Dependency networks (DNs) are graphical models, similar to Markov networks, wherein each vertex (node) corresponds to a random variable and each edge captures dependencies among variables. Unlike Bayesian networks, DNs may contain cycles. Each node is associated to a conditional probability table, which determines the realization of the random variable given its parents. == Markov blanket == In a Bayesian network, the Markov blanket of a node is the set of parents and children of that node, together with the children's parents. The values of the parents and children of a node evidently give information about that node. However, its children's parents also have to be included in the Markov blanket, because they can be used to explain away the node in question. In a Markov random field, the Markov blanket for a node is simply its adjacent (or neighboring) nodes. In a dependency network, the Markov blanket for a node is simply the set of its parents. == Dependency network versus Bayesian networks == Dependency networks have advantages and disadvantages with respect to Bayesian networks. In particular, they are easier to parameterize from data, as there are efficient algorithms for learning both the structure and probabilities of a dependency network from data. Such algorithms are not available for Bayesian networks, for which the problem of determining the optimal structure is NP-hard. Nonetheless, a dependency network may be more difficult to construct using a knowledge-based approach driven by expert-knowledge. == Dependency networks versus Markov networks == Consistent dependency networks and Markov networks have the same representational power. Nonetheless, it is possible to construct non-consistent dependency networks, i.e., dependency networks for which there is no compatible valid joint probability distribution. Markov networks, in contrast, are always consistent. == Definition == A consistent dependency network for a set of random variables X = ( X 1 , … , X n ) {\textstyle \mathbf {X} =(X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n})} with joint distribution p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} )} is a pair ( G , P ) {\displaystyle (G,P)} where G {\displaystyle G} is a cyclic directed graph, where each of its nodes corresponds to a variable in X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } , and P {\displaystyle P} is a set of conditional probability distributions. The parents of node X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} , denoted P a i {\displaystyle \mathbf {Pa_{i}} } , correspond to those variables P a i ⊆ ( X 1 , … , X i − 1 , X i + 1 , … , X n ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {Pa_{i}} \subseteq (X_{1},\ldots ,X_{i-1},X_{i+1},\ldots ,X_{n})} that satisfy the following independence relationships p ( x i ∣ p a i ) = p ( x i ∣ x 1 , … , x i − 1 , x i + 1 , … , x n ) = p ( x i ∣ x − x i ) . {\displaystyle p(x_{i}\mid \mathbf {pa_{i}} )=p(x_{i}\mid x_{1},\ldots ,x_{i-1},x_{i+1},\ldots ,x_{n})=p(x_{i}\mid \mathbf {x} -{x_{i}}).} The dependency network is consistent in the sense that each local distribution can be obtained from the joint distribution p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {x} )} . Dependency networks learned using large data sets with large sample sizes will almost always be consistent. A non-consistent network is a network for which there is no joint probability distribution compatible with the pair ( G , P ) {\displaystyle (G,P)} . In that case, there is no joint probability distribution that satisfies the independence relationships subsumed by that pair. == Structure and parameters learning == Two important tasks in a dependency network are to learn its structure and probabilities from data. Essentially, the learning algorithm consists of independently performing a probabilistic regression or classification for each variable in the domain. It comes from observation that the local distribution for variable X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} in a dependency network is the conditional distribution p ( x i | x − x i ) {\displaystyle p(x_{i}|\mathbf {x} -{x_{i}})} , which can be estimated by any number of classification or regression techniques, such as methods using a probabilistic decision tree, a neural network or a probabilistic support-vector machine. Hence, for each variable X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} in domain X {\displaystyle X} , we independently estimate its local distribution from data using a classification algorithm, even though it is a distinct method for each variable. Here, we will briefly show how probabilistic decision trees are used to estimate the local distributions. For each variable X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} in X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } , a probabilistic decision tree is learned where X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} is the target variable and X − X i {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} -X_{i}} are the input variables. To learn a decision tree structure for X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} , the search algorithm begins with a singleton root node without children. Then, each leaf node in the tree is replaced with a binary split on some variable X j {\displaystyle X_{j}} in X − X i {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} -X_{i}} , until