing these Boolean functions as polynomials in k {\displaystyle k} variables over GF(2), segregate the functions into pairs ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} where f {\displaystyle f} contains the i {\displaystyle i} -th coordinate as a linear term and g {\displaystyle g} is f {\displaystyle f} without that linear term. Now, for every such pair ( f , g ) {\displaystyle (f,g)} , x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} will agree on exactly one of the two functions. If they agree on one, they must disagree on the other and vice versa. (This proof is believed to be due to Watanabe.) == Discussion == A possible way around the ugly duckling theorem would be to introduce a constraint on how similarity is measured by limiting the properties involved in classification, for instance, between A and B. However Medin et al. (1993) point out that this does not actually resolve the arbitrariness or bias problem since in what respects A is similar to B: "varies with the stimulus context and task, so that there is no unique answer, to the question of how similar is one object to another". For example, "a barberpole and a zebra would be more similar than a horse and a zebra if the feature striped had sufficient weight. Of course, if these feature weights were fixed, then these similarity relations would be constrained". Yet the property "striped" as a weight 'fix' or constraint is arbitrary itself, meaning: "unless one can specify such criteria, then the claim that categorization is based on attribute matching is almost entirely vacuous". Stamos (2003) remarked that some judgments of overall similarity are non-arbitrary in the sense they are useful: "Presumably, people's perceptual and conceptual processes have evolved that information that matters to human needs and goals can be roughly approximated by a similarity heuristic... If you are in the jungle and you see a tiger but you decide not to stereotype (perhaps because you believe that similarity is a false friend), then you will probably be eaten. In other words, in the biological world stereotyping based on veridical judgments of overall similarity statistically results in greater survival and reproductive success." Unless some properties are considered more salient, or 'weighted' more important than others, everything will appear equally similar, hence Watanabe (1986) wrote: "any objects, in so far as they are distinguishable, are equally similar". In a weaker setting that assumes infinitely many properties, Murphy and Medin (1985) give an example of two putative classified things, plums and lawnmowers: "Suppose that one is to list the attributes that plums and lawnmowers have in common in order to judge their similarity. It is easy to see that the list could be infinite: Both weigh less than 10,000 kg (and less than 10,001 kg), both did not exist 10,000,000 years ago (and 10,000,001 years ago), both cannot hear well, both can be dropped, both take up space, and so on. Likewise, the list of differences could be infinite… any two entities can be arbitrarily similar or dissimilar by changing the criterion of what counts as a relevant attribute." According to Woodward, the ugly duckling theorem is related to Schaffer's Conservation Law for Generalization Performance, which states that all algorithms for learning of boolean functions from input/output examples have the same overall generalization performance as random guessing. The latter result is generalized by Woodward to functions on countably infinite domains.
Artificial intelligence industry in Italy
The artificial intelligence industry in Italy is growing and supports industrial development. In 2024 it reached a new record, reaching 1.2 billion euros with a growth of +58% compared to 2023. While in 2025, the growth of artificial intelligence in the industrial application was even greater than in 2024 both in terms of value and application to industrial sectors. == History == The roots of AI research in Italy extend back to the 1970s, when Italian scholars began exploring automated reasoning, programming language semantics, and pattern recognition. Researchers such as those involved in early projects at the National Research Council and various universities laid the groundwork for subsequent academic and industrial developments in the field. During this period, the focus was predominantly on developing algorithms for automated theorem proving and building systems to reason about complex mathematical problems. This era witnessed the birth of methodologies that would later influence numerous AI subfields, from natural language processing (NLP) to robotics. === Institutional milestones and academic contributions === A turning point in the Italian AI landscape was the formation of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (AIxIA) in 1988. Founded by academics, including Luigia Carlucci Aiello, the association established a platform for collaboration between universities, research centers, and industry. Led by Aiello, AIIA played a role in promoting research, organizing national conferences, and fostering international partnerships that connected Italy's AI community to global networks. At the same time, professors such as Roberto Navigli and numerous practitioners contributed to the advancement of AI in Italy. Navigli has worked in multilingual NLP, including the creation of BabelNet, and led the Minerva project. === Industrial AI === Over recent decades, numerous national and European initiatives supported by funding from programs such as the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) have spurred the transition from theoretical research to practical applications. Industrial sectors including manufacturing, banking, and healthcare increasingly embraced AI-driven automation, while research institutions collaborated with industrial partners to deploy cutting-edge solutions. In recent years, Italy has also seen the establishment of specialized research centers and institutes aimed at bridging