Text simplification is an aspect of natural language processing that involves modifying, organizing, or categorizing existing text to make it easier to understand while retaining its original meaning. This process is essential in today's world, where communication is increasingly complex due to advancements in science, technology, and media. Human languages are inherently intricate, with extensive vocabularies and complex structures that can be challenging for machines to handle efficiently. Researchers have found that semantic compression techniques can help streamline and simplify text by reducing linguistic diversity and simplifying the vocabulary used in a given context. == Example == Text simplification involves modifying complex sentences into simpler ones to enhance readability and comprehension. Siddharthan (2006) provides an example to illustrate this process. The original sentence contains multiple clauses and phrases, which can be broken down into simpler sentences for better understanding. Also contributing to the firmness in copper, the analyst noted, was a report by Chicago purchasing agents, which precedes the full purchasing agents report that is due out today and gives an indication of what the full report might hold. Also contributing to the firmness in copper, the analyst noted, was a report by Chicago purchasing agents. The Chicago report precedes the full purchasing agents report. The Chicago report gives an indication of what the full report might hold. The full report is due out today. An approach to text simplification involves lexical simplification via lexical substitution, a process that replaces complex words with simpler synonyms. Identifying complex words is a challenge addressed by machine learning classifiers trained on labeled data. Researchers have found that asking labelers to sort words by complexity levels yields more consistent results than the traditional method of categorizing words as simple or complex.
Trazzler
Trazzler is a travel destination app that specializes in unique and local destinations. The initial concept was developed by Adam Rugel and Biz Stone in 2006 at Twitter's original offices under the name "71 miles". More than 10,000 writers and photographers have contributed and more than $350,000 in freelance contracts have been issued as a result of Trazzeler's weekly writing and photography contests. Investors in the company include SV Angel, AOL Founder Steve Case, and the Twitter founders, Evan Williams, Jack Dorsey, and Biz Stone. The company's partners are the City of Chicago, Hawaii Tourism Authority, Fairmont Hotels & Resorts, Salon.com, and Air New Zealand. Trazzler is designed for use on the iOS, Android, and Facebook.
Mivar-based approach
The Mivar-based approach is a mathematical tool for designing artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Mivar (Multidimensional Informational Variable Adaptive Reality) was developed by combining production and Petri nets. The Mivar-based approach was developed for semantic analysis and adequate representation of humanitarian epistemological and axiological principles in the process of developing artificial intelligence. The Mivar-based approach incorporates computer science, informatics and discrete mathematics, databases, expert systems, graph theory, matrices and inference systems. The Mivar-based approach involves two technologies: Information accumulation is a method of creating global evolutionary data-and-rules bases with variable structure. It works on the basis of adaptive, discrete, mivar-oriented information space, unified data and rules representation, based on three main concepts: “object, property, relation”. Information accumulation is designed to store any information with possible evolutionary structure and without limitations concerning the amount of information and forms of its presentation. Data processing is a method of creating a logical inference system or automated algorithm construction from modules, services or procedures on the basis of a trained mivar network of rules with linear computational complexity. Mivar data processing includes logical inference, computational procedures and services. Mivar networks allow us to develop cause-effect dependencies (“If-then”) and create an automated, trained, logical reasoning system. Representatives of Russian association for artificial intelligence (RAAI) – for example, V. I. Gorodecki, doctor of technical science, professor at SPIIRAS and V. N. Vagin, doctor of technical science, professor at MPEI declared that the term is incorrect and suggested that the author should use standard terminology. == History == While working in the Russian Ministry of Defense, O. O. Varlamov started developing the theory of “rapid logical inference” in 1985. He was analyzing Petri nets and productions to construct algorithms. Generally, mivar-based theory represents an attempt to combine entity-relationship models and their problem instance – semantic networks and Petri networks. The abbreviation MIVAR was introduced as a technical term by O. O. Varlamov, Doctor of Technical Science, professor at Bauman MSTU in 1993 to designate a “semantic unit” in the process of mathematical modeling. The term has been established and used in all of his further works. The first experimental systems operating according to mivar-based principles were developed in 2000. Applied mivar systems were introduced in 2015. == Mivar == Mivar is the