no more replacements increase the score of the tree. == Probabilistic Inference == A probabilistic inference is the task in which we wish to answer probabilistic queries of the form p ( y ∣ z ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {y\mid z} )} , given a graphical model for X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } , where Y {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} } (the 'target' variables) Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } (the 'input' variables) are disjoint subsets of X {\displaystyle \mathbf {X} } . One of the alternatives for performing probabilistic inference is using Gibbs sampling. A naive approach for this uses an ordered Gibbs sampler, an important difficulty of which is that if either p ( y ∣ z ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {y\mid z} )} or p ( z ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {z} )} is small, then many iterations are required for an accurate probability estimate. Another approach for estimating p ( y ∣ z ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {y\mid z} )} when p ( z ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {z} )} is small is to use modified ordered Gibbs sampler, where Z = z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z=z} } is fixed during Gibbs sampling. It may also happen that y {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} } is rare, e.g. when Y {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} } has many variables. So, the law of total probability along with the independencies encoded in a dependency network can be used to decompose the inference task into a set of inference tasks on single variables. This approach comes with the advantage that some terms may be obtained by direct lookup, thereby avoiding some Gibbs sampling. You can see below an algorithm that can be used for obtain p ( y | z ) {\displaystyle p(\mathbf {y|z} )} for a particular instance of y ∈ Y {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} \in \mathbf {Y} } and z ∈ Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {z} \in \mathbf {Z} } , where Y {\displaystyle \mathbf {Y} } and Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {Z} } are disjoint subsets. Algorithm 1: U := Y {\displaystyle \mathbf {U:=Y} } ( the unprocessed variables ) P := Z {\displaystyle \mathbf {P:=Z} } ( the processed and conditioning variables ) p := z {\displaystyle \mathbf {p:=z} } ( the values for P {\displaystyle \mathbf {P} } ) While U ≠ ∅ {\displaystyle \mathbf {U} \neq \emptyset } : Choose X i ∈ U {\displaystyle X_{i}\in \mathbf {U} } such that X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} has no more parents in U {\displaystyle U} than any variable in U {\displaystyle U} If all the parents of X {\displaystyle X} are in P {\displaystyle \mathbf {P} } p ( x i | p ) := p ( x i | p a i ) {\displaystyle p(x_{i}|\mathbf {p} ):=p(x_{i}|\mathbf {pa_{i}} )} Else Use a modified ordered Gibbs sampler to determine p ( x i | p ) {\displaystyle p(x_{i}|\mathbf {p} )} U := U − X i {\displaystyle \mathbf {U:=U} -X_{i}} P := P + X i {\displaystyle \mathbf {P:=P} +X_{i}} p := p + x i {\displaystyle \mathbf {p:=p} +x_{i}} Returns the product of the conditionals p ( x i | p ) {\displaystyle p(x_{i}|\mathbf {p} )} == Applications == In addition to the applications to probabilistic inference, the following applications are in the category of Collaborative Filtering (CF), which is the task of predicting preferences. Dependency networks are a natural model class on which to base CF predictions, once an algorithm for this task only needs estimation of p ( x i = 1 | x − x i = 0 ) {\displaystyle p(x_{i}=1|\mathbf {x} -{x_{i}}=0)} to produce recommendations. In particular, these estimates may be obtained by a direct lookup in a dependency network. Predicting what movies a person will like based on his or her ratings of movies seen; Predicting what web pages a person will access based on his or her history on the site; Predicting what news stories a person is interested in based on other stories he or she read; Predicting what product a person will buy based on products he or she has already purchased and/or dropped into his or her shopping basket. Another class of useful applications for dependency networks is related to data visualization, that is
Inception score
The Inception Score (IS) is an algorithm used to assess the quality of images created by a generative image model such as a generative adversarial network (GAN). The score is calculated based on the output of a separate, pretrained Inception v3 image classification model applied to a sample of (typically around 30,000) images generated by the generative model. The Inception Score is maximized when the following conditions are true: The entropy of the distribution of labels predicted by the Inceptionv3 model for the generated images is minimized. In other words, the classification model confidently predicts a single label for each image. Intuitively, this corresponds to the desideratum of generated images being "sharp" or "distinct". The predictions of the classification model are evenly distributed across all possible labels. This corresponds to the desideratum that the output of the generative model is "diverse". It has been somewhat superseded by the related Fréchet inception distance. While the Inception Score only evaluates the distribution of