SemEval

SemEval (Semantic Evaluation) is an ongoing series of evaluations of computational semantic analysis systems; it evolved from the Senseval word sense evaluation series. The evaluations are intended to explore the nature of meaning in language. While meaning is intuitive to humans, transferring those intuitions to computational analysis has proved elusive. This series of evaluations provides a mechanism to characterize in more precise terms exactly what is necessary to compute in meaning. As such, the evaluations provide an emergent mechanism to identify the problems and solutions for computations with meaning. These exercises have evolved to articulate more of the dimensions that are involved in our use of language. They began with apparently simple attempts to identify word senses computationally. They have evolved to investigate the interrelationships among the elements in a sentence (e.g., semantic role labeling), relations between sentences (e.g., coreference), and the nature of what we are saying (semantic relations and sentiment analysis). The purpose of the SemEval and Senseval exercises is to evaluate semantic analysis systems. "Semantic Analysis" refers to a formal analysis of meaning, and "computational" refer to approaches that in principle support effective implementation. The first three evaluations, Senseval-1 through Senseval-3, were focused on word sense disambiguation (WSD), each time growing in the number of languages offered in the tasks and in the number of participating teams. Beginning with the fourth workshop, SemEval-2007 (SemEval-1), the nature of the tasks evolved to include semantic analysis tasks outside of word sense disambiguation. Triggered by the conception of the SEM conference, the SemEval community had decided to hold the evaluation workshops yearly in association with the SEM conference. It was also the decision that not every evaluation task will be run every year, e.g. none of the WSD tasks were included in the SemEval-2012 workshop. == History == === Early evaluation of algorithms for word sense disambiguation === From the earliest days, assessing the quality of word sense disambiguation algorithms had been primarily a matter of intrinsic evaluation, and “almost no attempts had been made to evaluate embedded WSD components”. Only very recently (2006) had extrinsic evaluations begun to provide some evidence for the value of WSD in end-user applications. Until 1990 or so, discussions of the sense disambiguation task focused mainly on illustrative examples rather than comprehensive evaluation. The early 1990s saw the beginnings of more systematic and rigorous intrinsic evaluations, including more formal experimentation on small sets of ambiguous words. === Senseval to SemEval === In April 1997, Martha Palmer and Marc Light organized a workshop entitled Tagging with Lexical Semantics: Why, What, and How? in conjunction with the Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. At the time, there was a clear recognition that manually annotated corpora had revolutionized other areas of NLP, such as part-of-speech tagging and parsing, and that corpus-driven approaches had the potential to revolutionize automatic semantic analysis as well. Kilgarriff recalled that there was "a high degree of consensus that the field needed evaluation", and several practical proposals by Resnik and Yarowsky kicked off a discussion that led to the creation of the Senseval evaluation exercises. === SemEval's 3, 2 or 1 year(s) cycle === After SemEval-2010, many participants feel that the 3-year cycle is a long wait. Many other shared tasks such as Conference on Natural Language Learning (CoNLL) and Recognizing Textual Entailments (RTE) run annually. For this reason, the SemEval coordinators gave the opportunity for task organizers to choose between a 2-year or a 3-year cycle. The SemEval community favored the 3-year cycle. Although the votes within the SemEval community favored a 3-year cycle, organizers and coordinators had settled to split the SemEval task into 2 evaluation workshops. This was triggered by the introduction of the new SEM conference. The SemEval organizers thought it would be appropriate to associate our event with the SEM conference and collocate the SemEval workshop with the SEM conference. The organizers got very positive responses (from the task coordinators/organizers and participants) about the association with the yearly SEM, and 8 tasks were willing to switch to 2012. Thus was born SemEval-2012 and SemEval-2013. The current plan is to switch to a yearly SemEval schedule to associate it with the SEM conference but not every task needs to run every year. ==== List of Senseval and SemEval Workshops ==== Senseval-1 took place in the summer of 1998 for English, French, and Italian, culminating in a workshop held at Herstmonceux Castle, Sussex, England on September 2–4. Senseval-2 took place in the summer of 2001, and was followed by a workshop held in July 2001 in Toulouse, in conjunction with ACL 2001. Senseval-2 included tasks for Basque, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Spanish and Swedish. Senseval-3 took place in March–April 2004, followed by a workshop held in July 2004 in Barcelona, in conjunction with ACL 2004. Senseval-3 included 14 different tasks for core word sense disambiguation, as well as identification of semantic roles, multilingual annotations, logic forms, subcategorization acquisition. SemEval-2007 (Senseval-4) took place in 2007, followed by a workshop held in conjunction with ACL in Prague. SemEval-2007 included 18 different tasks targeting the evaluation of systems for the semantic analysis of text. A special issue of Language Resources and Evaluation