the gap between academic innovation and industrial application. These initiatives indicate a broader national commitment to integrating AI into the fabric of Italian industry. == Recent developments == === Emergence of generative AI === A landmark in Italy's modern AI evolution is the development of Minerva AI. Developed by the Sapienza NLP research group at Sapienza University of Rome and led by Professor Roberto Navigli, Minerva represents the first family of large language models (LLMs) trained from scratch with a primary focus on the Italian language. ==== Minerva 7B ==== The latest iteration, Minerva 7B, has 7 billion parameters and has been trained on an extensive corpus of over 1.5 trillion words. By using advanced instruction tuning techniques, Minerva 7B is able to produce highly accurate, coherent, and contextually sensitive responses addressing common issues such as hallucinations and inappropriate content generation. This breakthrough sets a benchmark for transparent, open-source AI development in the country. Minerva's development, carried out within the FAIR (Future Artificial Intelligence Research) project in collaboration with CINECA and supported by supercomputing resources like the Leonardo (supercomputer), aligns closely with Italy's cultural and linguistic heritage. === Establishment of AI4I === The recent establishment of the Istituto Italiano per l’Intelligenza Artificiale (AI4I) is part of Italy's strategy to improve its industrial competitiveness in AI. This dedicated institute aims to bridge the gap between research institutions and industrial enterprises; promote training and R&D support to nurture the next generation of Italian AI experts; and enhance national competitiveness. This initiative is expected to serve as a hub for applied AI research, driving innovations that are tailored to the specific needs of Italian industry and public administration. === Benefits of InvestAI === Italy's AI industry stands to benefit from the European InvestAI initiative, a plan unveiled at the recent AI Action Summit in Paris. InvestAI is an effort by the European Commission to mobilize €200 billion for AI investments, with a dedicated €20 billion fund earmarked for building AI gigafactories. These gigafactories are planned as large-scale hubs for training advanced, complex AI models using approximately 100,000 last-generation AI chips. For Italy, this investment presents several major opportunities: Access to State-of-the-Art Infrastructure: Italian companies, research institutions, and start-ups can leverage the gigafactories’ immense computational resources, enabling them to train highly sophisticated language models and other AI systems. Enhanced Competitiveness and Collaboration: With InvestAI's layered funding model where EU funds help de-risk private investments Italian firms can access capital more readily. This will bolster public–private partnerships and create a more dynamic AI ecosystem that spans from academic research to industrial applications. Alignment with National and Regional Initiatives: The Istituto Italiano per l’Intelligenza Artificiale (AI4I), based in Turin, is already recognized as a strategic asset by both Italy and the European Union. As the main recipient of InvestAI funds in Italy, AI4I will play a pivotal role in implementing these investments locally, fostering innovation in sectors like manufacturing, healthcare and aerospace. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasized that InvestAI is designed to democratize AI innovation throughout Europe by ensuring that even smaller companies have access to high-performance computing power. For Italy, this means not only keeping pace with global leaders but also harnessing European-scale investments to transform its AI industry and drive economic growth.
Digital artifact
Digital artifact in information science, is any undesired or unintended alteration in data introduced in a digital process by an involved technique and/or technology. Digital artifact can be of any content types including text, audio, video, image, animation or a combination. == Information science == In information science, digital artifacts result from: Hardware malfunction: In computer graphics, visual artifacts may be generated whenever a hardware component such as the processor, memory chip, cabling malfunctions, etc., corrupts data. Examples of malfunctions include physical damage, overheating, insufficient voltage and GPU overclocking. Common types of hardware artifacts are texture corruption and T-vertices in 3D graphics, and pixelization in MPEG compressed video. Software malfunction: Artifacts may be caused by algorithm flaws such as decoding/encoding audio or video, or a poor pseudo-random number generator that would introduce artifacts distinguishable from the desired noise into statistical models. Compression: Controlled amounts of unwanted information may be generated as a result of the use of lossy compression techniques. One example is the artifacts seen in JPEG and MPEG compression algorithms that produce compression artifacts. Quantization: Digital imprecision generated in the process of converting analog information into digital space, is due to the limited granularity of digital numbering space. In computer graphics, quantization is seen as pixelation. Aliasing: As a consequence of sampling or sample-rate conversion, energy from frequencies outside of the signal frequency band of interest are folded across multiples of the Nyquist frequency. This is typically mitigated by using an anti-aliasing filter. Filtering: The process of filtering a signal, such as using an anti-aliasing filter, causes undesired alterations to the signal due to imperfections in the frequency response magnitude and phase, and due to the time domain impulse response. Rolling shutter, the line scanning of an object that is moving too fast for the image sensor to capture a unitary image. Error diffusion: poorly-weighted kernel coefficients result in undesirable visual artifacts.
