In evolutionary computation, Minimum Population Search (MPS) is a computational method that optimizes a problem by iteratively trying to improve a set of candidate solutions with regard to a given measure of quality. It solves a problem by evolving a small population of candidate solutions by means of relatively simple arithmetical operations. MPS is a metaheuristic as it makes few or no assumptions about the problem being optimized and can search very large spaces of candidate solutions. For problems where finding the precise global optimum is less important than finding an acceptable local optimum in a fixed amount of time, using a metaheuristic such as MPS may be preferable to alternatives such as brute-force search or gradient descent. MPS is used for multidimensional real-valued functions but does not use the gradient of the problem being optimized, which means MPS does not require for the optimization problem to be differentiable as is required by classic optimization methods such as gradient descent and quasi-newton methods. MPS can therefore also be used on optimization problems that are not even continuous, are noisy, change over time, etc. == Background == In a similar way to Differential evolution, MPS uses difference vectors between the members of the population in order to generate new solutions. It attempts to provide an efficient use of function evaluations by maintaining a small population size. If the population size is smaller than the dimensionality of the search space, then the solutions generated through difference vectors will be constrained to the n − 1 {\displaystyle n-1} dimensional hyperplane. A smaller population size will lead to a more restricted subspace. With a population size equal to the dimensionality of the problem ( n = d ) {\displaystyle (n=d)} , the “line/hyperplane points” in MPS will be generated within a d − 1 {\displaystyle d-1} dimensional hyperplane. Taking a step orthogonal to this hyperplane will allow the search process to cover all the dimensions of the search space. Population size is a fundamental parameter in the performance of population-based heuristics. Larger populations promote exploration, but they also allow fewer generations, and this can reduce the chance of convergence. Searching with a small population can increase the chances of convergence and the efficient use of function evaluations, but it can also induce the risk of premature convergence. If the risk of premature convergence can be avoided, then a population-based heuristic could benefit from the efficiency and faster convergence rate of a smaller population. To avoid premature convergence, it is important to have a diversified population. By including techniques for explicitly increasing diversity and exploration, it is possible to have smaller populations with less risk of premature convergence. === Thresheld Convergence === Thresheld Convergence (TC) is a diversification technique which attempts to separate the processes of exploration and exploitation. TC uses a “threshold” function to establish a minimum search step, and managing this step makes it possible to influence the transition from exploration to exploitation, convergence is thus “held” back until the last stages of the search process. The goal of a controlled transition is to avoid an early concentration of the population around a few search regions and avoid the loss of diversity which can cause premature convergence. Thresheld Convergence has been successfully applied to several population-based metaheuristics such as Particle Swarm Optimization, Differential evolution, Evolution strategies, Simulated annealing and Estimation of Distribution Algorithms. The ideal case for Thresheld Convergence is to have one sample solution from each attraction basin, and for each sample solution to have the same relative fitness with respect to its local optimum. Enforcing a minimum step aims to achieve this ideal case. In MPS Thresheld Convergence is specifically used to preserve diversity and avoid premature convergence by establishing a minimum search step. By disallowing new solutions which are too close to members of the current population, TC forces a strong exploration during the early stages of the search while preserving the diversity of the (small) population. == Algorithm == A basic variant of the MPS algorithm works by having a population of size equal to the dimension of the problem. New solutions are generated by exploring the hyperplane defined by the current solutions (by means of difference vectors) and performing an additional orthogonal step in order to avoid getting caught in this hyperplane. The step sizes are controlled by the Thresheld Convergence technique, which gradually reduces step sizes as the search process advances. An outline for the algorithm is given below: Generate the first initial population. Allowing these solutions to lie near the bounds of the search space generally gives good results: s k = ( r s 1 ∗ b o u n d 1 / 2 , r s 2 ∗ b o u n d 2 / 2 , . . . , r s n ∗ b o u n d n / 2 ) {\displaystyle s_{k}=(rs_{1}bound_{1}/2,rs_{2}bound_{2}/2,...,rs_{n}bound_{n}/2)} where s k {\displaystyle s_{k}} is the k {\displaystyle k} -th population member, r s i {\displaystyle rs_{i}} are random