is devoted to the result. SemEval-2010 took place in 2010, followed by a workshop held in conjunction with ACL in Uppsala. SemEval-2010 included 18 different tasks targeting the evaluation of semantic analysis systems. SemEval-2012 took place in 2012; it was associated with the new SEM, First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, and co-located with NAACL, Montreal, Canada. SemEval-2012 included 8 different tasks targeting at evaluating computational semantic systems. However, there was no WSD task involved in SemEval-2012, the WSD related tasks were scheduled in the upcoming SemEval-2013. SemEval-2013 was associated with NAACL 2013, North American Association of Computational Linguistics, Georgia, USA and took place in 2013. It included 13 different tasks targeting at evaluating computational semantic systems. SemEval-2014 took place in 2014. It was co-located with COLING 2014, 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and SEM 2014, Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Dublin, Ireland. There were 10 different tasks in SemEval-2014 evaluating various computational semantic systems. SemEval-2015 took place in 2015. It was co-located with NAACL-HLT 2015, 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics – Human Language Technologies and SEM 2015, Third Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, Denver, USA. There were 17 different tasks in SemEval-2015 evaluating various computational semantic systems. == SemEval Workshop framework == The framework of the SemEval/Senseval evaluation workshops emulates the Message Understanding Conferences (MUCs) and other evaluation workshops ran by ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency, renamed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)). Stages of SemEval/Senseval evaluation workshops Firstly, all likely participants were invited to express their interest and participate in the exercise design. A timetable towards a final workshop was worked out. A plan for selecting evaluation materials was agreed. 'Gold standards' for the individual tasks were acquired, often human annotators were considered as a gold standard to measure precision and recall scores of computer systems. These 'gold standards' are what the computational systems strive towards. In WSD tasks, human annotators were set on the task of generating a set of correct WSD answers (i.e. the correct sense for a given word in a given context) The gold standard materials, without answers, were released to participants, who then had a short time to run their programs over them and return their sets of answers to the organizers. The organizers then scored the answers and the scores were announced and discussed at a workshop. == Semantic evaluation tasks == Senseval-1 & Senseval-2 focused on evaluation WSD systems on major languages that were available corpus and computerized dictionary. Senseval-3 looked beyond the lexemes and started to evaluate systems that looked into wider areas of semantics, such as Semantic Roles (technically known as Theta roles in formal semantics), Logic Form Transformation (commonly semantics of phrases, clauses or sentences were represented

Moral outsourcing

Moral outsourcing is the placing of responsibility for ethical decision-making onto external entities, often algorithms. The term is often used in discussions of computer science and algorithmic fairness, but it can apply to any situation in which one appeals to outside agents in order to absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions. In this context, moral outsourcing specifically refers to the tendency of society to blame technology, rather than its creators or users, for any harm it may cause. == Definition == The term "moral outsourcing" was first coined by Dr. Rumman Chowdhury, a data scientist concerned with the overlap between artificial intelligence and social issues. Chowdhury used the term to describe looming fears of a so-called “Fourth Industrial Revolution” following the rise of artificial intelligence. Moral outsourcing is often applied by technologists to shrink away from their part in building offensive products. In her TED Talk, Chowdhury gives the example of a creator excusing their work by saying they were simply doing their job. This is a case of moral outsourcing and not taking ownership for the consequences of creation. When it comes to AI, moral outsourcing allows for creators to decide when the machine is human and when it is a computer - shifting the blame and responsibility of moral plights off of the technologists and onto the technology. Conversations around AI and bias and its impacts require accountability to bring change. It is difficult to address these biased systems if their creators use moral outsourcing to avoid taking any responsibility for the issue. One example of moral outsourcing is the anger that is directed at machines for “taking jobs away from humans” rather than companies for employing that technology and jeopardizing jobs in the first place. The term "moral outsourcing" refers to the concept of outsourcing, or enlisting an external operation to complete specific work for another organization. In the case of moral outsourcing, the work of resolving moral dilemmas or making choices according to an ethical code is supposed to be conducted by another entity. == Real-world applications == In the medical field, AI is increasingly involved in decision-making processes about which patients to treat, and how to treat them. The responsibility of the doctor to make informed decisions about what is best for their patients is outsourced to an algorithm. Sympathy is also noted to be an important part of medical practice; an aspect