An intelligent decision support system (IDSS) is a decision support system that makes extensive use of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques. Use of AI techniques in management information systems has a long history – indeed terms such as "Knowledge-based systems" (KBS) and "intelligent systems" have been used since the early 1980s to describe components of management systems, but the term "Intelligent decision support system" is thought to originate with Clyde Holsapple and Andrew Whinston in the late 1970s. Examples of specialized intelligent decision support systems include Flexible manufacturing systems (FMS), intelligent marketing decision support systems and medical diagnosis systems. Ideally, an intelligent decision support system should behave like a human consultant: supporting decision makers by gathering and analysing evidence, identifying and diagnosing problems, proposing possible courses of action and evaluating such proposed actions. The aim of the AI techniques embedded in an intelligent decision support system is to enable these tasks to be performed by a computer, while emulating human capabilities as closely as possible. Many IDSS implementations are based on expert systems, a well established type of KBS that encode knowledge and emulate the cognitive behaviours of human experts using predicate logic rules, and have been shown to perform better than the original human experts in some circumstances. Expert systems emerged as practical applications in the 1980s based on research in artificial intelligence performed during the late 1960s and early 1970s. They typically combine knowledge of a particular application domain with an inference capability to enable the system to propose decisions or diagnoses. Accuracy and consistency can be comparable to (or even exceed) that of human experts when the decision parameters are well known (e.g. if a common disease is being diagnosed), but performance can be poor when novel or uncertain circumstances arise. Research in AI focused on enabling systems to respond to novelty and uncertainty in more flexible ways is starting to be used in IDSS. For example, intelligent agents that perform complex cognitive tasks without any need for human intervention have been used in a range of decision support applications. Capabilities of these intelligent agents include knowledge sharing, machine learning, data mining, and automated inference. A range of AI techniques such as case based reasoning, rough sets and fuzzy logic have also been used to enable decision support systems to perform better in uncertain conditions. A 2009 research about a multi-artificial system intelligence system named IILS is proposed to automate problem-solving processes within the logistics industry. The system involves integrating intelligence modules based on case-based reasoning, multi-agent systems, fuzzy logic, and artificial neural networks aiming to offer advanced logistics solutions and support in making well-informed, high-quality decisions to address a wide range of customer needs and challenges.
Foreign key
A foreign key is a set of attributes in a table that refers to the primary key of another table, linking these two tables. In the context of relational databases, a foreign key is subject to an inclusion dependency constraint that the tuples consisting of the foreign key attributes in one relation, R, must also exist in some other (not necessarily distinct) relation, S; furthermore that those attributes must also be a candidate key in S. In other words, a foreign key is a set of attributes that references a candidate key. For example, a table called TEAM may have an attribute, MEMBER_NAME, which is a foreign key referencing a candidate key, PERSON_NAME, in the PERSON table. Since MEMBER_NAME is a foreign key, any value existing as the name of a member in TEAM must also exist as a person's name in the PERSON table; in other words, every member of a TEAM is also a PERSON. == Summary == The table containing the foreign key is called the child table, and the table containing the candidate key is called the referenced or parent table. In database relational modeling and implementation, a candidate key is a set of zero or more attributes, the values of which are guaranteed to be unique for each tuple (row) in a relation. The value or combination of values of candidate key attributes for any tuple cannot be duplicated for any other tuple in that relation. Since the purpose of the foreign key is to identify a particular row of referenced table, it is generally required that the foreign key is equal to the candidate key in some row of the primary table, or else have no value (the NULL value.). This rule is called a referential integrity constraint between the two tables. Because violations of these constraints can be the source of many database problems, most database management systems provide mechanisms to ensure that every non-null foreign key corresponds to a row of the referenced table. For example, consider a database with two tables: a CUSTOMER table that includes all customer data and an ORDER table that includes all customer orders. Suppose the business requires that each order must refer to a single customer. To reflect this in the database, a foreign key column is added to the ORDER table (e.g., CUSTOMERID), which references the primary key of CUSTOMER (e.g. ID). Because the primary key of a table must be unique, and because CUSTOMERID only contains values from that primary key field, we may assume that, when it has a value, CUSTOMERID will identify the particular customer which placed the order. However, this can no longer be assumed if the ORDER table is not kept up to date when rows of the CUSTOMER table are deleted or the ID column altered, and working with