numbers which can be −1 or 1, and the b o u n d i {\displaystyle bound_{i}} are the lower and upper bounds on each dimension. While a stop condition is not reached: Update threshold convergence values ( m i n _ s t e p {\displaystyle min\_step} and m a x _ s t e p {\displaystyle max\_step} ) Calculate the centroid of the current population ( x c {\displaystyle x_{c}} ) For each member of the population ( x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} ), generate a new offspring as follows: Uniformly generate a scaling factor ( F i {\displaystyle F_{i}} ) between − m a x _ s t e p {\displaystyle -max\_step} and m a x _ s t e p {\displaystyle max\_step} Generate a vector ( x o {\displaystyle x_{o}} ) orthogonal to the difference vector between x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x c {\displaystyle x_{c}} Calculate a scaling factor for the orthogonal vector: m i n _ o r t h = s q r t ( m a x ( m i n _ s t e p 2 − F i 2 , 0 ) ) {\displaystyle min\_orth=sqrt(max(min\_step^{2}-F_{i}^{2},0))} m a x _ o r t h = s q r t ( m a x ( m a x _ s t e p 2 − F i 2 , 0 ) ) {\displaystyle max\_orth=sqrt(max(max\_step^{2}-F_{i}^{2},0))} o r t h _ s t e p = u n i f o r m ( m i n _ o r t h , m a x _ o r t h ) {\displaystyle orth\_step=uniform(min\_orth,max\_orth)} Generate the new solution by adding the difference and the orthogonal vectors to the original solution n e w _ s o l u t i o n = x i + F i ∗ ( x i − x c ) ∗ o r t h _ s t e p ∗ x o {\displaystyle new\_solution=x_{i}+F_{i}(x_{i}-x_{c})orth\_stepx_{o}} Pick the best members between the old population and the new one by discarding the least fit members. Return the single best solution or the best population found as the final result.
Content determination
Content determination is the subtask of natural language generation (NLG) that involves deciding on the information to be communicated in a generated text. It is closely related to the task of document structuring. == Example == Consider an NLG system which summarises information about sick babies. Suppose this system has four pieces of information it can communicate The baby is being given morphine via an IV drop The baby's heart rate shows bradycardia's (temporary drops) The baby's temperature is normal The baby is crying Which of these bits of information should be included in the generated texts? == Issues == There are three general issues which almost always impact the content determination task, and can be illustrated with the above example. Perhaps the most fundamental issue is the communicative goal of the text, i.e. its purpose and reader. In the above example, for instance, a doctor who wants to make a decision about medical treatment would probably be most interested in the heart rate bradycardias, while a parent who wanted to know how her child was doing would probably be more interested in the fact that the baby was being given morphine and was crying. The second issue is the size and level of detail of the generated text. For instance, a short summary which was sent to a doctor as a 160 character SMS text message might only mention the heart rate bradycardias, while a longer summary which was printed out as a multipage document might also mention the fact that the baby is on a morphine IV. The final issue is how unusual and unexpected the information is. For example, neither doctors nor parents would place a high priority on being told that the baby's temperature was normal, if they expected this to be the case. Regardless, content determination is very important to users, indeed in many cases the quality of content determination is the most important factor (from the user's perspective) in determining the overall quality of the generated text. == Techniques == There are three basic approaches to document structuring: schemas (content templates), statistical approaches, and explicit reasoning. Schemas are templates which explicitly specify the content of a generated text (as well as document structuring information). Typically, they are constructed by manually analysing a corpus of human-written texts in the target genre, and extracting a content template from these texts. Schemas work well in practice in domains where content is somewhat standardised, but work less well in domains where content is more fluid (such as the medical example above). Statistical techniques use statistical corpus analysis techniques to automatically determine the content of the generated texts. Such work is in its infancy, and has mostly been applied to contexts where the communicative goal, reader, size, and level of detail are fixed. For example, generation of newswire summaries of sporting events. Explicit reasoning approaches have probably attracted the most attention from researchers. The basic idea is to use AI reasoning techniques (such as knowledge-based rules, planning, pattern detection, case-based reasoning, etc.) to examine the information available to be communicated (including how unusual/unexpected it is), the communicative goal and reader, and the characteristics of the generated text (including target size), and decide on the optimal content for the generated text. A very wide range of techniques has been explored, but there is no consensus as to which is most effective.