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
Document mosaicing
Document mosaicing is a process that stitches multiple, overlapping snapshot images of a document together to produce one large, high resolution composite. The document is slid under a stationary, over-the-desk camera by hand until all parts of the document are snapshotted by the camera's field of view. As the document slid under the camera, all motion of the document is coarsely tracked by the vision system. The document is periodically snapshotted such that the successive snapshots are overlap by about 50%. The system then finds the overlapped pairs and stitches them together repeatedly until all pairs are stitched together as one piece of document. The document mosaicing can be divided into four main processes. Tracking Feature detecting Correspondences establishing Images mosaicing. == Tracking (simple correlation process) == In this process, the motion of the document slid under the camera is coarsely tracked by the system. Tracking is performed by a process called simple correlation process. In the first frame of snapshots, a small patch is extracted from the center of the image as a correlation template. The correlation process is performed in the four times size of the patch area of the next frame. The motion of the paper is indicated by the peak in the correlation function. The peak in the correlation function indicates the motion of the paper. The template is resampled from this frame and the tracking continues until the template reaches the edge of the document. After the template reaches the edge of the document, another snapshot is taken and the tracking process performs repeatedly until the whole document is imaged. The snapshots are stored in an ordered list to facilitate pairing the overlapped images in later processes. == Feature detecting for efficient matching == Feature detection is the process of finding the transformation that aligns one image with another. There are two main approaches for feature detection. Feature-based approach : Motion parameters are estimated from point correspondences. This approach is suitable for the case that there is plenty supply of stable and detectable features. Featureless approach : When the motion between the two images is small, the motion parameters are estimated using optical flow. On the other hand, when the motion between the two images is large, the motion parameters are estimated using generalised cross-correlation. However, this approach requires a computationally expensive resources. Each image is segmented into a hierarchy of columns, lines, and words to match the organised sets of features across images. Skew angle estimation and columns, lines and words finding are the examples of feature detection operations. === Skew angle estimation === Firstly, the angle that the rows of text make with the image raster lines (skew angle) is estimated. It is assumed to lie in the range of ±20°. A small patch of text in the image is selected randomly and then rotated in the range of ±20° until the variance of the pixel intensities of the patch summed along the raster lines is maximised. To ensure that the found skew angle is accurate, the document mosaic system performs calculation at many image patches and derive the final estimation by finding the average of the individual angles weighted by the variance of the pixel intensities of each patch. === Columns, lines and words finding === In this operation, the de-skewed document is intuitively segmented into a hierarchy of columns, lines and words. The sensitivity to illumination and page coloration of the de-skewed document can be removed by applying a Sobel operator to the de-skewed image and thresholding the output to obtain the binary gradient, de-skewed image. The operation can be roughly separated into 3 steps: column segmentation, line segmentation and word segmentation. Columns are easily segmented from the binary gradient, de-skewed images by summing pixels vertically. Baselines of each row are segmented in the same way as the column segmentation process but horizontally. Finally, individual words are segmented by applying the vertical process at each segmented row. These segmentations are important because the document mosaic is created by matching the lower right corners of words in overlapping images pair. Moreover, the segmentation operation can organize the list of images in the context of a hierarchy of rows and column reliably. The segmentation operation involves a considerable amount of summing in the binary gradient, de-skewed images, which done by construct a matrix of partial sums whose elements are given by p i y = ∑ u = 1 i ∑ v = 1 j b u v {\displaystyle p_{iy}=\sum _{u=1}^{i}\sum _{v=1}^{j}b_{uv}} The matrix of partial sums is calculated in one pass through the binary gradient, de-skewed image. ∑ u = u 1 u 2 ∑ v = v 1 v 2 b u v = p u 2 v 2 + p u 1 v 1 − p u 1 v 2 − p u 2 v 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{u=u_{1}}^{u_{2}}\sum _{v=v_{1}}^{v_{2}}b_{uv}=p_{u_{2}v_{2}}+p_{u_{1}v_{1}}-p_{u_{1}v_{2}}-p_{u_{2}v_{1}}} == Correspondences establishing == The two images are now organized in hierarchy of linked lists in following structure : image=list of columns row=list of words column=list of row word=length (in pixels) At the bottom of the structure, the length of each word is recorded for establishing correspondence between two images to reduce to search only the corresponding structures for the groups of words with the matching lengths. === Seed match finding === A seed match finding is done by comparing each row in image1 with each row in