these tables may become more difficult. Many real world databases work around this problem by 'inactivating' rather than physically deleting master table foreign keys, or by complex update programs that modify all references to a foreign key when a change is needed. Foreign keys play an essential role in database design. One important part of database design is making sure that relationships between real-world entities are reflected in the database by references, using foreign keys to refer from one table to another. Another important part of database design is database normalization, in which tables are broken apart and foreign keys make it possible for them to be reconstructed. Multiple rows in the referencing (or child) table may refer to the same row in the referenced (or parent) table. In this case, the relationship between the two tables is called a one to many relationship between the referencing table and the referenced table. In addition, the child and parent table may, in fact, be the same table, i.e. the foreign key refers back to the same table. Such a foreign key is known in SQL:2003 as a self-referencing or recursive foreign key. In database management systems, this is often accomplished by linking a first and second reference to the same table. A table may have multiple foreign keys, and each foreign key can have a different parent table. Each foreign key is enforced independently by the database system. Therefore, cascading relationships between tables can be established using foreign keys. A foreign key is defined as an attribute or set of attributes in a relation whose values match a primary key in another relation. The syntax to add such a constraint to an existing table is defined in SQL:2003 as shown below. Omitting the column list in the REFERENCES clause implies that the foreign key shall reference the primary key of the referenced table. Likewise, foreign keys can be defined as part of the CREATE TABLE SQL statement. If the foreign key is a single column only, the column can be marked as such using the following syntax: Foreign keys can be defined with a stored procedure statement. child_table: the name of the table or view that contains the foreign key to be defined. parent_table: the name of the table or view that has the primary key to which the foreign key applies. The primary key must already be defined. col3 and col4: the name of the columns that make up the foreign key. The foreign key must have at least one column and at most eight columns. == Referential actions == Because the database management system enforces referential constraints, it must ensure data integrity if rows in a referenced table are to be deleted (or updated). If dependent rows in referencing tables still exist, those references have to be considered. SQL:2003 specifies 5 different referential actions that shall take place in such occurrences: CASCADE RESTRICT NO ACTION SET NULL SET DEFAULT === CASCADE === Whenever rows in the parent (referenced) table are deleted (or updated), the respective rows of the child (referencing) table with a matching foreign key column will be deleted (or updated) as well. This is called a cascade delete (or update). === RESTRICT === A value cannot be updated or deleted when a row exists in a referencing or child table that references the value in the referenced table. Similarly, a row cannot be deleted as long as there is a reference to it from a referencing or child table. To understand RESTRICT (and CASCADE) better, it may be helpful to notice the following difference, which might not be immediately clear. The referential action CASCADE modifies the "behavior" of the (child) table itself where the word CASCADE is used. For example, ON DELETE CASCADE effectively says "When the referenced row is deleted from the other table (master table), then delete also from me". However, the referential action RESTRICT modifies the "behavior" of the master table, not the child table, although the word RESTRICT appears in the child table and not in the master table! So, ON DELETE RESTRICT effectively says: "When someone tries to delete the row from the other table (master table), prevent deletion from that other table (and of course, also don't delete from me, but that's not the main point here)." RESTRICT is not supported by Microsoft SQL 2012 and earlier. === NO ACTION === NO ACTION and RESTRICT are very much alike. The main difference between NO ACTION and RESTRICT is that with NO ACTION the referential integrity check is done after trying to alter the table. RESTRICT does the check before trying to execute the UPDATE or DELETE statement. Both referential actions act the same if the referential integrity check fails: the UPDATE or DELETE statement will result in an error. In other words, when an UPDATE or DELETE statement is executed on the referenced table using the referential action NO ACTION, the DBMS verifies at the end of the statement execution that none of the referential relationships are violated. This is different from RESTRICT, which assumes at the outset that the operation will violate the constraint. Using NO ACTION, the triggers or the semantics of the statement itself may yield an end state in which no foreign key relationships are violated by the time the constraint is finally checked, thus allowing the statement to complete successfully. === SET NULL, SET DEFAULT === In general, the action taken by the DBMS for SET NULL or SET DEFAULT is the same for both ON DELETE or ON UPDATE: the value of the affected referencing attributes is changed to NULL for SET NULL, and to the specified default value for SET DEFAULT. === Triggers === Referential actions are generally implemented as implied triggers (i.e. triggers with system-generated names, often hidden.) As such, they are subject to the same limitations as user-defined triggers, and their order of execution relative to other triggers may need to be considered; in some cases it may become necessary to replace the referential action with its equivalent user-defined trigger to ensure proper execution order, or to work around mutating-table limitations. Another important limitation appears with transaction isolation: your changes to a row may not be able to fully cascade because the row is ref