Nanosemantics
Nanosemantics Lab is a Russian IT company specializing in natural language processing (NLP), computer vision (CV), speech technologies (ASR/TTS) and creation of interactive dialog interfaces, particularly chatbots and virtual assistants, based on artificial intelligence (AI). The company uses neural network platforms, including its own-made platform PuzzleLib which works on Russian-made microprocessor architecture Elbrus and Russia-based Astra Linux operating system. The company was founded in 2005 by Igor Ashmanov and Natalya Kaspersky. == Profile == The company was one of the first on Russian market to develop dialog interfaces for different branches of businesses, as well as to support community of AI developers. The company's most demanded product, as for beginning of the 2020s, is the automated "online advisers", functioning as chat bots, made for helping customers with usage of commercial products. In 2009 the company released an online service called iii.ru, where visitors were able to create their own AI-based virtual personalities entitles "infs" (for free). A visitor was able to train its own "inf" and let them chat to other "live" visitors as well with other "infs". More than 2.3 million of "infs" were created and trained by visitors over several years. Nanosemantics Lab maintains its own linguistic programming language for AI development called Dialog Language (DL). Popular social networks and instant messaging services may be used as base platforms. Nanosemantics' AI bots support different types of businesses: banks and financial services, telecommunications, retail, travel and automobile industry, home appliances production, etc. Among its solutions, Nanosemantics lists projects for various companies and institutions, among them VTB, Beeline, MTS, Sberbank, Higher School of Economics, Webmoney, Gazpromneft, Rostelecom, Ford Motors, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation and others. The company uses the term "inf" for naming its numerous types of chat bots. The term was coined by co-founder Igor Ashmanov, head of Ashmanov & Partners. A 2014 scholarly research at Higher School of Economics, called "Basics of Business Informatics", states that such "infs", when used at business, may lower load on employees, collect statistics useful for understanding market demand and also may increase customer loyalty by providing fast and informative answers due to usage of large databases. The same research describes Nanosemantics' project for Russian branch of Ford Motors company, when AI capabilities were used for promoting the car model Ford Kuga. The research pointed out that within 2 months since beginning, the promo-website conducted 47774 talks of visitors with the specialized "inf", which indicated several hundred thousand of questions and the longest chat lasted for 3 hours 10 minutes. One-year promo campaign showed that 28.6% of people who made pre-orders talked to an "inf". In 2016 Nanosemantics launched a SaaS platform aimed at creating customized virtual assistants by users. The company's flagship product is considered to be Dialog Operating System (DialogOS), a professional corporate platform for creating intellectual voice and textual bots. It has its own linguistic programming language for creation of flexible scenarios and ready-studied neural natural language processing modules that are able to understand human interlocutors. In 2021 the company presented technology called NLab Speech ASR which contains a set of neural-networking algorithms for processing audio signals and analysis of texts that were trained and calibrated using speech-based big data marked up manually. The technology allows speed of processing of data up to "6 real-time factor" and precision values in noisy audio data may exceed 82%. In March 2022 the technology was included in Russia's Joint Registry for Russian Programs for Computers and Databases. As well, another technology was included: NLab Speech TTS, which is text-to-speech system that produces synthesized speech from printed text. == Joint projects == Nanosemantics participates in Ashmanov & Partners' projects related to AI. Since 2014, it helps in development of hardware "personal assistant" called Lexy, a solution similar to Amazon Alexa and the analogues. In