generated images, the FID compares the distribution of generated images with the distribution of a set of real images ("ground truth"). == Definition == Let there be two spaces, the space of images Ω X {\displaystyle \Omega _{X}} and the space of labels Ω Y {\displaystyle \Omega _{Y}} . The space of labels is finite. Let p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} be a probability distribution over Ω X {\displaystyle \Omega _{X}} that we wish to judge. Let a discriminator be a function of type p d i s : Ω X → M ( Ω Y ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}:\Omega _{X}\to M(\Omega _{Y})} where M ( Ω Y ) {\displaystyle M(\Omega _{Y})} is the set of all probability distributions on Ω Y {\displaystyle \Omega _{Y}} . For any image x {\displaystyle x} , and any label y {\displaystyle y} , let p d i s ( y | x ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(y|x)} be the probability that image x {\displaystyle x} has label y {\displaystyle y} , according to the discriminator. It is usually implemented as an Inception-v3 network trained on ImageNet. The Inception Score of p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} relative to p d i s {\displaystyle p_{dis}} is I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) := exp ( E x ∼ p g e n [ D K L ( p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ‖ ∫ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) p g e n ( x ) d x ) ] ) {\displaystyle IS(p_{gen},p_{dis}):=\exp \left(\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}\left[D_{KL}\left(p_{dis}(\cdot |x)\|\int p_{dis}(\cdot |x)p_{gen}(x)dx\right)\right]\right)} Equivalent rewrites include ln I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) := E x ∼ p g e n [ D K L ( p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ‖ E x ∼ p g e n [ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ] ) ] {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis}):=\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}\left[D_{KL}\left(p_{dis}(\cdot |x)\|\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[p_{dis}(\cdot |x)]\right)\right]} ln I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) := H [ E x ∼ p g e n [ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ] ] − E x ∼ p g e n [ H [ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) ] ] {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis}):=H[\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[p_{dis}(\cdot |x)]]-\mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[H[p_{dis}(\cdot |x)]]} ln I S {\displaystyle \ln IS} is nonnegative by Jensen's inequality. Pseudocode:INPUT discriminator p d i s {\displaystyle p_{dis}} . INPUT generator g {\displaystyle g} . Sample images x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from generator. Compute p d i s ( ⋅ | x i ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(\cdot |x_{i})} , the probability distribution over labels conditional on image x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} . Sum up the results to obtain p ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {p}}} , an empirical estimate of ∫ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) p g e n ( x ) d x {\displaystyle \int p_{dis}(\cdot |x)p_{gen}(x)dx} . Sample more images x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} from generator, and for each, compute D K L ( p d i s ( ⋅ | x i ) ‖ p ^ ) {\displaystyle D_{KL}\left(p_{dis}(\cdot |x_{i})\|{\hat {p}}\right)} . Average the results, and take its exponential. RETURN the result. === Interpretation === A higher inception score is interpreted as "better", as it means that p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} is a "sharp and distinct" collection of pictures. ln I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) ∈ [ 0 , ln N ] {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis})\in [0,\ln N]} , where N {\displaystyle N} is the total number of possible labels. ln I S ( p g e n , p d i s ) = 0 {\displaystyle \ln IS(p_{gen},p_{dis})=0} iff for almost all x ∼ p g e n {\displaystyle x\sim p_{gen}} p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) = ∫ p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) p g e n ( x ) d x {\displaystyle p_{dis}(\cdot |x)=\int p_{dis}(\cdot |x)p_{gen}(x)dx} That means p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} is completely "indistinct". That is, for any image x {\displaystyle x} sampled from p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} , discriminator returns exactly the same label predictions p d i s ( ⋅ | x ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(\cdot |x)} . The highest inception score N {\displaystyle N} is achieved if and only if the two conditions are both true: For almost all x ∼ p g e n {\displaystyle x\sim p_{gen}} , the distribution p d i s ( y | x ) {\displaystyle p_{dis}(y|x)} is concentrated on one label. That is, H y [ p d i s ( y | x ) ] = 0 {\displaystyle H_{y}[p_{dis}(y|x)]=0} . That is, every image sampled from p g e n {\displaystyle p_{gen}} is exactly classified by the discriminator. For every label y {\displaystyle y} , the proportion of generated images labelled as y {\displaystyle y} is exactly E x ∼ p g e n [ p d i s ( y | x ) ] = 1 N {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} _{x\sim p_{gen}}[p_{dis}(y|x)]={\frac {1}{N}}} . That is, the generated images are equally distributed over all labels.