image2. The two rows are then compared to each other by every word. If the length (in pixel) of the two words (one from image1 and one from image2) and their immediate neighbours agree with each other within a predefined tolerance threshold (5 pixels, for example), then they are assumed to match. The row of each image is assumed a match if there are three or more word matches between the two rows. The seed match finding operation is terminated when two pairs of consecutive row match are found. === Match list building === After finishing a seed match finding operation, the next process is to build the match list to generate the correspondences points of the two images. The process is done by searching the matching pairs of rows away from the seed row. == Images mosaicing == Given the list of corresponding points of the two images, finding the transformation of the overlapping portion of the images is the next process. Assuming a pinhole camera model, the transformation between pixels (u,v) of image 1 and pixels (u0, v0) of image 2 is demonstrated by a plane-to-plane projectivity. [ s u ′ s v ′ s ] = [ p 11 p 12 p 13 p 21 p 22 p 23 p 31 p 32 1 ] [ u v 1 ] E q .1 {\displaystyle \left[{\begin{array}{c}su'\\sv'\\s\end{array}}\right]=\left[{\begin{array}{ccc}p_{11}&p_{12}&p_{13}\\p_{21}&p_{22}&p_{23}\\p_{31}&p_{32}&1\end{array}}\right]\left[{\begin{array}{c}u\\v\\1\end{array}}\right]\qquad Eq.1} The parameters of the projectivity is found from four pairs of matching points. RANSAC regression technique is used to reject outlying matches and estimate the projectivity from the remaining good matches. The projectivity is fine-tuned using correlation at the corners of the overlapping portion to obtain four correspondences to sub-pixel accuracy. Therefore, image1 is then transformed into image2's coordinate system using Eq.1. The typical result of the process is shown in Figure 5. === Many images coping === Finally, the whole page composition is built up by mapping all the images into the coordinate system of an "anchor" image, which is normally the one nearest the page center. The transformations to the anchor frame are calculated by concatenating the pair-wise transformations found earlier. The raw document mosaic is shown in Figure 6. However, there might be a problem of non-consecutive images that are overlap. This problem can be solved by performing Hierarchical sub-mosaics. As shown in Figure 7, image1 and image2 are registered, as are image3 and image4, creating two sub-mosaics. These two sub-mosaics are later stitched together in another mosaicing process. == Applied areas == There are various areas that the technique of document mosaicing can be applied to such as : Text segmentation of images of documents Document Recognition Interaction with paper on the digital desk Video mosaics for virtual environments Image registration techniques == Relevant research papers == Huang, T.S.; Netravali, A.N. (1994). "Motion and structure from feature correspondences: A review". Proceedings of the IEEE. 82 (2): 252–268. doi:10.1109/5.265351. D.G. Lowe. [1] Perceptual Organization and Visual Recognition. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1985. Irani, M.; Peleg, S. (1991). "Improving resolution by image registration". CVGIP: Graphical Models and Image Processing. 53 (3): 231–239. doi:10.1016/1049-9652(91)90045-L. S2CID 4834546. Shivakumara, P.; Kumar, G. Hemantha; Guru, D. S.; Nagabhushan, P. (2006). "
Seismological Facility for the Advancement of Geoscience
The U.S. National Science Foundation's Seismological Facility for the Advancement of Geoscience (NSF SAGE) is a distributed, multi-user national facility that provides support for state of-the-art seismic research. It is operated by EarthScope Consortium. Its previous operator was the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS), until its merger with UNAVCO to become EarthScope Consortium. NSF SAGE is one of the two premier geophysical facilities in support of geoscience and geoscience education of the National Science Foundation. The other premiere geophysical facility is NSF GAGE, the Geodetic Facility for the Advancement of Geoscience. The services of the facility include support for the Global Seismographic Network (GSN), Data Services, and instrument support via the EarthScope Primary Instrument Center (EPIC), including magnetotelluric (MT) geophysical research. == Global Seismographic Network (GSN) == NSF SAGE manages 40 stations of the 152-station Global Seismographic Network (GSN) for basic global seismicity and Earth structure research. The GSN also enables earthquake hazard mission-related data operations such as: Earthquake location and characterization Tsunami warning Nuclear explosion monitoring == Data Services == SAGE Data Services (DS) is the largest facility for the archiving, curation, and distribution of seismological and other geophysical data in the world. == EarthScope Primary Instrument Center (EPIC) == The EPIC facility maintains the largest open access, shared-use pool of portable seismic sensors in the world. It is located on the campus of New Mexico Tech. == MT == NSF SAGE provides instruments for magnetotelluric (MT) or electromagnetic geophysical research for the recording of our planet's ambient electric and magnetic fields, which allow for the characterization of the conductivity of the area consisting of the shallow crust to upper mantle. This helps with analysis of results obtained from seismic imaging methodologies. The NSF SAGE facility is: Developing open source MT data formatting and processing software. Providing access to proprietary software products.