August 2019 it was announced that Nanosemantics is going to participate in creation of open operating system for creating automated voice assistants. The project was called SOVA (Smart Open Virtual Assistant) and received investment of 300 million roubles (~$4,6 million) from Russian state-maintained National Technological Initiative. The company maintains long-term partnerships with Skolkovo Innovation Center (resident of IT cluster), branch association "Neuronet" and Yandex. Together with USA-based startup Remedy Logic, Nanosemantics has developed a medical diagnostic system for finding, using AI, spinal pathologies in tomography images of human bodies. Among them: central, foraminal and lateral lumbar stenosis, hernias, arthrosis. The system offers options of treatment. Since August 2021 the company is the resident of Technology Valley of Moscow State University. Also in 2021, Nanosemantics became a member of Committee on Artificial Intelligence within the Russian Association of Software Developers "Native Soft". The company states as one of its missions support of initiatives aimed at preservation and development of the Russian language. In May 2021, together with Pushkin Institute, the company created a chat bot called Phil, that explains to Russian people meaning of different Russian neologisms, and offers synonyms for them. Bot's vocabulary contains more than 500 neologisms, as well the bot can give advice on jargonisms and other types of specific words. Also in 2021, Nanosemanics Lab has signed the first-ever Russian "Codex of ethics of artificial intelligence". It establishes guidelines for ethical behavior of businesses that implement AI-based solutions. === IT contests === The company regularly organizes All-Russian Turing Test competitions for IT developers. Some of these events are co-organized with Microsoft. During the competitions, judges randomly choose virtual interlocutor and have a short conversation with them. They have to determine if a human or a machine is talking to them. An interlocutor may be either a bot or its human creator or operator. The results are measured in per cent of judges that were successfully convinced by a machine that it was a human. In 2021 Nanosemantics took part in federal project "Artificial Intelligence" by National Technological Initiative. In December 2021 the company together with state enterprise "Resource Center of Universal Design and Rehabilitation Technologies" (RCUD-RT) held an all-Russian hackathon aimed at development of AI solutions for medicine. During 3 days, participants created several training programs for patients with speech disorders. In April 2022, another hackathon by Nanosemantics was held together with MIREA – Russian Technological University. Students were participating and trying to generate algorithms for voice deepfakes. 17 teams contested in creation of software that generated artificial voice of a certain person. == Recognition == Since its foundation, Nanosemantics Lab has received a number of recognitions and awards. Among them are several professional ROTOR awards for the website iii.ru (created in 2009). The website gives the general public the means to create and train virtual assistants, which can then be used on a website or integrated into social networks. In 2013, a virtual assistant called Dana, created for Beeline Kazakhstan, was awarded with professional prize "Crystal Headset" in nomination "the best applying of technology". In 2015, the RBTH international media service included Nanosemantics in its list of "Top 50 Startups" in Russia. In 2016, the company received Russian state-maintained award called Runet Prize in two nominations: "State and Society" and "Technology and Innovation". In 2021, in Velikiy Novgorod, Nanosemantics team has won a hackathon aimed at finding means of discovering corruption schemes in Russian laws. In February 2022 the company won another contest by National Technological Initiative, called "Prochtenie", aimed at creation of AI systems for checking schoolchildren's school essays. The Nanosemantics team was awarded 20 million rubles for "overcoming technological barrier" in contest dedicated to English language, and 12 million for 1st place in special nomination "Structure" in Russian-language essay contest.