Sedona Canada Principles
The Sedona Canada Principles are a set of authoritative guidelines published by The Sedona Conference to aid members of the Canadian legal community involved in the identification, collection, preservation, review and production of electronically stored information (ESI). The principles were drafted by a small group of lawyers, judges and technologists called the Sedona Working Group 7 or Sedona Canada. Sedona Canada is an offshoot of The Sedona Conference which is an American "non-profit ... research and educational institute dedicated to the advanced study of law and policy in the areas of antitrust law, complex litigation, and intellectual property rights". == Background == Civil procedure in Canada is jurisdictional with each province following its own rules of civil procedure. However, each province must address the fact that due to the advancement of technology the discovery process enshrined in the rules of civil procedure can be potentially derailed due to the sheer volume of electronically stored information (ESI). When dealing with litigation matters that involve electronically stored information (ESI), the discovery process is commonly called e-discovery. The problems associated with e-discovery in Canada led to the creation of the Sedona Canada Principles. Rule 29.1.03(4) of the wikibooks:Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure specifically refers to the Sedona Canada Principles in referencing Principles re Electronic Discovery although it has been reported that this rule has been largely ignored in practice. == Summary == The Sedona Canada Principles largely refer to the processes found in the Electronic Discovery Reference Model. The principles urge proportionality due to the potentially enormous volumes of documents that may be discoverable when dealing with ESI. They also encourage good faith in the document preservation stage and regular meetings between parties to discuss the scope of the litigation. Parties are urged to be aware of the potential costs involved in producing relevant ESI but are advised that only reasonably accessible ESI need be produced. The principles stipulate that parties should not be required to search for or collect deleted material unless there is an agreement or court order related to those terms. The use of electronic tools and processes such as data sampling and web harvesting are acceptable practices. Parties are encouraged to agree early in the litigation process on production format required for the exchange of relevant documents as part of the discovery process (native files, pdf, tiff, metadata requirements etc.). Agreements or direction should be sought, if necessary, with respect to privilege or other confidential information related to production of electronic documents and data. Parties should be aware that legal precedents can be formed as a result of e-discovery practices and sanctions can be considered for a party's failure to meet their discovery obligations unless it can be demonstrated that the failure was not intentional. All parties must bear the “reasonable” costs associated with e-discovery but other arrangements can be agreed upon by the parties or by court order. == Caselaw == In Warman v. National Post Company proportionality was at issue in a case where the plaintiff was suing the defendant for libel. A motion was brought by the defendant to have the plaintiff provide a mirror image of his hard drive in an effort to prove an internet article was indeed authored by the plaintiff. Issues of proportionality and the work of the Sedona Conference and Sedona Canada Principles were factored in to the decision to grant the defendant only limited access to the hard drive. In Innovative Health Group Inc. v. Calgary Health Region the plaintiff's legal obligation to produce imaged hard drives is in question. Justice Conrad refers to the advice of Sedona Canada on proportionality and problems associated with time and expense related to the difficulties associated with electronically stored information. In York University v. Michael Markicevic Justice Brown specifically refers to the need for the parties to agree upon a formal e-discovery plan to be drafted in consultation with Sedona Canada Principles. In Friends of Lansdowne v. Ottawa Master MacLeod refers to the need for Sedona Canada principles and states “This is particularly true in the current information age when e-mail is ubiquitous and multiple copies or variants of messages may be held on various kinds of data storage devices including individual hard drives, e-mail and Blackberry servers. Even documents that ultimately exist in paper form normally begin their life on computers and negotiations frequently involve exchanges of electronic drafts. To find every scrap of paper and every electronic trace of relevant information has become a nightmarish task that threatens to render any kind of litigation extravagantly expensive.” == Criticism == Critics of the Sedona Canada Principles believe they should address system integrity and that the true history of any file preserved cannot be identified without proof of the integrity of the electronic record systems management it comes from. Other criticism is more directed to the Sedona Canada working group and complaints that it is insular and irrelevant.