smallest structural element of discrete information space. == Object-property-relation == Object-Property-Relation (VSO) is a graph, the nodes of which are concepts and arcs are connections between concepts. Mivar space represents a set of axes, a set of elements, a set of points of space and a set of values of points. A = { a n } , n = 1 , … , N , {\displaystyle A=\{a_{n}\},n=1,\ldots ,N,} where: A {\displaystyle A} is a set of mivar space axis names; N {\displaystyle N} is a number of mivar space axes. Then: ∀ a n ∃ F n = { f n i n } , n = 1 , … , N , i n = 1 , … , I n , {\displaystyle \forall a_{n}\exists F_{n}=\{f_{{ni}_{n}}\},n=1,\ldots ,N,i_{n}=1,\ldots ,I_{n},} where: F n {\displaystyle F_{n}} is a set of axis a n {\displaystyle a_{n}} elements; i n {\displaystyle i_{n}} is a set F n {\displaystyle F_{n}} element identifier; I n = | F n | . {\displaystyle I_{n}=|F_{n}|.} F n {\displaystyle F_{n}} sets form multidimensional space: M = F 1 × F 2 × ⋯ × F n . {\displaystyle M=F_{1}\times F_{2}\times \cdots \times F_{n}.} m = ( i 1 , i 2 , … , i N ) , {\displaystyle m=(i_{1},i_{2},\ldots ,i_{N}),} where: m ∈ M {\displaystyle m\in M} ; m {\displaystyle m} is a point of multidimensional space; ( i 1 , i 2 , … , i N ) {\displaystyle (i_{1},i_{2},\ldots ,i_{N})} are coordinates of point m {\displaystyle m} . There is a set of values of multidimensional space points of M {\displaystyle M} : C M = { c i 1 , i 2 , … , i N ∣ i 1 = 1 , … , I 1 , i 2 = 1 , … , I 2 , … , i n = 1 , … , I N } , {\displaystyle C_{M}=\{c_{i_{1},i_{2},\ldots ,i_{N}}\mid i_{1}=1,\ldots ,I_{1},i_{2}=1,\ldots ,I_{2},\ldots ,i_{n}=1,\ldots ,I_{N}\},} where: c i 1 , i 2 , … , i N {\displaystyle c_{i_{1},i_{2},\ldots ,i_{N}}} is a value of the point of multidimensional space M {\displaystyle M} is a value of the point of multidimensional space ( i 1 , i 2 , … , i N ) {\displaystyle (i_{1},i_{2},\ldots ,i_{N})} . For every point of space M {\displaystyle M} there is a single value from C M {\displaystyle C_{M}} set or there is no such value. Thus, C M {\displaystyle C_{M}} is a set of data model state changes represented in multidimensional space. To implement a transition between multidimensional space and set of points values the relation μ {\displaystyle \mu } has been introduced: C x = μ ( M x ) , {\displaystyle C_{x}=\mu (M_{x}),} where: M x ⊆ M ; {\displaystyle M_{x}\subseteq M;} M x = F 1 x × F 2 x × ⋯ × F N x . {\displaystyle M_{x}=F_{1x}\times F_{2x}\times \cdots \times F_{Nx}.} To describe a data model in mivar information space it is necessary to identify three axes: The axis of relations « O {\displaystyle O} »; The axis of attributes (properties) « S {\displaystyle S} »; The axis of elements (objects) of subject domain « V {\displaystyle V} ». These sets are independent. The mivar space can be represented by the following tuple: ⟨ V , S , O ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle V,S,O\rangle } Thus, mivar is described by « V S O {\displaystyle VSO} » formula, in which « V {\displaystyle V} » denotes an object or a thing, « S {\displaystyle S} » denotes properties, « O {\displaystyle O} » variety of relations between other objects of a particular subject domain. The category “Relations” can describe dependencies of any complexity level: formulae, logical transitions, text expressions, functions, services, computational procedures and even neural networks. A wide range of capabilities complicates description of modeling interconnections, but can take into consideration all the factors. Mivar computations use mathematical logic. In a simplified form they can be represented as implication in the form of an "if…, then …” formula. The result of mivar modeling can be represented in the form of a bipartite graph binding two sets of objects: source objects and resultant objects. == Mivar network == Mivar network is a method for representing objects of the subject domain and their processing rules in the form of a bipartite directed graph consisting of objects and rules. A Mivar network is a bipartite graph that can be described in the form of a two-dimensional matrix, in that records information about the subject domain of the current task. Generally, mivar networks provide formalization and representation of human knowledge in the form of a connected multidimensional space. That is, a mivar network is a method of representing a piece of mivar space information in the form of a bipartite, directed graph. The mivar space information is formed by objects and connections, which in total represent the data model of the subject domain. Connections include rules for objects processing. Thus, a mivar network of a subject domain is a part of the mivar space knowledge for that domain. The graph can consist of objects-variables and rules-procedures. First, two lists are made that form two nonintersecting partitions: the list of objects and the list of rules. Objects are denoted by circles. Each rule in a mivar network is an extension of productions, hyper-rules with multi-activators or computational procedures. It is proved that from the perspective of further processing, these formalisms are identical and in fact are nodes of the bipartite graph, denoted by rectangles. === Multi-dimensional binary matrices === Mivar networks can be implemented on single computing systems or service-oriented architectures. Certain constraints restrict their application, in particular, the dimension of matrix of linear matrix