Best AI Coding Assistants in 2026
Curious about the best AI coding assistant? An AI coding assistant is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI coding assistant slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.
How to Choose an AI Bug Finder
Comparing the best AI bug finder? An AI bug finder is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI bug finder slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
Katia Sycara
Ekaterini Panagiotou Sycara (Greek: Κάτια Συκαρά) is a Greek computer scientist. She is an Edward Fredkin Research Professor of Robotics in the Robotics Institute, School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University internationally known for her research in artificial intelligence, particularly in the fields of negotiation, autonomous agents and multi-agent systems. She directs the Advanced Agent-Robotics Technology Lab at Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. She also serves as academic advisor for PhD students at both Robotics Institute and Tepper School of Business. == Education and early life == Born in Greece, she went to the United States to pursue advanced education through various scholarships, including a Fulbright (1965-1969). She received a B.S. in applied mathematics from Brown University, M.S. in electrical engineering from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, and PhD in computer science from Georgia Institute of Technology. == Research and career == Sycara is a pioneer in the field of semantic web, case-based reasoning, autonomous agents and multi-agent systems. She has authored or co-authored more than 700 technical papers dealing with multi-agent systems, software agents, web services, semantic web, human–computer interaction, human-robot interaction, negotiation, case-based reasoning and the application of these techniques to crisis action planning, scheduling, manufacturing, healthcare management, financial planning and e-commerce.[1] She has led multimillion-dollar research effort funded by DARPA, NASA, AFOSR, ONR, AFRL, NSF and industry. Through an ONR MURI program and though the COABS DARPA program, Prof. Sycara's group has developed the RETSINA multiagent infrastructure, a toolkit that enables the development of heterogeneous software agents that can dynamically coordinate in open information environments (e.g. the Internet). RETSINA has been used in multiple applications including supporting human joint mission teams for crisis response; creating autonomous agents for situation awareness and information fusion; financial portfolio management, negotiations and coalition formation for e-commerce, and coordinating robots for Urban Search and Rescue. Sycara is one of the contributors to the development of OWL-S, the Darpa-sponsored language for Semantic Web services, as well as matchmaking and brokering software for agent discovery, service integration and semantic interoperation. === Academic service === Sycara is the founding Editor-in-Chief of the journal Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems; Editor-in-Chief, of the Springer Series on Agents; and Area Editor of AI and Management Science, the journal "Group Decision and Negotiation." She is a member of the Editorial Board, the Kluwer book series on "Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies and Simulated Organizations"; member of the editorial board, the journals "Agent Oriented Software Engineering", "Web Intelligence and Agent Technologies", "Journal of Infonomics", "Fundamenda Informaticae", and "Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications"; and member of the editorial board of the "ETAI journal on the Semantic Web" (1998–2001). She was on the Editorial Board of "IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications" (1992–1996), and "AI in Engineering" (1990–1996). She is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of France Telecom, 2003-2009; member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Institute of Informatics and Telecommunications of the Greek National Research Center Demokritos, 2004-2012; member of the AAAI Executive Council (1996–99); member of the OASIS Technical committee on the development of UDDI (Universal Description and Discovery for Interoperability) software which is an industry standard; and an invited expert for W3C (the World Wide Web Consortium) Working Group on Web Services Architecture. She was a founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Foundation of Multiagent Systems (IFMAS), and founding member of the Semantic Web Science Association. Sycara served as the program chair of the Second International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2003); general chair, of the Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents 98); chair of the Steering Committee of the Agents Conference (1999–2001); scholarship chair of AAAI (1993–1999); and the US co-chair for the US-Europe Semantic Web Services Initiative. === Awards and honors === Sycara is a Fellow of Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and a Fellow of American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). Sycara is the recipient of the 2002 ACM/SIGART Agents Research Award. She is also the recipient of the 2015 Group Decision and Negotiation (GDN) Award of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) GDN Section for her outstanding contributions to the field of group decision and negotiation. According to the citation of the award: Katia Sycara is widely acknowledged as one of the leading researchers in the field of autonomous software agents and in particular on problems related to joint decision making and negotiations of such agents. Her work is characterized by a unique combination of methods from Artificial Intelligence and research on human negotiations, and thus has contributed to significant advances in both fields. Sycara's robot teams have won multiple international awards. In the 2005 Robocup Urban Search and Rescue (US Open) held in Atlanta, her team won the First-in-Class Award for Autonomy, and the First-in-Class Award for Mobility. Two years later, again in Atlanta, she led another team that became a world champions in the 2007 International Robocup Search and Rescue Simulation League Competition. In 2008, her robotic team placed third in the Worldwide Robocup Championship Competition in the Urban Search and Rescue Virtual robots League held in Beijing, China. In 2005, she received the Outstanding Alumnus Award from the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. She was awarded an Honorary Doctorate from the University of the Aegean in 2004.