Eyes of Things
Eyes of Things (EoT) is the name of a project funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement number 643924. The purpose of the project, which is funded under the Smart Cyber-physical systems topic, is to develop a generic hardware-software platform for embedded, efficient (i.e. battery-operated, wearable, mobile), computer vision, including deep learning inference. On November 29, 2018, the European Space Agency announced that it was testing the suitability of the device for space applications in advance of a flight in a Cubesat. == Motivation == EoT is based on the following tenets: Future embedded systems will have more intelligence and cognitive functionality. Vision is paramount to such intelligent capacity Unlike other sensors, vision requires intensive processing. Power consumption must be optimized if vision is to be used in mobile and wearable applications Cloud processing of edge-captured images is not sustainable. The sheer amount of visual data generated cannot be transferred to the cloud. Bandwidth is not sufficient and cloud servers cannot cope with it. == Partners == VISILAB group at University of Castilla–La Mancha (Coordinator) Movidius Awaiba Thales Security Solutions & Systems DFKI Fluxguide Evercam nVISO == Awards == 2019 Electronic Component and Systems Innovation Award by the European Commission 2018 HiPEAC Tech Transfer Award 2018 EC Innovation Radar - highlighting excellent innovations Award 2018 Internet of Things (IoT) Technology Research Award Pilot by Google 2016 Semifinalist "THE VISION SHOW STARTUP COMPETITION", Global Association for Vision Information, Boston US
Automated essay scoring
Automated essay scoring (AES) is the use of specialized computer programs to assign grades to essays written in an educational setting. It is a form of educational assessment and an application of natural language processing. Its objective is to classify a large set of textual entities into a small number of discrete categories, corresponding to the possible grades, for example, the numbers 1 to 6. Therefore, it can be considered a problem of statistical classification. Several factors have contributed to a growing interest in AES. Among them are cost, accountability, standards, and technology. Rising education costs have led to pressure to hold the educational system accountable for results by imposing standards. The advance of information technology promises to measure educational achievement at reduced cost. The use of AES for high-stakes testing in education has generated significant backlash, with opponents pointing to research that computers cannot yet grade writing accurately and arguing that their use for such purposes promotes teaching writing in reductive ways (i.e. teaching to the test). == History == Most historical summaries of AES trace the origins of the field to the work of Ellis Batten Page. In 1966, he argued for the possibility of scoring essays by computer, and in 1968 he published his successful work with a program called Project Essay Grade (PEG). Using the technology of that time, computerized essay scoring would not have been cost-effective, so Page abated his efforts for about two decades. Eventually, Page sold PEG to Measurement Incorporated. By 1990, desktop computers had become so powerful and so widespread that AES was a practical possibility. As early as 1982, a UNIX program called Writer's Workbench was able to offer punctuation, spelling and grammar advice. In collaboration with several companies (notably Educational Testing Service), Page updated PEG and ran some successful trials in the early 1990s. Peter Foltz and Thomas Landauer developed a system using a scoring engine called the Intelligent Essay Assessor (IEA). IEA was first used to score essays in 1997 for their undergraduate courses. It is now a product from Pearson Educational Technologies and used for scoring within a number of commercial products and state and national exams. IntelliMetric is Vantage Learning's AES engine. Its development began in 1996. It was first used commercially to score essays in 1998. Educational Testing Service offers "e-rater", an automated essay scoring program. It was first used commercially in February 1999. Jill Burstein was the team leader in its development. ETS's Criterion Online Writing Evaluation Service uses the e-rater engine to provide both scores and targeted feedback. Lawrence Rudner has done some work with Bayesian scoring, and developed a system called BETSY (Bayesian Essay Test Scoring sYstem). Some of his results have been published in print or online, but no commercial system incorporates BETSY as yet. Under the leadership of Howard Mitzel and Sue Lottridge, Pacific Metrics developed a constructed response automated scoring engine, CRASE. Currently utilized by several state departments of education and in a U.S. Department of Education-funded Enhanced Assessment Grant, Pacific Metrics’ technology has been used in large-scale formative and summative assessment environments since 2007. Measurement Inc. acquired the rights to PEG in 2002 and has continued to develop it. In 2012, the Hewlett Foundation sponsored a competition on Kaggle called the Automated Student Assessment Prize (ASAP). 