method for determining logical inference path on the adaptive rule networks. The matrix dimension constraint is due to the fact that implementation requires sending a general matrix to multiple processors. Since every matrix value is initially represented in symbol form, the amount of sent data is crucial when obtaining, for example, 10000 rules/variables. Classical mivar-based method requires storing three values in each matrix cell: 0 – no value; x – input variable for the rule; y – output variable for the rule. The analysis of possibility of firing a rule is separated from determining output variables according to stages after firing the rule. Consequently, it is possible to use different matrices for “search for fired rules” and “setting values for output variables”. This allowsthe use of multidimensional binary m
Autonomic computing
Autonomic computing (AC) is distributed computing resources with self-managing characteristics, adapting to unpredictable changes while hiding intrinsic complexity to operators and users. Initiated by IBM in 2001, this initiative ultimately aimed to develop computer systems capable of self-management, to overcome the rapidly growing complexity of computing systems management, and to reduce the barrier that complexity poses to further growth. == Description == The AC system concept is designed to make adaptive decisions, using high-level policies. It will constantly check and optimize its status and automatically adapt itself to changing conditions. An autonomic computing framework is composed of autonomic components (AC) interacting with each other. An AC can be modeled in terms of two main control schemes (local and global) with sensors (for self-monitoring), effectors (for self-adjustment), knowledge and planner/adapter for exploiting policies based on self- and environment awareness. This architecture is sometimes referred to as Monitor-Analyze-Plan-Execute (MAPE). Driven by such vision, a variety of architectural frameworks based on "self-regulating" autonomic components has been recently proposed. A similar trend has recently characterized significant research in the area of multi-agent systems. However, most of these approaches are typically conceived with centralized or cluster-based server architectures in mind and mostly address the need of reducing management costs rather than the need of enabling complex software systems or providing innovative services. Some autonomic systems involve mobile agents interacting via loosely coupled communication mechanisms. Autonomy-oriented computation is a paradigm proposed by Jiming Liu in 2001 that uses artificial systems imitating social animals' collective behaviours to solve difficult computational problems. For example, ant colony optimization could be studied in this paradigm. == Problem of growing complexity == Forecasts suggested that the computing devices in use would grow at 38% per year and the average complexity of each device was increasing. This volume and complexity was managed by highly skilled humans; but the demand for skilled IT personnel was already outstripping supply, with labour costs exceeding equipment costs by a ratio of up to 18:1. Computing systems have brought great benefits of speed and automation but there is now an overwhelming economic need to automate their maintenance. In a 2003 IEEE Computer article, Kephart and Chess warn that the dream of interconnectivity of computing systems and devices could become the "nightmare of pervasive computing" in which architects are unable to anticipate, design and maintain the complexity of interactions. They state the essence of autonomic computing is system self-management, freeing administrators from low-level task management while delivering better system behavior. A general problem of modern distributed computing systems is that their complexity, and in particular the complexity of their management, is becoming a significant limiting factor in their further development. Large companies and institutions are employing large-scale computer networks for communication and computation. The distributed applications running on these computer networks are diverse and deal with multiple tasks, ranging from internal control processes to presenting web content to customer support. Additionally, mobile computing is pervading these networks at an increasing speed: employees need to communicate with their companies while they are not in their office. They do so by using laptops, personal digital assistants, or mobile phones with diverse forms of wireless technologies to access their companies' data. This creates an enormous complexity in the overall computer network which is hard to control manually by human operators. Manual control is time-consuming, expensive, and error-prone. The manual effort needed to control a growing networked computer-system tends to increase quickly. 