Arizona Financial Text System (AZFinText) is a textual-based quantitative financial prediction system written by Robert P. Schumaker of University of Texas at Tyler and Hsinchun Chen of the University of Arizona. == System == This system differs from other systems in that it uses financial text as one of its key means of predicting stock price movement. This reduces the information lag-time problem evident in many similar systems where new information must be transcribed (e.g., such as losing a costly court battle or having a product recall), before the quant can react appropriately. AZFinText overcomes these limitations by utilizing the terms used in financial news articles to predict future stock prices twenty minutes after the news article has been released. It is believed that certain article terms can move stocks more than others. Terms such as factory exploded or workers strike will have a depressing effect on stock prices whereas terms such as earnings rose will tend to increase stock prices. The AZFinText system analyzes financial news to identify the patterns in how investors react to such specific information. It uses methods like sentiment analysis and term weighting to examine the text of news articles. This system is designed to find price differences that occur when the market responds to news stories. This approach provides an alternative and easier method for predicting stock market movements. == Overview of research == The foundation of AZFinText can be found in the ACM TOIS article. Within this paper, the authors tested several different prediction models and linguistic textual representations. From this work, it was found that using the article terms and the price of the stock at the time the article was released was the most effective model and using proper nouns was the most effective textual representation technique. Combining the two, AZFinText netted a 2.84% trading return over the five-week study period. AZFinText was then extended to study what combination of peer organizations help to best train the system. Using the premise that IBM has more in common with Microsoft than GM, AZFinText studied the effect of varying peer-based training sets. To do this, AZFinText trained on the various levels of GICS and evaluated the results. It was found that sector-based training was most effective, netting an 8.50% trading return, outperforming Jim Cramer, Jim Jubak and DayTraders.com during the study period. AZFinText was also compared against the top 10 quantitative systems and outperformed 6 of them. A third study investigated the role of portfolio building in a textual financial prediction system. From this study, Momentum and Contrarian stock portfolios were created and tested. Using the premise that past winning stocks will continue to win and past losing stocks will continue to lose, AZFinText netted a 20.79% return during the study period. It was also noted that traders were generally overreacting to news events, creating the opportunity of abnormal returns. A fourth study looked into using author sentiment as an added predictive variable. Using the premise that an author can unwittingly influence market trades simply by the terms they use, AZFinText was tested using tone and polarity features. It was found that Contrarian activity was occurring within the market, where articles of a positive tone would decrease in price and articles of a negative tone would increase in price. A further study investigated what article verbs have the most influence on stock price movement. From this work, it was found that planted, announcing, front, smaller and crude had the highest positive impact on stock price. == Notable publicity == AZFinText has been the topic of discussion by numerous media outlets. Some of the more notable ones include The Wall Street Journal, MIT's Technology Review, Dow Jones Newswire, WBIR in Knoxville, TN, Slashdot and other media outlets.
Zeuthen strategy