that artificial intelligence, glaringly, is missing. This form of moral outsourcing is a major concern in the medical community. Another field of technology in which moral outsourcing is frequently brought up is autonomous vehicles. California Polytechnic State University professor Keith Abney proposed an example scenario: "Suppose we have some [troublemaking] teenagers, and they see an autonomous vehicle, they drive right at it. They know the autonomous vehicle will swerve off the road and go off a cliff, but should it?" The decision of whether to sacrifice the autonomous vehicle (and any passengers inside) or the vehicle coming at it will be written into the algorithms defining the car's behavior. In the case of moral outsourcing, the responsibility of any damage caused by an accident may be attributed to the autonomous vehicle itself, rather than the creators who wrote the protocol the vehicle will use to "decide" what to do. Moral outsourcing is also used to delegate the consequences of predictive policing algorithms to technology, rather than the creators or the police. There are many ethical concerns with predictive policing due to the fact that it results in the over-policing of low income and minority communities. In the context of moral outsourcing, the positive feedback loop of sending disproportionate police forces into minority communities is attributed to the algorithm and the data being fed into this system--rather than the users and creators of the predictive policing technology. == Outside of technology == === Religion === Moral outsourcing is also commonly seen in appeals to religion to justify discrimination or harm. In his book What It Means to be Moral, sociologist Phil Zuckerman contradicts the popular religious notion that morality comes from God. Religion is oftentimes cited as a foundation for a moral stance without any tangible relation between the religious beliefs and personal stance. In these cases, religious individuals will "outsource" their personal beliefs and opinions by claiming that they are a result of their religious identification. This is seen where religion is cited as a factor for political beliefs, medical beliefs, and in extreme cases an excuse for violence. === Manufacturing === Moral outsourcing can also be seen in the business world in terms of manufacturing goods and avoiding environmental responsibility. Some companies in the United States will move their production process to foreign countries with more relaxed environmental policies to avoid the pollution laws that exist in the US. A study by the Harvard Business Review found that "in countries with tight environmental regulation, companies have 29% lower domestic emissions on average. On the other hand, such a tightening in regulation results in 43% higher emissions abroad." The consequences of higher pollution rates are then attributed to the loose regulations in these countries, rather than on the companies themselves who purposefully moved into these areas to avoid strict pollution policy.

Change data capture

In databases, change data capture (CDC) is a set of software design patterns used to determine and track the data that has changed (the "deltas") so that action can be taken using the changed data. The result is a delta-driven dataset. CDC is an approach to data integration that is based on the identification, capture and delivery of the changes made to enterprise data sources. For instance it can be used for incremental update of data loading. CDC occurs often in data warehouse environments since capturing and preserving the state of data across time is one of the core functions of a data warehouse, but CDC can be utilized in any database or data repository system. == Methodology == System developers can set up CDC mechanisms in a number of ways and in any one or a combination of system layers from application logic down to physical storage. In a simplified CDC context, one computer system has data believed to have changed from a previous point in time, and a second computer system needs to take action based on that changed data. The former is the source, the latter is the target. It is possible that the source and target are the same system physically, but that would not change the design pattern logically. Multiple CDC solutions can exist in a single system. === Timestamps on rows === Tables whose changes must be captured may have a column that represents the time of last change. Names such as LAST_UPDATE, LAST_MODIFIED, etc. are common. Any row in any table that has a timestamp in that column that is more recent than the last time data was captured is considered to have changed. Timestamps on rows are also frequently used for optimistic locking so this column is often available. === Version numbers on rows === Database designers give tables whose changes must be captured a column that contains a version number. Names such as VERSION_NUMBER, etc. are common. One technique is to mark each changed row with a version number. A current version is maintained for the table, or possibly a group of tables. This is stored in a supporting construct such as a reference table. When a change capture occurs, all data with the latest version number is considered to have changed. Once the change capture is complete, the reference table is updated with a new version number. (Do not confuse this technique with row-level versioning used for optimistic locking. For optimistic locking each row has an independent version number, typically a sequential counter. This allows a process to atomically update a row and increment its counter only if another process has not incremented the counter. But CDC cannot use row-level versions to find all