80% of such problems in infrastructure happen at the client specific application and database layer. Most 'autonomic' service providers guarantee only up to the basic plumbing layer (power, hardware, operating system, network and basic database parameters). == Characteristics of autonomic systems == A possible solution could be to enable modern, networked computing systems to manage themselves without direct human intervention. The Autonomic Computing Initiative (ACI) aims at providing the foundation for autonomic systems. It is inspired by the autonomic nervous system of the human body. This nervous system controls important bodily functions (e.g. respiration, heart rate, and blood pressure) without any conscious intervention. In a self-managing autonomic system, the human operator takes on a new role: instead of controlling the system directly, he/she defines general policies and rules that guide the self-management process. For this process, IBM defined the following four types of property referred to as self-star (also called self-, self-x, or auto-) properties. Self-configuration: Automatic configuration of components; Self-healing: Automatic discovery, and correction of faults; Self-optimization: Automatic monitoring and control of resources to ensure the optimal functioning with respect to the defined requirements; Self-protection: Proactive identification and protection from arbitrary attacks. Others such as Poslad and Nami and Sharifi have expanded on the set of self-star as follows: Self-regulation: A system that operates to maintain some parameter, e.g., Quality of service, within a reset range without external control; Self-learning: Systems use machine learning techniques such as unsupervised learning which does not require external control; Self-awareness (also called Self-inspection and Self-decision): System must know itself. It must know the extent of its own resources and the resources it links to. A system must be aware of its internal components and external links in order to control and manage them; Self-organization: System structure driven by physics-type models without explicit pressure or involvement from outside the system; Self-creation (also called Self-assembly, Self-replication): System driven by ecological and social type models without explicit pressure or involvement from outside the system. A system's members are self-motivated and self-driven, generating complexity and order in a creative response to a continuously changing strategic demand; Self-management (also called self-governance): A system that manages itself without external intervention. What is being managed can vary dependent on the system and application. Self -management also refers to a set of self-star processes such as autonomic computing rather than a single self-star process; Self-description (also called self-explanation or Self-representation): A system explains itself. It is capable of being understood (by humans) without further explanation. IBM has set forth eight conditions that define an autonomic system: The system must know itself in terms of what resources it has access to, what its capabilities and limitations are and how and why it is connected to other systems; be able to automatically configure and reconfigure itself depending on the changing computing environment; be able to optimize its performance to ensure the most efficient computing process; be able to work around encountered problems by either repairing itself or routing functions away from the trouble; detect, identify and protect itself against various types of attacks to maintain overall system security and integrity; adapt to its environment as it changes, interacting with neighboring systems and establishing communication protocols; rely on open standards and cannot exist in a proprietary environment; anticipate the demand on its resources while staying transparent to users. Even though the purpose and thus the behaviour of autonomic systems vary from system to system, every autonomic system should be able to exhibit a minimum set of properties to achieve its purpose: Automatic: This essentially means being able to self-control its internal functions and operations. As such, an autonomic system must be self-contained and able to start-up and operate without any manual intervention or external help. Again, the knowledge required to bootstrap the system (Know-how) must be inherent to the system. Adaptive: An autonomic system must be able to change its operation (i.e., its configuration, state and functions). This will allow the system to cope with temporal and spatial changes in its operational context either long term (environment customisation/optimisation) or short term (exceptional conditions such as malicious attacks, faults, etc.). Aware: An autonomic system must be able to monitor (sense) its operational context as well as its internal state in order to be able to asses
Fuzzy architectural spatial analysis
Fuzzy architectural spatial analysis (FASA) (also fuzzy inference system (FIS) based architectural space analysis or fuzzy spatial analysis) is a spatial analysis method of analysing the spatial formation and architectural space intensity within any architectural organization. Fuzzy architectural spatial analysis is used in architecture, interior design, urban planning and similar spatial design fields. == Overview == Fuzzy architectural spatial analysis was developed by Burcin Cem Arabacioglu (2010) from the architectural theories of space syntax and visibility graph analysis, and is applied with the help of a fuzzy system with a Mamdani inference system based on fuzzy logic within any architectural space. Fuzzy architectural spatial analysis model analyses the space by considering the perceivable architectural element by their boundary and stress characteristics and intensity properties. The method is capable of taking all sensorial factors into account during analyses in conformably with the perception process of architectural space which is a multi-sensorial act.