Virtual directory
In computing, the term virtual directory has a couple of meanings. It may simply designate (for example in IIS) a folder which appears in a path but which is not actually a subfolder of the preceding folder in the path. However, this article will discuss the term in the context of directory services and identity management. A virtual directory or virtual directory server (VDS) in this context is a software layer that delivers a single access point for identity management applications and service platforms. A virtual directory operates as a high-performance, lightweight abstraction layer that resides between client applications and disparate types of identity-data repositories, such as proprietary and standard directories, databases, web services, and applications. A virtual directory receives queries and directs them to the appropriate data sources by abstracting and virtualizing data. The virtual directory integrates identity data from multiple heterogeneous data stores and presents it as though it were coming from one source. This ability to reach into disparate repositories makes virtual directory technology ideal for consolidating data stored in a distributed environment. As of 2011, virtual directory servers most commonly use the LDAP protocol, but more sophisticated virtual directories can also support SQL as well as DSML and SPML. Industry experts have heralded the importance of the virtual directory in modernizing the identity infrastructure. According to Dave Kearns of Network World, "Virtualization is hot and a virtual directory is the building block, or foundation, you should be looking at for your next identity management project." In addition, Gartner analyst, Bob Blakley said that virtual directories are playing an increasingly vital role. In his report, “The Emerging Architecture of Identity Management,” Blakley wrote: “In the first phase, production of identities will be separated from consumption of identities through the introduction of a virtual directory interface.” == Capabilities == Virtual directories can have some or all of the following capabilities: Aggregate identity data across sources to create a single point of access. Create high-availability for authoritative data stores. Act as identity firewall by preventing denial-of-service attacks on the primary data stores through an additional virtual layer. Support a common searchable namespace for centralized authentication. Present a unified virtual view of user information stored across multiple systems. Delegate authentication to backend sources through source-specific security means. Virtualize data sources to support migration from legacy data stores without modifying the applications that rely on them. Enrich identities with attributes pulled from multiple data stores, based on a link between user entries. Some advanced identity virtualization platforms can also: Enable application-specific, customized views of identity data without violating internal or external regulations governing identity data. Reveal contextual relationships between objects through hierarchical directory structures. Develop advanced correlation across diverse sources using correlation rules. Build a global user identity by correlating unique user accounts across various data stores, and enrich identities with attributes pulled from multiple data stores, based on a link between user entries. Enable constant data refresh for real-time updates through a persistent cache. == Advantages == Virtual directories: Enable faster deployment because users do not need to add and sync additional application-specific data sources Leverage existing identity infrastructure and security investments to deploy new services Deliver high availability of data sources Provide application-specific views of identity data which can help avoid the need to develop a master enterprise schema Allow a single view of identity data without violating internal or external regulations governing identity data Act as identity firewalls by preventing denial-of-service attacks on the primary data-stores and providing further security on access to sensitive data Can reflect changes made to authoritative sources in real-time Leverages existing update processes of authoritative sources, so no separate (sometimes manual) process to update a central directory is needed Present a unified virtual view of user information from multiple systems so that it appears to reside in a single system Can secure all backend storage locations with a single security policy == Disadvantages == An original disadvantage is public perception of "push & pull technologies" which is the general classification of "virtual directories" depending on the nature of their deployment. Virtual directories were initially designed and later deployed with "push technologies" in mind, which