changes unless it knows the original "starting" version of every row. This is impractical to maintain.) === Status indicators on rows === This technique can either supplement or complement timestamps and versioning. It can configure an alternative if, for example, a status column is set up on a table row indicating that the row has changed (e.g., a boolean column that, when set to true, indicates that the row has changed). Otherwise, it can act as a complement to the previous methods, indicating that a row, despite having a new version number or a later date, still shouldn't be updated on the target (for example, the data may require human validation). === Time/version/status on rows === This approach combines the three previously discussed methods. As noted, it is not uncommon to see multiple CDC solutions at work in a single system, however, the combination of time, version, and status provides a particularly powerful mechanism and programmers should utilize them as a trio where possible. The three elements are not redundant or superfluous. Using them together allows for such logic as, "Capture all data for version 2.1 that changed between 2005-06-01 00:00 and 2005-07-01 00:00 where the status code indicates it is ready for production." === Triggers on tables === May include a publish/subscribe pattern to communicate the changed data to multiple targets. In this approach, triggers log events that happen to the transactional table into another queue table that can later be "played back". For example, imagine an Accounts table, when transactions are taken against this table, triggers would fire that would then store a history of the event or even the deltas into a separate queue table. The queue table might have schema with the following fields: Id, TableName, RowId, Timestamp, Operation. The data inserted for our Account sample might be: 1, Accounts, 76, 2008-11-02 00:15, Update. More complicated designs might log the actual data that changed. This queue table could then be "played back" to replicate the data from the source system to a target. Data capture offers a challenge in that the structure, contents and use of a transaction log is specific to a database management system. Unlike data access, no standard exists for transaction logs. Most database management systems do not document the internal format of their transaction logs, although some provide programmatic interfaces to their transaction logs (for example: Oracle, DB2, SQL/MP, SQL/MX and SQL Server 2008). Other challenges in using transaction logs for change data capture include: Coordinating the reading of the transaction logs and the archiving of log files (database management software typically archives log files off-line on a regular basis). Translation between physical storage formats that are recorded in the transaction logs and the logical formats typically expected by database users (e.g., some transaction logs save only minimal buffer differences that are not directly useful for change consumers). Dealing with changes to the format of the transaction logs between versions of the database management system. Eliminating uncommitted changes that the database wrote to the transaction log and later rolled back. Dealing with changes to the metadata of tables in the database. CDC solutions based on transaction log files have distinct advantages that include: minimal impact on the database (even more so if one uses log shipping to process the logs on a dedicated host). no need for programmatic changes to the applications that use the database. low latency in acquiring changes. transactional integrity: log scanning can produce a change stream that replays the original transactions in the order they were committed. Such a change stream include changes made to all tables participating in the captured transaction. no need to change the database schema == Confounding factors == As often occurs in complex domains, the final solution to a CDC problem may have to balance many competing concerns. === Unsuitable source systems === Change data capture both increases in complexity and reduces in value if the source system saves metadata changes when the data itself is not modified. For example, some Data models track the user who last looked at but did not change the data in the same structure as the data. This results in noise in the Change Data Capture. === Tracking the capture === Actually tracking the changes depends on the data source. If the data is being persisted in a modern database then Change Data Capture is a simple matter of permissions. Two techniques are in common use: Tracking changes using database triggers Reading the transaction log as, or shortly after, it is written. If the data is not in a modern database, CDC becomes a programming challenge. === Push versus pull === Push: the source process creates a snapshot of changes within its own process and delivers rows downstream. The downstream process uses the snapshot, creates its own subset and delivers them to the next process. Pull: the target that is immediately downstream from the source, prepares a request for data from the source. The downstream target delivers the snapshot to the next target, as in the push model. === Alternatives === Sometimes the slowly changing dimension is used as an alternative method. CDC and SCD are similar in that both methods can detect changes in a data set. The most common forms of SCD are type 1 (overwrite), type 2 (maintain history) or 3 (only previous and current value). SCD 2 can be useful if history is needed in the target system. CDC overwrites in the target system (akin to SCD1), and is ideal when only the changed data needs to arrive at the target, i.e. a delta-driven dataset.