Eigenface
An eigenface ( EYE-gən-) is the name given to a set of eigenvectors when used in the computer vision problem of human face recognition. The approach of using eigenfaces for recognition was developed by Sirovich and Kirby and used by Matthew Turk and Alex Pentland in face classification. The eigenvectors are derived from the covariance matrix of the probability distribution over the high-dimensional vector space of face images. The eigenfaces themselves form a basis set of all images used to construct the covariance matrix. This produces dimension reduction by allowing the smaller set of basis images to represent the original training images. Classification can be achieved by comparing how faces are represented by the basis set. == History == The eigenface approach began with a search for a low-dimensional representation of face images. Sirovich and Kirby showed that principal component analysis could be used on a collection of face images to form a set of basis features. These basis images, known as eigenpictures, could be linearly combined to reconstruct images in the original training set. If the training set consists of M images, principal component analysis could form a basis set of N images, where N < M. The reconstruction error is reduced by increasing the number of eigenpictures; however, the number needed is always chosen less than M. For example, if you need to generate a number of N eigenfaces for a training set of M face images, you can say that each face image can be made up of "proportions" of all the K "features" or eigenfaces: Face image1 = (23% of E1) + (2% of E2) + (51% of E3) + ... + (1% En). In 1991 M. Turk and A. Pentland expanded these results and presented the eigenface method of face recognition. In addition to designing a system for automated face recognition using eigenfaces, they showed a way of calculating the eigenvectors of a covariance matrix such that computers of the time could perform eigen-decomposition on a large number of face images. Face images usually occupy a high-dimensional space and conventional principal component analysis was intractable on such data sets. Turk and Pentland's paper demonstrated ways to extract the eigenvectors based on matrices sized by the number of images rather than the number of pixels. Once established, the eigenface method was expanded to include methods of preprocessing to improve accuracy. Multiple manifold approaches were also used to build sets of eigenfaces for different subjects and different features, such as the eyes. == Generation == A set of eigenfaces can be generated by performing a mathematical process called principal component analysis (PCA) on a large set of images depicting different human faces. Informally, eigenfaces can be considered a set of "standardized face ingredients", derived from statistical analysis of many pictures of faces. Any human face can be considered to be a combination of these standard faces. For example, one's face might be composed of the average face plus 10% from eigenface 1, 55% from eigenface 2, and even −3% from eigenface 3. Remarkably, it does not take many eigenfaces combined together to achieve a fair approximation of most faces. Also, because a person's face is not recorded by a digital photograph, but instead as just a list of values (one value for each eigenface in the database used), much less space is taken for each person's face. The eigenfaces that are created will appear as light and dark areas that are arranged in a specific pattern. This pattern is how different features of a face are singled out to be evaluated and scored. There will be a pattern to evaluate symmetry, whether there is any style of facial hair, where the hairline is, or an evaluation of the size of the nose or mouth. Other eigenfaces have patterns that are less simple to identify, and the image of the eigenface may look very little like a face. The technique used in creating eigenfaces and using them for recognition is also used outside of face recognition: handwriting recognition, lip reading, voice recognition, sign language/hand gestures interpretation and medical imaging analysis. Therefore, some do not use the term eigenface, but prefer to use 'eigenimage'. === Practical implementation === To create a set of eigenfaces, one must: Prepare a training set of face images. The pictures constituting the training set should have been taken under the same lighting conditions, and must be normalized to have the eyes and mouths aligned across all images. They must also be all resampled to a common pixel resolution (r × c). Each image is treated as one vector, simply by concatenating the rows of pixels in the original image, resulting in a single column with r × c elements. For this implementation, it is assumed that all images of the training set are stored in a single matrix T, where each column of the matrix is an image. Subtract the mean. The average image a has to be calculated and then subtracted from each original image in T. Calculate the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the covariance matrix S. Each eigenvector has the same dimensionality (number of components) as the original images, and thus can itself be seen as an image. The eigenvectors of this covariance matrix are therefore called eigenfaces. They are the directions in which the images differ from the mean image. Usually this will be a computationally expensive step (if at all possible), but the practical applicability of eigenfaces stems from the possibility to compute the eigenvectors of S efficiently, without ever computing S explicitly, as detailed below. Choose the principal components. Sort the eigenvalues in descending order and arrange eigenvectors accordingly. The number of principal components k is determined arbitrarily by setting a threshold ε on the total variance. Total variance v = ( λ 1 + λ 2 + . . . + λ n ) {\displaystyle v=(\lambda _{1}+\lambda _{2}+...