The Zeuthen strategy in cognitive science is a negotiation strategy used by some artificial agents. Its purpose is to measure the willingness to risk conflict. An agent will be more willing to risk conflict if it does not have much to lose in case that the negotiation fails. In contrast, an agent is less willing to risk conflict when it has more to lose. The value of a deal is expressed in its utility. An agent has much to lose when the difference between the utility of its current proposal and the conflict deal is high. When both agents use the monotonic concession protocol, the Zeuthen strategy leads them to agree upon a deal in the negotiation set. This set consists of all conflict free deals, which are individually rational and Pareto optimal, and the conflict deal, which maximizes the Nash product. The strategy was introduced in 1930 by the Danish economist Frederik Zeuthen. == Three key questions == The Zeuthen strategy answers three open questions that arise when using the monotonic concession protocol, namely: Which deal should be proposed at first? On any given round, who should concede? In case of a concession, how much should the agent concede? The answer to the first question is that any agent should start with its most preferred deal, because that deal has the highest utility for that agent. The second answer is that the agent with the smallest value of Risk(i,t) concedes, because the agent with the lowest utility for the conflict deal profits most from avoiding conflict. To the third question, the Zeuthen strategy suggests that the conceding agent should concede just enough raise its value of Risk(i,t) just above that of the other agent. This prevents the conceding agent to have to concede again in the next round. == Risk == Risk ( i , t ) = { 1 U i ( δ ( i , t ) ) = 0 U i ( δ ( i , t ) ) − U i ( δ ( j , t ) ) U i ( δ ( i , t ) ) otherwise {\displaystyle {\text{Risk}}(i,t)={\begin{cases}1&U_{i}(\delta (i,t))=0\\{\frac {U_{i}(\delta (i,t))-U_{i}(\delta (j,t))}{U_{i}(\delta (i,t))}}&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} Risk(i,t) is a measurement of agent i's willingness to risk conflict. The risk function formalizes the notion that an agent's willingness to risk conflict is the ratio of the utility that agent would lose by accepting the other agent's proposal to the utility that agent would lose by causing a conflict. Agent i is said to be using a rational negotiation strategy if at any step t + 1 that agent i sticks to his last proposal, Risk(i,t) > Risk(j,t). == Sufficient concession == If agent i makes a sufficient concession in the next step, then, assuming that agent j is using a rational negotiation strategy, if agent j does not concede in the next step, he must do so in the step after that. The set of all sufficient concessions of agent i at step t is denoted SC(i, t). == Minimal sufficient concession == δ ′ = arg max δ ∈ S C ( A , t ) { U A ( δ ) } {\displaystyle \delta '=\arg \max _{\delta \in {SC(A,t)}}\{U_{A}(\delta )\}} is the minimal sufficient concession of agent A in step t. Agent A begins the negotiation by proposing δ ( A , 0 ) = arg max δ ∈ N S U A ( δ ) {\displaystyle \delta (A,0)=\arg \max _{\delta \in {NS}}U_{A}(\delta )} and will make the minimal sufficient concession in step t + 1 if and only if Risk(A,t) ≤ Risk(B,t). Theorem If both agents are using Zeuthen strategies, then they will agree on δ = arg max δ ′ ∈ N S { π ( δ ′ ) } , {\displaystyle \delta =\arg \max _{\delta '\in {NS}}\{\pi (\delta ')\},} that is, the deal which maximizes the Nash product. Proof Let δA = δ(A,t). Let δB = δ(B,t). According to the Zeuthen strategy, agent A will concede at step t {\displaystyle t} if and only if R i s k ( A , t ) ≤ R i s k ( B , t ) . {\displaystyle Risk(A,t)\leq Risk(B,t).} That is, if and only if U A ( δ A ) − U A ( δ B ) U A ( δ A ) ≤ U B ( δ B ) − U B ( δ A ) U B ( δ B ) {\displaystyle {\frac {U_{A}(\delta _{A})-U_{A}(\delta _{B})}{U_{A}(\delta _{A})}}\leq {\frac {U_{B}(\delta _{B})-U_{B}(\delta _{A})}{U_{B}(\delta _{B})}}} U B ( δ B ) ( U A ( δ A ) − U A ( δ B ) ) ≤ U A ( δ A ) ( U B ( δ B ) − U B ( δ A ) ) {\displaystyle U_{B}(\delta _{B})(U_{A}(\delta _{A})-U_{A}(\delta _{B}))\leq U_{A}(\delta _{A})(U_{B}(\delta _{B})-U_{B}(\delta _{A}))} U A ( δ A ) U B ( δ B ) − U A ( δ B ) U B ( δ B ) ≤ U A ( δ A ) U B ( δ B ) − U A ( δ A ) U B ( δ A ) {\displaystyle U_{A}(\delta _{A})U_{B}(\delta _{B})-U_{A}(\delta _{B})U_{B}(\delta _{B})\leq U_{A}(\delta _{A})U_{B}(\delta _{B})-U_{A}(\delta _{A})U_{B}(\delta _{A})} − U A ( δ B ) U B ( δ B ) ≤ − U A ( δ A ) U B ( δ A ) {\displaystyle -U_{A}(\delta _{B})U_{B}(\delta _{B})\leq -U_{A}(\delta _{A})U_{B}(\delta _{A})} U A ( δ A ) U B ( δ A ) ≤ U A ( δ B ) U B ( δ B ) {\displaystyle U_{A}(\delta _{A})U_{B}(\delta _{A})\leq U_{A}(\delta _{B})U_{B}(\delta _{B})} π ( δ A ) ≤ π ( δ B ) {\displaystyle \pi (\delta _{A})\leq \pi (\delta _{B})} Thus, Agent A will concede if and only if δ A {\displaystyle \delta _{A}} does not yield the larger product of utilities. Therefore, the Zeuthen strategy guarantees a final agreement that maximizes the Nash Product.