Corporate surveillance

Corporate surveillance describes the practice of businesses monitoring and extracting information from their users, clients, or staff. This information may consist of online browsing history, email correspondence, phone calls, location data, and other private details. Acts of corporate surveillance frequently look to boost results, detect potential security problems, or adjust advertising strategies. These practices have been criticized for violating ethical standards and invading personal privacy. Critics and privacy activists have called for businesses to incorporate rules and transparency surrounding their monitoring methods to ensure they are not misusing their position of authority or breaching regulatory standards. Monitoring can feel intrusive and give the impression that the business does not promote ethical behavior among its personnel. Staff satisfaction, productivity, and staff turnover may all suffer as a result of the invasion of privacy. == Monitoring methods == Employers may be authorized to gather information through keystroke logging and mouse tracking, which involves recording the keys individuals interact with and cursor position on computers. In cases where employment contracts permit it, they may also monitor webcam activity on company-provided computers. Employers may be able to view the emails sent from business accounts and may be able to see the websites visited when using a corporate internet connection. The screenshot capability is another tool that enables companies to see what remote workers are doing. This feature, which can be found in tracking software, takes screenshots throughout the day at predetermined or arbitrary intervals. Additionally, people who don't work in offices are observed. For instance, it has been claimed that Amazon has incorporated tracking technology to monitor warehouse staff and delivery drivers. == Use of collected information == Information collected by corporations can be used for a variety of uses including marketing research, targeting advertising, fraud detection and prevention, ensuring policy adherence, preventing lawsuits, and safeguarding records and company assets. == Privacy concerns == Concerns over corporate privacy have become more important due to companies collection and manipulation of personal data. Since these practices have been recognized there has been a rising concern about both the security and the possible mishandling of the data accumulated. Social Media data collection and monitoring has been one of the most concerned areas regarding corporate surveillance. Recently, many employers on CareerBuilder have checked their potential candidates' social media activities before the hiring process. This approach can be excusable since it is important to be aware of a future employee or applicant's online presence, and how it might affect the company's reputation in the future. This is crucial since employers are often made legally responsible for their worker's digital actions. These data can also be used to enact political gains. The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal in 2018 revealed that its British branch to have surreptitiously sold American psychological data to the Trump campaign. This information was supposed to be private, but Facebook's inability to protect user information had reportedly not been a top priority of the company at the time. == Laws and regulations == The National Labor and Relations Act (NLRA) safeguards workplace democracy by giving workers in the private sector the basic freedom to demand better working conditions and choice of representation without fear of retaliation. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) outlines the broad responsibilities of data controllers and the "processors" that handle personal data on their behalf. They must adopt the necessary security measures in accordance with the risk involved in the data processing operations they carry out.[1] Electronics Communication Privacy Act (ECPA), as amended, provides protection for electronic, oral, and wire communications while they are being created, while they are being sent, and while they are being stored on computers. Email, phone calls, and electronically stored data are covered by the Act. == Sale of customer data == If it is business intelligence, data collected on individuals and groups can be sold to other corporations, so that they can use it for the aforementioned purpose. It can be used for direct marketing purposes, such as targeted advertisements on Google and Yahoo. These ads are tailored to the individual user of the search engine by analyzing their search history and emails (if they use free webmail services). For example, the world's most popular web search engine stores identifying information for each web search. Google stores an IP address and the search phrase used in a database for up to 2 years. Google also scans the content of emails of users of its Gmail webmail service, in order to create targeted advertising based on what people are talking about in their personal email correspondences. Google is, by far, the largest web advertising agency. Their revenue model is based on receiving payments from advertisers for each page-visit resulting from a visitor clicking on a Google AdWords ad, hosted either on a Google service or a third-party website. Millions of sites place Google's advertising banners and links on their websites, in order to share this profit from visitors who click on the ads. Each page containing Google advertisements adds, reads, and modifies cookies on each visitor's computer. These cookies track the user across all of these sites, and gather information about their web surfing habits, keeping track of which sites they visit, and what they do when they are on these sites. This information, along