Lesk algorithm
The Lesk algorithm is a classical algorithm for word sense disambiguation introduced by Michael E. Lesk in 1986. It operates on the premise that words within a given context are likely to share a common meaning. This algorithm compares the dictionary definitions of an ambiguous word with the words in its surrounding context to determine the most appropriate sense. Variations, such as the Simplified Lesk algorithm, have demonstrated improved precision and efficiency. However, the Lesk algorithm has faced criticism for its sensitivity to definition wording and its reliance on brief glosses. Researchers have sought to enhance its accuracy by incorporating additional resources like thesauruses and syntactic models. == Overview == The Lesk algorithm is based on the assumption that words in a given "neighborhood" (section of text) will tend to share a common topic. A simplified version of the Lesk algorithm is to compare the dictionary definition of an ambiguous word with the terms contained in its neighborhood. Versions have been adapted to use WordNet. An implementation might look like this: for every sense of the word being disambiguated one should count the number of words that are in both the neighborhood of that word and in the dictionary definition of that sense the sense that is to be chosen is the sense that has the largest number of this count. A frequently used example illustrating this algorithm is for the context "pine cone". The following dictionary definitions are used: PINE 1. kinds of evergreen tree with needle-shaped leaves 2. waste away through sorrow or illness CONE 1. solid body which narrows to a point 2. something of this shape whether solid or hollow 3. fruit of certain evergreen trees As can be seen, the best intersection is Pine #1 ⋂ Cone #3 = 2. == Simplified Lesk algorithm == In Simplified Lesk algorithm, the correct meaning of each word in a given context is determined individually by locating the sense that overlaps the most between its dictionary definition and the given context. Rather than simultaneously determining the meanings of all words in a given context, this approach tackles each word individually, independent of the meaning of the other words occurring in the same context. "A comparative evaluation performed by Vasilescu et al. (2004) has shown that the simplified Lesk algorithm can significantly outperform the original definition of the algorithm, both in terms of precision and efficiency. By evaluating the disambiguation algorithms on the Senseval-2 English all words data, they measure a 58% precision using the simplified Lesk algorithm compared to the only 42% under the original algorithm. Note: Vasilescu et al. implementation considers a back-off strategy for words not covered by the algorithm, consisting of the most frequent sense defined in WordNet. This means that words for which all their possible meanings lead to zero overlap with current context or with other word definitions are by default assigned sense number one in WordNet." Simplified LESK Algorithm with smart default word sense (Vasilescu et al., 2004) The COMPUTEOVERLAP function returns the number of words in common between two sets, ignoring function words or other words on a stop list. The original Lesk algorithm defines the context in a more complex way. == Criticisms == Unfortunately, Lesk’s approach is very sensitive to the exact wording of definitions, so the absence of a certain word can radically change the results. Further, the algorithm determines overlaps only among the glosses of the senses being considered. This is a significant limitation in that dictionary glosses tend to be fairly short and do not provide sufficient vocabulary to relate fine-grained sense distinctions. A lot of work has appeared offering different modifications of this algorithm. These works use other resources for analysis (thesauruses, synonyms dictionaries or morphological and syntactic models): for instance, it may use such information as synonyms, different derivatives, or words from definitions of words from definitions. == Lesk variants == Original Lesk (Lesk, 1986) Adapted/Extended Lesk (Banerjee and Pederson, 2002/2003): In the adaptive lesk algorithm, a word vector is created corresponds to every content word in the wordnet gloss. Concatenating glosses of related concepts in WordNet can be used to augment this vector. The vector contains the co-occurrence counts of words co-occurring with w in a large corpus. Adding all the word vectors for all the content words in its gloss creates the Gloss vector g for a concept. Relatedness is determined by comparing the gloss vector using the Cosine similarity measure. There are a lot of studies concerning Lesk and its extensions: Wilks and Stevenson, 1998, 1999; Mahesh et al., 1997; Cowie et al., 1992; Yarowsky, 1992; Pook and Catlett, 1988; Kilgarriff and Rosensweig, 2000; Kwong, 2001; Nastase and Szpakowicz, 2001; Gelbukh and Sidorov, 2004.