201 challenge participants attempted to predict, using AES, the scores that human raters would give to thousands of essays written to eight different prompts. The intent was to demonstrate that AES can be as reliable as human raters, or more so. The competition also hosted a separate demonstration among nine AES vendors on a subset of the ASAP data. Although the investigators reported that the automated essay scoring was as reliable as human scoring, this claim was not substantiated by any statistical tests because some of the vendors required that no such tests be performed as a precondition for their participation. Moreover, the claim that the Hewlett Study demonstrated that AES can be as reliable as human raters has since been strongly contested, including by Randy E. Bennett, the Norman O. Frederiksen Chair in Assessment Innovation at the Educational Testing Service. Some of the major criticisms of the study have been that five of the eight datasets consisted of paragraphs rather than essays, four of the eight data sets were graded by human readers for content only rather than for writing ability, and that rather than measuring human readers and the AES machines against the "true score", the average of the two readers' scores, the study employed an artificial construct, the "resolved score", which in four datasets consisted of the higher of the two human scores if there was a disagreement. This last practice, in particular, gave the machines an unfair advantage by allowing them to round up for these datasets. In 1966, Page hypothesized that, in the future, the computer-based judge will be better correlated with each human judge than the other human judges are. Despite criticizing the applicability of this approach to essay marking in general, this hypothesis was supported for marking free text answers to short questions, such as those typical of the British GCSE system. Results of supervised learning demonstrate that the automatic systems perform well when marking by different human teachers is in good agreement. Unsupervised clustering of answers showed that excellent papers and weak papers formed well-defined clusters, and the automated marking rule for these clusters worked well, whereas marks given by human teachers for the third cluster ('mixed') can be controversial, and the reliability of any assessment of works from the 'mixed' cluster can often be questioned (both human and computer-based). == Different dimensions of essay quality == According to a recent survey, modern AES systems try to score different dimensions of an essay's quality in order to provide feedback to users. These dimensions include the following items: Grammaticality: following grammar rules Usage: using of prepositions, word usage Mechanics: following rules for spelling, punctuation, capitalization Style: word choice, sentence structure variety Relevance: how relevant of the content to the prompt Organization: how well the essay is structured Development: development of ideas with examples Cohesion: appropriate use of transition phrases Coherence: appropriate transitions between ideas Thesis Clarity: clarity of the thesis Persuasiveness: convincingness of the major argument == Procedure == From the beginning, the basic procedure for AES has been to start with a training set of essays that have been carefully hand-scored. The program evaluates surface features of the text of each essay, such as the total number of words, the number of subordinate clauses, or the ratio of uppercase to lowercase letters—quantities that can be measured without any human insight. It then constructs a mathematical model that relates these quantities to the scores that the essays received. The same model is then applied to calculate scores of new essays. Recently, one such mathematical model was created by Isaac Persing and Vincent Ng. which not only evaluates essays on the above features, but also on their argument strength. It evaluates various features of the essay, such as the agreement level of the author and reasons for the same, adherence to the prompt's topic, locations of argument components (major claim, claim, premise), errors in the arguments, cohesion in the arguments among various other features. In contrast to the other models mentioned above, this model is closer in duplicating human insight while grading essays. Due to the growing popularity of deep neural networks, deep learning approaches have been adopted for automated essay scoring, generally obtaining superior results, often surpassing inter-human agreement levels. The various AES programs differ in what specific surface features they measure, how many essays are required in the training set, and most significantly in the mathematical modeling technique. Early attempts used linear regression. Modern systems may use linear regression or other machine learning techniques often in combination with other statistical techniques such as latent semantic analysis and Bayesian inference. The automated essay scoring task has also been studied in the cross-domain setting using machine learning models, where the models are trained on essays written for one prompt (topic) and tested on essays written for another prompt. Successful approaches in the cross-domain scenario are based on deep neural networks or models that combine deep and shallow features. == Criteria for success == Any method of a
ImageMixer
ImageMixer is a brand name of video editing software that edits digital video and still image in camcorders and authors to VCD and DVD. It is a second-party Japanese product, distributed by Pixela Corporation, a Japanese manufacturer of PC peripheral hardware and multimedia software. == Bundling == ImageMixer is widely used for several camcorder brands, such as JVC, Hitachi and Canon. Also, Sony has chosen to package ImageMixer with its DVD and HDD Handycam. == ImageMixer series == ImageMixer has other series of software for digital camera, such as ImageMixer Label Maker and ImageMixer DVD dubbing. ImageMixer also has movie editing solution for Macintosh. == Windows Vista version of ImageMixer == A Windows Vista version of ImageMixer has been developed (ImageMixer3).