with the information from their email accounts, and search engine histories, is stored by Google to use for building a profile of the user to deliver better-targeted advertising. == Surveillance of workers == In 1993, David Steingard and Dale Fitzgibbons argued that modern management, far from empowering workers, had features of neo-Taylorism, where teamwork perpetuated surveillance and control. They argued that employees had become their own "thought police" and the team gaze was the equivalent of Bentham's panopticon guard tower. A critical evaluation of the Hawthorne Plant experiments has in turn given rise to the notion of a Hawthorne effect, where workers increase their productivity in response to their awareness of being observed or because they are gratified for being chosen to participate in a project. According to the American Management Association and the ePolicy Institute, who undertook a quantitative survey in 2007 about electronic monitoring and surveillance with approximately 300 US companies, "more than one fourth of employers have fired workers for misusing email and nearly one third have fired employees for misusing the Internet." Furthermore, about 30 percent of the companies had also fired employees for usage of "inappropriate or offensive language" and "viewing, downloading, or uploading inappropriate/offensive content." More than 40 percent of the companies monitor email traffic of their workers, and 66 percent of corporations monitor Internet connections. In addition, most companies use software to block websites such as sites with games, social networking, entertainment, shopping, and sports. The American Management Association and the ePolicy Institute also stress that companies track content that is being written about them, for example by monitoring blogs and social media, and scanning all files that are stored in a filesystem. == Government use of corporate surveillance data == The United States government often gains access to corporate databases, either by producing a warrant for it, or by asking. The Department of Homeland Security has openly stated that it uses data collected from consumer credit and direct marketing agencies—such as Google—for augmenting the profiles of individuals that it is monitoring. The US government has gathered information from grocery store discount card programs, which track customers' shopping patterns and store them in databases, in order to look for terrorists by analyzing shoppers' buying patterns. == Corporate surveillance of citizens == According to Dennis Broeders, "Big Brother is joined by big business". He argues that corporations are in any event interested in data on their potential customers and that placing some forms of surveillance in the hands of companies, results in companies owning video surveillance data for stores and public places. The commercial availability of surveillance systems has led to their rapid spread. Therefore it is almost impossible for citizens to maintain their anonymity. When businesses can monitor their customers, such customers run the risk of facing prejudice when applying for housing, loans, jobs, and other economic opportun

Media intelligence

Media intelligence uses data mining and data science to analyze public, social and editorial media content. It refers to marketing systems that synthesize billions of online conversations into relevant information. This allow organizations to measure and manage content performance, understand trends, and drive communications and business strategy. Media intelligence can include software as a service using big data terminology. This includes questions about messaging efficiency, share of voice, audience geographical distribution, message amplification, influencer strategy, journalist outreach, creative resonance, and competitor performance in all these areas. Media intelligence differs from business intelligence in that it uses and analyzes data outside company firewalls. Examples of that data are user-generated content on social media sites, blogs, comment fields, and wikis etc. It may also include other public data sources like press releases, news, blogs, legal filings, reviews and job postings. Media intelligence may also include competitive intelligence, wherein information that is gathered from publicly available sources such as social media, press releases, and news announcements are used to better understand the strategies and tactics being deployed by competing businesses. Media intelligence is enhanced by means of emerging technologies like ambient intelligence, machine learning, semantic tagging, natural language processing, sentiment analysis and machine translation. == Technologies used == Different media intelligence platforms use different technologies for monitoring, curating content, engaging with content, data analysis and measurement of communications and marketing campaign success. These technology providers may obtain content by scraping content directly from websites or by connecting to the API provided by social media, or other content platforms that are created for 3rd party developers to develop their own applications and services that access data. Technology companies may also get data from a data reseller. Some social media monitoring and analytics companies use calls to data providers each time an end-user develops a query. Others archive and index social media posts to provide end users with on-demand access to historical data and enable methodologies and technologies leveraging network and relational data. Additional monitoring companies use crawlers and spidering technology to find keyword references, known as semantic analysis or natural language processing. Basic implementation involves curating data from social media on a large scale and analyzing the results to make sense out of it.