+\lambda _{n})} , n = number of components, and λ {\displaystyle \lambda } represents component eigenvalue. k is the smallest number that satisfies ( λ 1 + λ 2 + . . . + λ k ) v > ϵ {\displaystyle {\frac {(\lambda _{1}+\lambda _{2}+...+\lambda _{k})}{v}}>\epsilon } These eigenfaces can now be used to represent both existing and new faces: we can project a new (mean-subtracted) image on the eigenfaces and thereby record how that new face differs from the mean face. The eigenvalues associated with each eigenface represent how much the images in the training set vary from the mean image in that direction. Information is lost by projecting the image on a subset of the eigenvectors, but losses are minimized by keeping those eigenfaces with the largest eigenvalues. For instance, working with a 100 × 100 image will produce 10,000 eigenvectors. In practical applications, most faces can typically be identified using a projection on between 100 and 150 eigenfaces, so that most of the 10,000 eigenvectors can be discarded. === Matlab example code === Here is an example of calculating eigenfaces with Extended Yale Face Database B. To evade computational and storage bottleneck, the face images are sampled down by a factor 4×4=16. Note that although the covariance matrix S generates many eigenfaces, only a fraction of those are needed to represent the majority of the faces. For example, to represent 95% of the total variation of all face images, only the first 43 eigenfaces are needed. To calculate this result, implement the following code: === Computing the eigenvectors === Performing PCA directly on the covariance matrix of the images is often computationally infeasible. If small images are used, say 100 × 100 pixels, each image is a point in a 10,000-dimensional space and the covariance matrix S is a matrix of 10,000 × 10,000 = 108 elements. However the rank of the covariance matrix is limited by the number of training examples: if there are N training examples, there will be at most N − 1 eigenvectors with non-zero eigenvalues. If the number of training examples is smaller than the dimensionality of the images, the principal components can be computed more easily as follows. Let T be the matrix of preprocessed training examples, where each column contains one mean-subtracted image. The covariance matrix can then be computed as S = TTT and the eigenvector decomposition of S is given by S v i = T T T v i = λ i v i {\displaystyle \mathbf {Sv} _{i}=\mathbf {T} \mathbf {T} ^{T}\mathbf {v} _{i}=\lambda _{i}\mathbf {v} _{i}} However TTT is a large matrix, and if instead we take the eigenvalue decomposition of T T T u i = λ i u i {\displaystyle \mathbf {T} ^{T}\mathbf {T} \mathbf {u} _{i}=\lambda _{i}\mathbf {u} _{i}} then we notice that by pre-multiplying both sides of the equation with T, we obtain T T T T u i = λ i T u i {\displaystyle \mathbf {T} \mathbf {T} ^{T}\mathbf {T} \mathbf {u} _{i}=\lambda _{i}\mathbf {T} \mathbf {u} _{i}} Meaning that, if ui is an eigenvector of TTT, then vi = Tui is an eigenvector of S. If we have
Algorithmic accountability
Algorithmic accountability refers to the allocation of responsibility for the consequences of real-world actions influenced by algorithms used in decision-making processes. Ideally, algorithms should be designed to eliminate bias from their decision-making outcomes. This means they ought to evaluate only relevant characteristics of the input data, avoiding distinctions based on attributes that are generally inappropriate in social contexts, such as an individual's ethnicity in legal judgments. However, adherence to this principle is not always guaranteed, and there are instances where individuals may be adversely affected by algorithmic decisions. Responsibility for any harm resulting from a machine's decision may lie with the algorithm itself or with the individuals who designed it, particularly if the decision resulted from bias or flawed data analysis inherent in the algorithm's design. == Algorithm usage == Algorithms are widely utilized across various sectors of society that incorporate computational techniques in their control systems. These applications span numerous industries, including but not limited to medical, transportation, and payment services. In these contexts, algorithms perform functions such as: Approving or denying credit card applications; Approving or denying immigrant visas; Determining which taxpayers will be audited on their income taxes; Managing systems that control self-driving cars on a highway; Scoring individuals as potential criminals for use in legal proceedings; Search engines that match and rank database and internet search results; Recommendation systems that filter which news, entertainment, or purchase items are featured in a feed; Market-making algorithms that match sellers and buyers, such as in transportation (ride-hailing) or financial platforms. However, the implementation of these algorithms can be complex and opaque. Generally, algorithms function as "black boxes," meaning that the specific processes an input undergoes during execution are often not transparent, with users typically only seeing the resulting