Salvatore J. Stolfo
Salvatore J. Stolfo is an academic and professor of computer science at Columbia University, specializing in computer security. == Early life == Born in Brooklyn, New York, Stolfo received a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science and Mathematics from Brooklyn College in 1974. He received his Ph.D. from NYU Courant Institute in 1979 and has been on the faculty of Columbia ever since, where he's taught courses in Artificial Intelligence, Intrusion and Anomaly Detection Systems, Introduction to Programming, Fundamental Algorithms, Data Structures, and Knowledge-Based Expert Systems. == Academic research == While at Columbia, Stolfo has received close to $50M in funding for research that has broadly focused on Security, Intrusion Detection, Anomaly Detection, Machine Learning and includes early work in parallel computing and artificial intelligence. He has published or co-authored over 250 papers and has over 46,000 citations with an H-index of 102. In 1996 he proposed a project with DARPA that applies machine learning to behavioral patterns to detect fraud or intrusion in networks. DADO, developed by in part by Stolfo, introduced the parallel computing primitive: “Broadcast, Resolve, Report”, a hardwire implemented mechanism that today is called MapReduce. Among his earliest work, Stolfo along with colleague Greg Vesonder of Bell Labs, developed a large-scale expert data analysis system, called ACE (Automated Cable Expertise) for the nation's phone system. AT&T Bell Labs distributed ACE to a number of telephone wire centers to improve the management and scheduling of repairs in the local loop. Stolfo coined the term FOG computing (not to be confused with fog computing) where technology is used “to launch disinformation attacks against malicious insiders, preventing them from distinguishing the real sensitive customer data from fake worthless data.” In 2005 Stolfo received funding from the Army Research Office to conduct a workshop to bring together a group of researchers to help identify a research program to focus on insider threats. He was elevated to IEEE Fellow in 2018 "for his contributions to machine learning based cybersecurity." He was elected as an ACM Fellow in 2019 "for contributions to machine-learning-based cybersecurity and parallel hardware for database inference systems". == Career == Founded in 2011, Red Balloon Security (or RBS) is a cyber security company founded by Dr Sal Stolfo and Dr Ang Cui. A spinout from the IDS lab, RBS developed a symbiote technology called FRAK as a host defense for embedded systems under the sponsorship of DARPA's Cyber Fast Track program. Created based on their IDS lab research for the DARPA Active Authentication and the Anomaly Detection at Multiple Scales program, Dr Sal Stolfo and Dr. Angelos Keromytis founded Allure Security Technologies. Using active behavioral authentication and decoy technology Stolfo pioneered and patented in 1996. Founded in 2009, Allure Security Technology was created based on work done under DARPA sponsorship in Columbia's IDS lab based on DARPA prompts to research how to detect hackers once they are inside an organization's perimeter and how to continuously authenticate a user without a password. Stolfo's company Electronic Digital Documents produced a “DataBlade” technology, which Informix marketed during their strategy of acquisition and development in the mid 80's. Stolfo's patented merge/purge technology called EDD DataCleanser DataBlade was licensed by Informix. Since its acquisition by IBM in 2005, IBM Informix is one of the world's most widely used database servers, with users ranging from the world's largest corporations to startups. System Detection was one of the companies founded by Prof. Stolfo to commercialize the Anomaly Detection technology developed in the IDS lab. The company ultimately reorganized and was rebranded as Trusted Computer Solutions. That company was recently acquired by Raytheon. Recently a jury awarded Columbia University $185 million for patent infringement for one of Prof. Stolfo's inventions, the Application Communities technology. https://news.columbia.edu/news/columbia-university-awarded-185-million-patent-infringement-nortonlifelock-inc. The final order from the judge applied nearly treble damages: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/gen-digital-owes-columbia-481-mln-us-patent-fight-judge-says-2023-10-02/