Character computing

Character computing is a trans-disciplinary field of research at the intersection of computer science and psychology. It is any computing that incorporates the human character within its context. Character is defined as all features or characteristics defining an individual and guiding their behavior in a specific situation. It consists of stable trait markers (e.g., personality, background, history, socio-economic embeddings, culture,...) and variable state markers (emotions, health, cognitive state, ...). Character computing aims at providing a holistic psychologically driven model of human behavior. It models and predicts behavior based on the relationships between a situation and character. Three main research modules fall under the umbrella of character computing: character sensing and profiling, character-aware adaptive systems, and artificial characters. == Overview == Character computing can be viewed as an extension of the well-established field of affective computing. Based on the foundations of the different psychology branches, it advocates defining behavior as a compound attribute that is not driven by either personality, emotions, situation or cognition alone. It rather defines behavior as a function of everything that makes up an individual i.e., their character and the situation they are in. Affective computing aims at allowing machines to understand and translate the non-verbal cues of individuals into affect. Accordingly, character computing aims at understanding the character attributes of an individual and the situation to translate it to predicted behavior, and vice versa. ''In practical terms, depending on the application context, character computing is a branch of research that deals with the design of systems and interfaces that can observe, sense, predict, adapt to, affect, understand, or simulate the following: character based on behavior and situation, behavior based on character and situation, or situation based on character and behavior.'' The Character-Behavior-Situation (CBS) triad is at the core of character computing and defines each of the three edges based on the other two. Character computing relies on simultaneous development from a computational and psychological perspective and is intended to be used by researchers in both fields. Its main concept is aligning the computational model of character computing with empirical results from in-lab and in-the-wild psychology experiments. The model is to be continuously built and validated through the emergence of new data. Similar to affective and personality computing, the model is to be used as a base for different applications towards improving user experience. == History == Character computing as such was first coined in its first workshop in 2017. Since then it has had 3 international workshops and numerous publications. Despite its young age, it has already drawn some interest in the research community, leading to the publication of the first book under the same title in early 2020 published by Springer Nature. Research that can be categorized under the field dates much older than 2017. The notion of combining several factors towards the explanation of behavior or traits and states has long been investigated in both Psychology and Computer Science, for example. == Character == The word character originates from the Greek word meaning “stamping tool”, referring to distinctive features and traits. Over the years it has been given many different connotations, like the moral character in philosophy, the temperament in psychology, a person in literature or an avatar in various virtual worlds, including video games. According to character computing character is a unification of all the previous definitions, by referring back to the original meaning of the word. Character is defined as the holistic concept representing all interacting trait and state markers that distinguish an individual. Traits are characteristics that mainly remain stable over time. Traits include personality, affect, socio-demographics, and general health. States are characteristics that vary in short periods of time. They include emotions, well-being, health, cognitive state. Each characteristic has many representation methods and psychological models. The different models can be combined or one model can be preset for each characteristic. This depends on the use-case and the design choices. == Areas == Research into character computing can be divided into three areas, which complement each other but can each be investigated separately. The first area is sensing and predicting character states and traits or ensuing behavior. The second area is adapting applications to certain character states or traits and the behavior they predict. It also deals with trying to change or monitor such behavior. The final area deals with creating artificial agents e.g., chatbots or virtual reality avatars that exhibit certain characteristics. The three areas are investigated separately and build on existing findings in the literature. The results of each of the three areas can also be used as a stepping stone for the next area. Each of the three areas has already been investigated on its own in different research fields with focus on different subsets of character. For example, affective computing and personality computing both cover different areas with a focus on some character components without the others to account for human behavior. == The Character-Behavior-Situation triad == Character computing is based on a holistic psychologically driven model of human behavior. Human behavior is modeled and predicted based on the relationships between a situation and a human's character. To further define character in a more formal or holistic manner, we represent it in light of the Character–Behavior–Situation triad. This highlights that character not only determines who we are but how we are, i.e., how we behave. The triad investigated in Personality Psychology is extended through character computing to the Character–Behavior–Situation triad. Any member of the CBS triad is a function of the two other members, e.g., given the situation and personality, the behavior can be predicted. Each of the components in the triad can be further decomposed into smaller units and features that may best represent the human's behavior or character in a particular situation. Character is thus behind a person's behavior in any given situation. While this is a causality relation, the correlation between the three components is often more easily used to predict the components that are most difficult to measure from those measured more easily. There are infinitely many components to include in the representation of any of C, B, and S. The challenge is always to choose the smallest subset needed for prediction of a person's behavior in a particular situation.