Rejoyn
Rejoyn is a prescription-only digital therapeutic smartphone app approved by the US FDA for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults ages 22 and up. It is prescribed in conjunction with standard antidepressant medication and professional guidance and support. Rejoyn was developed by Click Therapeutics and Otsuka America Pharmaceutical Inc., and gained FDA clearance as a "medical device" on March 30th, 2024. The smartphone app helps patients with depression using exercises based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) along with timed notifications to keep the patient engaged and in treatment. Randomized controlled trials showed that the Rejoyn app was more effective at relieving depression symptoms compared to a "sham app", a placebo app that required similar effort but was not intended to be helpful. Dr. John Torous, MD, MBI,[a] a psychiatrist at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, said that the app seems to pose minimal risks, and is an important step forward in unlocking the power of smartphones in treating psychiatric disorders. Some experts have signaled that the claims should be taken with caution, since the app was "tested only in a narrow subset of patients." and its benefits are "not statistically significant," according to the study’s primary outcome."
Image-based modeling and rendering
In computer graphics and computer vision, image-based modeling and rendering (IBMR) methods rely on a set of two-dimensional images of a scene to generate a three-dimensional model and then render some novel views of this scene. The traditional approach of computer graphics has been used to create a geometric model in 3D and try to reproject it onto a two-dimensional image. Computer vision, conversely, is mostly focused on detecting, grouping, and extracting features (edges, faces, etc.) present in a given picture and then trying to interpret them as three-dimensional clues. Image-based modeling and rendering allows the use of multiple two-dimensional images in order to generate directly novel two-dimensional images, skipping the manual modeling stage. == Light modeling == Instead of considering only the physical model of a solid, IBMR methods usually focus more on light modeling. The fundamental concept behind IBMR is the plenoptic illumination function which is a parametrisation of the light field. The plenoptic function describes the light rays contained in a given volume. It can be represented with seven dimensions: a ray is defined by its position ( x , y , z ) {\displaystyle (x,y,z)} , its orientation ( θ , ϕ ) {\displaystyle (\theta ,\phi )} , its wavelength ( λ ) {\displaystyle (\lambda )} and its time ( t ) {\displaystyle (t)} : P ( x , y , z , θ , ϕ , λ , t ) {\displaystyle P(x,y,z,\theta ,\phi ,\lambda ,t)} . IBMR methods try to approximate the plenoptic function to render a novel set of two-dimensional images from another. Given the high dimensionality of this function, practical methods place constraints on the parameters in order to reduce this number (typically to 2 to 4). == IBMR methods and algorithms == View morphing generates a transition between images Panoramic imaging renders panoramas using image mosaics of individual still images Lumigraph relies on a dense sampling of a scene Space carving generates a 3D model based on a photo-consistency check
Event store
An event store is a type of database optimized for storage of events. Conceptually, an event store records only the events affecting an entity, dossier, or policy, and the state of the entity at any point in its history can be reconstructed by replaying its contributing events in sequential order. Events (and their corresponding data) are the only "real" facts that should be stored in the database. All other objects can be derived from these events, meaning they are instantiated in memory by runtime code as needed (e.g. for showing in a user interface). In theory, any object that aggregates over recorded event data is not stored in the database. Instead these objects are built 'on the fly', by traversing the event history. When the aggregated object instance is no longer needed, it can simply be discarded (released from memory). == Example with insurance policies == For example, the event store concept of a database can be applied to insurance policies or pension dossiers. In these policies or dossiers the instantiation of each object that make up the dossier or policy (the person, partner(s), employments, etc.) can be derived and can be instantiated in memory based on the real world events. == Double timeline == A crucial part of an event store database is that each event has a double timeline: This enables event stores to correct errors of events that have been entered into the event store database before. The two dates are: Valid date is the date at which the event has become valid. Transaction date is the date at which the event is entered into the database. == Error correction == Another crucial part of an event store database is that events that are stored are not allowed to be changed. Once stored, also erroneous events are not changed anymore. The only way to change (or better: correct) these events is to instantiate a new event with the new values and using the double timeline. A correcting event would have the new values of the original event, with an event data of that corrected event, but a different transaction date. This mechanism ensures reproducibility at each moment in the time, even in the time period before the correction has taken place. It also allows to reproduce situations based on erroneous events (if required). == Advantages and disadvantages == One advantage of the event store concept is that handling the effects of back dated events (events that take effect before previous events and that may even invalidate them) is much easier. An event store will simplify the code in that rolling back erroneous situations and rolling up the new, correct situations is not needed anymore. Disadvantage may be that the code needs to re-instantiate all objects in memory based on the events each time a service call is received for a specific dossier or policy. == Compared to regular databases == In regular databases, handling backdated events to correct previous, erroneous events can be painful as it often results in rolling back all previous, erroneous transactions and objects and rolling up the new, correct transactions and objects. In an event store, only the new event (and its corresponding facts) are stored. The code will then redetermine the transactions and objects based on the new facts in memory.