EXAPT
EXAPT (a portmanteau of "Extended Subset of APT") is a production-oriented programming language that allows users to generate NC programs with control information for machining tools and facilitates decision-making for production-related issues that may arise during various machining processes. EXAPT was first developed to address industrial requirements. Through the years, the company created additional software for the manufacturing industry. Today, EXAPT offers a suite of SAAS products and services for the manufacturing industry. The trade name, EXAPT, is most commonly associated with the CAD/CAM-System, production data, and tool management software of the German company EXAPT Systemtechnik GmbH based in Aachen, DE. == General == EXAPT is a modularly built programming system for all NC machining operations as Drilling Turning Milling Turn-Milling Nibbling Flame-, laser-, plasma- and water jet cutting Wire eroding Operations with industrial robots Due to the modular structure, the main product groups, EXAPTcam and EXAPTpdo, are gradually expandable and permit individual software for the manufacturing industry used individually and also in a compound with an existing IT environment. == Functionality == EXAPTcam meets the requirements for NC planning, especially for the cutting operations such as turning, drilling, and milling up to 5-axis simultaneous machining. Thereby new process technologies, tool, and machine concepts are constantly involved. In the NC programming data from different sources such as 3D CAD models, drawings or tables can flow in. The possibilities of NC programming reaches from language-oriented to feature-oriented NC programming. The integrated EXAPT knowledge database and intelligent and scalable automatisms support the user. The EXAPT NC planning also covers the generation of production information as clamping and tool plans, presetting data or time calculations. The realistic simulation possibilities of NC planning and NC control data provide with production reliability. EXAPTpdo (EXAPT ProductionsDataOrganization) provides a neutrally applicable technology platform for the information compound of the NC planning - to the shop floor. This applies to all NC production data that are necessary for the set-up of NC machines, for the provision, presetting, and stocking of manufacturing resources and provided by EXAPTpdo in a central database. Besides classical functions of the tool management system (TMS) as the management of cutting tools, measuring, testing and clamping devices the technology data management and tool lifecycle management (TLM) is also included. System-supported "where-used lists" helps to handle the manufacturing resource cycle by secured requirement determination and requirement fulfillment. Unnecessary transports and unplanned dispositive adjustments are dropped, stocks are reduced, set-up times reduced and the throughput is increased. EXAPTpdo synchronizes involved systems within the value chain. Stock systems, MES systems or ERP systems (e.g. from the purchasing or production areas) do not work in isolation from each other but they interact with each other. EXAPTpdo provides the base to Smart Factory, for more flexibility in production and faster communication. == History == With the foundation of the EXAPT-Verein in 1967 as spin-off of the universities Aachen, Berlin and Stuttgart the further development "EXAPT (EXtended Subset of APT)" of the programming language "APT (Automatically Programmed Tool)" was focused and so the first milestone for the EXAPT history was set. In the same year the system EXAPT 1 for drilling and simple milling tasks became available. 1969 The industrial application of EXAPT 2 for the programming of NC machines with 2-axis linear and path control begins. In the following year, the development of the EXAPT modular system starts. 1972 BASIC-EXAPT is provided for the universal, homogeneous programming of all NC tasks. The support is made by the EXAPT applications consultancy. 1973 EXAPT 1.1 is provided for the programming of straight-cut and continuous-path controlled drilling and milling machines and machining centers. At the Hanover Fair (IHA 73) the interactive access to a mainframe via a time-sharing terminal for the part program entry and correction is presented and starts the replacement of the punch card. 1974 The possibilities for the use of process computers for the NC data transfer are leveled out. EXAPT offers the possibility of the result simulation when using plotters with display of tool paths and tools in assignment to the workpiece. In April 1975, the EXAPT NC Systemtechnik GmbH was founded with the aim, of enabling entry into the NC technique for small and medium-sized companies by a complete product and service program. In the following year, the system portfolio is extended with further system modules and service programs and the provision of postprocessors. 