Cryptographic bill of materials

Cryptographic bill of materials (CBOM—also cryptography bill of materials) is a structured inventory of all cryptographic assets present in a software, firmware, device, or system. It enumerates algorithms (and parameters such as key sizes and modes), cryptographic libraries or modules, digital certificates, keys and related material, and protocols in use, and maps their relationships to the components that implement or invoke them. CBOMs are used to improve security analysis, compliance, and cryptographic agility, and are increasingly referenced in guidance for post‑quantum cryptography (PQC) migration. == Definition and scope == A CBOM inventories cryptographic primitives and materials—such as encryption and signature algorithms (with specific variants and modes), key sizes, cryptographic libraries/modules, digital certificates (e.g., X.509), keys and other related cryptographic material, and security protocols (e.g., TLS, IPsec). It also documents dependencies (for example, an application uses an algorithm provided by a library; a protocol uses several algorithms) and can capture certificate lifecycles, cryptographic module certifications (e.g., FIPS 140‑3), and policy conformance metadata. In common practice, a CBOM may be embedded within an SBOM format (such as CycloneDX) or exported as a separate, linked artifact. === Typical CBOM fields === The exact schema varies by implementation, but common fields are summarized below (see CycloneDX CBOM guide and NIST SP 1800‑38B). == Relation to SBOM == A CBOM is complementary to, but distinct from, a software bill of materials (SBOM). Whereas an SBOM lists software components and their versions, a CBOM focuses specifically on the cryptography present and how it is configured and used. For example, an SBOM might enumerate inclusion of a library such as OpenSSL, while the CBOM would identify which algorithms and parameters that library enables (e.g., RSA‑2048, ECDH P‑256, AES‑GCM) and list relevant keys and certificates. The pairing enables both supply‑chain transparency and cryptographic transparency. == History == The term and practice emerged in the early–mid 2020s alongside software‑supply‑chain transparency and PQC planning. The OWASP CycloneDX standard introduced native CBOM support (v1.6 and later), modeling algorithms, keys, certificates, and protocols as first‑class “cryptographic assets” and providing dependency semantics (uses/implements) between software and cryptography. Open tooling from industry and researchers (e.g., IBM's CBOMkit and related generators/viewers) appeared to automate discovery and representation of cryptographic use in the CycloneDX CBOM schema. == Regulatory and policy context == In the United States, policy has emphasized cryptographic inventories as a prerequisite to PQC migration. The White House's National Security Memorandum 10 (2022) directed a government‑wide transition to quantum‑resistant cryptography; the Office of Management and Budget's M‑23‑02 (November 2022) operationalized this by requiring agencies to submit a prioritized inventory of cryptographic systems (with algorithm and key details) by 4 May 2023 and annually thereafter, and tasked CISA/NSA/NIST to develop automated discovery and inventory strategies. A 2024 Office of the National Cyber Director report reiterated that a “comprehensive cryptographic inventory” is the baseline for PQC planning and must be maintained iteratively with both automated and manual discovery. NIST's NCCoE practice guide (SP 1800‑38B, preliminary draft) provides concrete methods for cryptographic discovery and documentation across enterprises, aligning with CBOM‑style representations. CISA later published a strategy to migrate federal agencies to automated cryptography discovery and inventory tools to support continuous reporting. Separately, NSA, CISA, and NIST issued joint guidance encouraging all organisations to prepare cryptographic inventories and roadmaps for PQC, beyond government environments. == Role in quantum readiness and cryptographic agility == Because large‑scale quantum computing threatens widely used public‑key algorithms (e.g., RSA, ECC), organisations are planning multi‑year transitions to post-quantum cryptography. CBOMs enable that planning by identifying where quantum‑vulnerable algorithms appear, prioritising high‑impact systems, and tracking replacements over time. A machine‑readable CBOM also supports cryptographic agility and incident response: if an algorithm, library, or certificate lifecycle becomes non‑compliant or vulnerable, the CBOM indicates which products and systems are affected and where mitigations must be applied first. == Standards and tooling == CycloneDX (OWASP): Native CBOM modelling (v1.6+) for algorithms, certificates, keys/related material, and protocols, with dependency semantics and examples. The project publishes a CBOM guide and use‑case profiles (e.g., certificate and algorithm inventories). NIST NCCoE SP 1800‑38 series: Practice guides for PQC migration include enterprise cryptographic discovery methods that produce CBOM‑like inventories and integrate multiple discovery tools. Government automation initiatives: Following M‑23‑02, CISA issued a strategy to migrate to automated cryptography discovery and inventory tools to support agency reporting and continuous inventory management. Open‑source and vendor tools: IBM's CBOMkit and related components generate, analyse, and visualise CBOMs; the IBM CBOM specification work was upstreamed into CycloneDX 1.6. === Data model and interchange (example) === CycloneDX provides machine‑readable encodings (JSON/XML) for CBOM content. The example below (subset) shows an application depending on a crypto library that provides the AES‑256‑GCM algorithm, and the application also depends on a leaf X.509 certificate. See the CycloneDX CBOM guide, JSON reference, and the “Implementation details” use‑case for the semantics of `dependsOn` and `provides`. == Relationship to cybersecurity supply chain initiatives == CBOMs complement SBOM‑focused supply‑chain transparency introduced by U.S. Executive Order 14028 and NTIA/NIST SBOM work. SBOMs document software components; CBOMs add detail on embedded cryptography to support risk management, policy compliance (e.g., disallowing deprecated algorithms), and PQC transition planning.