Naked Objects for .NET
Naked Objects for .NET or Naked Objects MVC is a software framework that builds upon the ASP.NET MVC framework. As the name suggests, the framework synthesizes two architectural patterns: naked objects and model–view–controller (MVC). These two patterns have been considered as antithetical. However, Trygve Reenskaug (the inventor of the MVC pattern) has made it clear that he does not see it that way, in his foreword to Richard Pawson's PhD thesis on the Naked Objects pattern. The Naked Objects MVC framework will take a domain model (written as Plain Old CLR Objects) and render it as a complete HTML application without the need for writing any user interface code - by means of a small set of generic View and Controller classes. The framework uses reflection rather than code generation. The developer may then choose to create customised Views and/or Controllers, using standard ASP.NET MVC patterns, for use where the generic user interface is not suitable.
Collision detection
Collision detection is the computational problem of detecting an intersection of two or more objects in virtual space. More precisely, it deals with the questions of if, when, and where two or more objects intersect. Collision detection is a classic problem of computational geometry with applications in computer graphics, physical simulation, video games, robotics (including autonomous driving), and computational physics. Collision detection algorithms can be divided into operating on 2D or 3D spatial objects. == Overview == Collision detection is closely linked to calculating the distance between objects, as objects collide when the distance between them is less than or equal to zero. Negative distances indicate that one object has penetrated another. Performing collision detection requires more context than just the distance between the objects. Accurately identifying the points of contact on both objects' surfaces is also essential for computing a physically accurate collision response. The complexity of this task increases with the level of detail in the objects' representations: the more intricate the model, the greater the computational cost. Collision detection frequently involves dynamic objects, adding a temporal dimension to distance calculations. Instead of simply measuring distance between static objects, collision detection algorithms often aim to determine whether the objects' motion will bring them to a point in time when their distance is zero—an operation that adds significant computational overhead. In collision detection involving multiple objects, a naive approach would require detecting collisions for all pairwise combinations of objects. As the number of objects increases, the number of required comparisons grows rapidly: for n {\displaystyle n} objects, n ( n − 1 ) / 2 {n(n-1)}/{2} intersection tests are needed with a naive approach. This quadratic growth makes such an approach computationally expensive as n {\displaystyle n} increases. Due to the complexity mentioned above, collision detection is a computationally intensive process. Nevertheless, it is essential for interactive applications like video games, robotics, and real-time physics engines. To manage these computational demands, extensive efforts have gone into optimizing collision detection algorithms. A commonly used approach towards accelerating the required computations is to divide the process into two phases: the broad phase and the narrow phase. The broad phase aims to answer the question of whether objects might collide, using a conservative but efficient approach to rule out pairs that clearly do not intersect, thus avoiding unnecessary calculations. Objects that cannot be definitively separated in the broad phase are passed to the narrow phase. Here, more precise algorithms determine whether these objects actually intersect. If they do, the narrow phase often calculates the exact time and location of the intersection. == Broad phase == This phase aims at quickly finding objects or parts of objects for which it can be quickly determined that no further collision test is needed. A useful property of such approach is that it is output sensitive. In the context of collision detection this means that the time complexity of the collision detection is proportional to the number of objects that are close to each other. An early example of that is the I-COLLIDE where the number of required narrow phase collision tests was O ( n + m ) {\displaystyle O(n+m)} where n {\displaystyle n} is the number of objects and m {\displaystyle m} is the number of objects at close proximity. This is a significant improvement over the quadratic complexity of the naive approach. === Spatial partitioning === Several approaches can be grouped under the spatial partitioning umbrella, which includes octrees (for 3D), quadtrees (for 2D), binary space partitioning (or BSP trees) and other, similar approaches. If one splits space into a number of simple cells, and if two objects can be