1978 The development activities on the EXAPT module system started in 1970 are completed. Using modern software techniques, the different system parts BASIC-EXAPT, EXAPT 1, EXAPT 1.1, and EXAPT 2 are composed of a total system. System support and applications consultancy become a new working focus. From the beginning to the middle of the 1980s Beside new portable software modules for CAD/CAM applications (e. g. CAPEX, NESTEX, CADEX, CADCPL), the first version of the EXAPT DNC system and extensions of the EXAPT NC programming system for the machining of sculptured surfaces are presented. 1988 EXAPT expands the software product range by systems for tool data management (BMO) and production data management (FDO). EXAPT trains more than 1,300 course participants including company-specific courses. 1992 The first version of the completely new product generation EXAPTplus is presented and the agency in Dresden is opened. 1993 The company name "EXAPT NC Systemtechnik GmbH" is changed to "EXAPT Systemtechnik GmbH." EXAPTplus is presented on PC under Windows NT at the EMO '93. The decentralization of the use of EXAPT systems expands the range of applications. In the following year, EXAPT-DNC is executable under Windows on a customary PC. Special hardware is not needed and so it can be used in compound with the database-supported EXAPT production data management system (FDO). 1995 EXAPTplus is also ready for complex application cases such as machining of tubes at extrusion tools. EXAPT-CADI provides the transfer of 2D CAD data to EXAPTplus. With the new office Gießen the marketing is strengthened. In the following year the EXAPT NC editor is developed for the direct processing of NC control data with tool path display and visualization of the tools. In the course of the market entry of more comfortable 3D CAD systems for the solid modelling of components a detailed evaluation of current systems is made in 1997. It is decided to use SolidWorks as a reference system for the solid-oriented NC planning with EXAPT. 1998 The first solution for the transfer of geometry data between SolidWorks and EXAPTplus is generated. The EXAPT organization systems are (beside SQL) also executable under Oracle now. The use of client server solutions supports the data flow in the production. 1999 AFR functions are provided in connection with EXAPTsolid to support a workpiece modelling for NC. The millennium capability is ensured for all EXAPT systems. AFR is a ground-breaking for the integration of third-party products. 2002 EXAPT-BMG is developed for the generation and visualization of tools with additional functions for the assembly from components. The acquisition of tools with their geometric and technological presentation offers extensive support of the NC planning with EXAPT systems. 2003 EXAPTpdo is available to optimize the process chains in production planning and production execution optimally regarding the increasing requirements of changing production conditions. 2004 Diverse system extensions are made in EXAPTplus, EXAPTsolid, EXAPT NC editor, EXAPTpdo for the complete machining on turning/milling centres with result reliability because of more extensive simulation based on realNC (Tecnomatix), for the use of new complex tool systems and the compound use between ERP systems as SAP and intelligent CNC systems. In the following year, EXAPTpdo is extended for the cross-order set-up optimization and provision of manufacturing re-sources especially for single and small series production with connection to purchase and physical portfolio management. 2006 The EXAPT systems are available for extended use as an information platform for production, the time management, and similar requirements. EXAPTsolid is extended for the feature-oriented milling operation and machine simulation. The NC programming of complex machine tools, e.g. three-turret-turning/milling centers is supported by EXAPT systems, as well as the use of multi-functional tools. 2007 A module for 3-5-axis simultaneous milling machining is presented.