output. This lack of transparency raises concerns about potential biases within the algorithms, as the parameters influencing decision-making may not be well understood. The outputs generated can lead to perceptions of bias, especially if individuals in similar circumstances receive different results. According to Nicholas Diakopoulos: But these algorithms can make mistakes. They have biases. Yet they sit in opaque black boxes, their inner workings, their inner “thoughts” hidden behind layers of complexity. We need to get inside that black box, to understand how they may be exerting power on us, and to understand where they might be making unjust mistakes == Wisconsin Supreme Court case == Algorithms are prevalent across various fields and significantly influence decisions that affect the population at large. Their underlying structures and parameters often remain unknown to those impacted by their outcomes. A notable case illustrating this issue is a recent ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court concerning "risk assessment" algorithms used in criminal justice. The court determined that scores generated by such algorithms, which analyze multiple parameters from individuals, should not be used as a determining factor for arresting an accused individual. Furthermore, the court mandated that all reports submitted to judges must include information regarding the accuracy of the algorithm used to compute these scores. This ruling is regarded as a noteworthy development in how society should manage software that makes consequential decisions, highlighting the importance of reliability, particularly in complex settings like the legal system. The use of algorithms in these contexts necessitates a high degree of impartiality in processing input data. However, experts note that there is still considerable work to be done to ensure the accuracy of algorithmic results. Questions about the transparency of data processing continue to arise, which raises issues regarding the appropriateness of the algorithms and the intentions of their designers. == Controversies == A notable instance of potential algorithmic bias is highlighted in an article by The Washington Post regarding the ride-hailing service Uber. An analysis of collected data revealed that estimated waiting times for users varied based on the neighborhoods in which they resided. Key factors influencing these discrepancies included the predominant ethnicity and average income of the area. Specifically, neighborhoods with a majority white population and higher economic status tended to have shorter waiting times, while those with more diverse ethnic compositions and lower average incomes experienced longer waits. It’s important to clarify that this observation reflects a correlation identified in the data, rather than a definitive cause-and-effect relationship. No value judgments are made regarding the behavior of the Uber app in these cases. In TechCrunch website, Hemant Taneja wrote: Concern about “black box” algorithms that govern our lives has been spreading. New York University’s Information Law Institute hosted a conference on algorithmic accountability, noting: “Scholars, stakeholders, and policymakers question the adequacy of existing mechanisms governing algorithmic decision-making and grapple with new challenges presented by the rise of algorithmic power in terms of transparency, fairness, and equal treatment.” Yale Law School’s Information Society Project is studying this, too. “Algorithmic modeling may be biased or limited, and the uses of algorithms are still opaque in many critical sectors,” the group concluded. == Possible solutions == Discussions among experts have sought viable solutions to understand the operations of algorithms, often referred to as "black boxes." It is generally proposed that companies responsible for developing and implementing these algorithms should ensure their reliability by disclosing the internal processes of their systems. Hemant Taneja, writing for TechCrunch, emphasizes that major technology companies, such as Google, Amazon, and Uber, must actively incorporate algorithmic accountability into their operations. He suggests that these companies should transparently monitor their own systems to avoid stringent regulatory measures. One potential approach is the introduction of regulations in the tech sector to enforce oversight of algorithmic processes. However, such regulations could significantly impact software developers and the industry as a whole. It may be more beneficial for companies to voluntarily disclose the details of their algorithms and decision-making parameters, which could enhance the trustworthiness of their solutions. Another avenue discussed is the possibility of self-regulation by the companies that create these algorithms, allowing them to take proactive steps in ensuring accountability and transparency in their operations. In TechCrunch website, Hemant Taneja wrote: There’s another benefit — perhaps a huge one — to software-defined regulation. It will also show us a path to a more efficient government. The world’s legal logic and regulations can be coded into software and smart sensors can offer real-time monitoring of everything from air and water quality, traffic flows and queues at the DMV. Regulators define the rules, technologist create the software to implement them and then AI and ML help refine iterations of policies going forward. This should lead to much more efficient, effective governments at the local, national and global levels.