shown not to be in the same cell, then they need not be checked for intersection. Dynamic scenes and deformable objects require updating the partitioning which can add overhead. === Bounding volume hierarchy === Bounding Volume Hierarchy (BVH) is a tree structure over a set of bounding volumes. Collision is determined by doing a tree traversal starting from the root. If the bounding volume of the root doesn't intersect with the object of interest, the traversal can be stopped. If, however there is an intersection, the traversal proceeds and checks the branches for each there is an intersection. Branches for which there is no intersection with the bounding volume can be culled from further intersection test. Therefore, multiple objects can be determined to not intersect at once. BVH can be used with deformable objects such as cloth or soft-bodies but the volume hierarchy has to be adjusted as the shape deforms. For deformable objects we need to be concerned about self-collisions or self intersections. BVH can be used for that end as well. Collision between two objects is computed by computing intersection between the bounding volumes of the root of the tree as there are collision we dive into the sub-trees that intersect. Exact collisions between the actual objects, or its parts (often triangles of a triangle mesh) need to be computed only between intersecting leaves. The same approach works for pair wise collision and self-collisions. === Exploiting temporal coherence === During the broad-phase, when the objects in the world move or deform, the data-structures used to cull collisions have to be updated. In cases where the changes between two frames or time-steps are small and the objects can be approximated well with axis-aligned bounding boxes, the sweep and prune algorithm can be a suitable approach. Several key observation make the implementation efficient: Two bounding-boxes intersect if, and only if, there is overlap along all three axes; overlap can be determined, for each axis separately, by sorting the intervals for all the boxes; and lastly, between two frames updates are typically small (making sorting algorithms optimized for almost-sorted lists suitable for this application). The algorithm keeps track of currently intersecting boxes, and as objects move, re-sorting the intervals helps keep track of the status. === Pairwise pruning === Once a pair of physical bodies has been selected for further investigation, collisions need to be checked more carefully. However, in many applications, individual objects (if they are not too deformable) are described by a set of smaller primitives, mainly triangles. So there are two sets of triangles, S = S 1 , S 2 , … , S n {\displaystyle S={S_{1},S_{2},\dots ,S_{n}}} and T = T 1 , T 2 , … , T n {\displaystyle T={T_{1},T_{2},\dots ,T_{n}}} (for simplicity, each set has the same number of triangles.) The obvious thing to do is to check all triangles S j {\displaystyle S_{j}} against all triangles T k {\displaystyle T_{k}} for collisions, but this involves n 2 {\displaystyle n^{2}} comparisons, which is highly inefficient. If possible, it is desirable to use a pruning algorithm to reduce the number of pairs of triangles that need to be checked. The most widely used family of algorithms is known as the hierarchical bounding volumes method. As a preprocessing step, for each object (e.g., S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} ) calculates a hierarchy of bounding volumes. Then, at each time step, when collisions need to be checked between S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} , the hierarchical bounding volumes are used to reduce the number of pairs of triangles under consideration. For simplicity, provide an example using bounding spheres, although it has been noted that spheres are undesirable in many cases. If E {\displaystyle E} is a set of triangles, a bounding sphere is pre-calculated. B ( E ) {\displaystyle B(E)} . There are many ways of choosing B ( E ) {\displaystyle B(E)} , B ( E ) {\displaystyle B(E)} is a sphere that completely contains E {\displaystyle E} and is as small as possible. Ahead of time, B ( S ) {\displaystyle B(S)} and B ( T ) {\displaystyle B(T)} can be computed. Clearly, if these two spheres do not intersect (and that is very easy to test), then neither do S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} . This is not much better than an n-body pruning algorithm, however. If E = E 1 , E 2 , … , E m {\displaystyle E={E_{1},E_{2},\dots ,E_{m}}} is a set of triangles, then split it into two halves L ( E ) := E 1 , E 2 , … , E m / 2 {\displaystyle L(E):={E_{1},E_{2},\dots ,E_{m/2}}} and R ( E ) := E m / 2 + 1 , … , E m − 1 , E m {\displaystyle R(E):={E_{m/2+1},\dots ,E_{m-1},E_{m}}} . Apply this to S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} , and calculate (ahead of time) the bounding spheres B ( L ( S ) ) , B ( R ( S ) ) {\displaystyle B(L(S)),B(R(S))} and B ( L ( T ) ) , B ( R ( T ) ) {\displaystyle B(L(T)),B(R(T))} . T