also contravened with privacy laws of the United States. This is no longer the case. There are, however, other disadvantages in the current technologies. The classical virtual directory based on proxy cannot modify underlying data structures or create new views based on the relationships of data from across multiple systems. So if an application requires a different structure, such as a flattened list of identities, or a deeper hierarchy for delegated administration, a virtual directory is limited. Many virtual directories cannot correlate same-users across multiple diverse sources in the case of duplicate users Virtual directories without advanced caching technologies cannot scale to heterogeneous, high-volume environments. == Sample terminology == Unify metadata: Extract schemas from the local data source, map them to a common format, and link the same identities from different data silos based on a unique identifier. Namespace joining: Create a single large directory by bringing multiple directories together at the namespace level. For instance, if one directory has the namespace "ou=internal,dc=domain,dc=com" and a second directory has the namespace "ou=external,dc=domain,dc=com," then creating a virtual directory with both namespaces is an example of namespace joining. Identity joining: Enrich identities with attributes pulled from multiple data stores, based on a link between user entries. For instance if the user joeuser exists in a directory as "cn=joeuser,ou=users" and in a database with a username of "joeuser" then the "joeuser" identity can be constructed from both the directory and the database. Data remapping: The translation of data inside of the virtual directory. For instance, mapping “uid” to “samaccountname,” so a client application that only supports a standard LDAP-compliant data source is able to search an Active Directory namespace, as well. Query routing: Route requests based on certain criteria, such as “write operations going to a master, while read operations are forwarded to replicas.” Identity routing: Virtual directories may support the routing of requests based on certain criteria (such as write operations going to a master while read operations being forwarded to replicas). Authoritative source: A "virtualized" data repository, such as a directory or database, that the virtual directory can trust for user data. Server groups: Group one or more servers containing the same data and functionality. A typical implementation is the multi-master, multi-replica environment in which replicas process "read" requests and are in one server group, while masters process "write" requests and are in another, so that servers are grouped by their response to external stimuli, even though all share the same data. == Use cases == The following are sample use cases of virtual directories: Integrating multiple directory namespaces to create a central enterprise directory. Supporting infrastructure integrations after mergers and acquisitions. Centralizing identity storage across the infrastructure, making identity information available to applications through various protocols (including LDAP, JDBC, and web services). Creating a single access point for web access management (WAM) tools. Enabling web single sign-on (SSO) across varied sources or domains. Supporting role-based, fine-grained authorization policies Enabling authentication across different security domains using each domain’s specific credential checking method. Improving secure access to information both inside and outside of the firewall.
Archetype (information science)
In the field of informatics, an archetype is a formal re-usable model of a domain concept. Traditionally, the term archetype is used in psychology to mean an idealized model of a person, personality or behaviour (see Archetype). The usage of the term in informatics is derived from this traditional meaning, but applied to domain modelling instead. An archetype is defined by the OpenEHR Foundation (for health informatics) as follows: An archetype is a computable expression of a domain content model in the form of structured constraint statements, based on some reference model. openEHR archetypes are based on the openEHR reference model. Archetypes are all expressed in the same formalism. In general, they are defined for wide re-use, however, they can be specialized to include local particularities. They can accommodate any number of natural languages and terminologies. == Formal specifications == The modern archetype formalism is specified and maintained by the openEHR Foundation, and although originally developed for the health IT domain, is completely domain-independent, and has been used in geospatial modelling, telecommunications, and defence. The archetype formalism consists of a number of specifications including: 'ADL 1.4': original release of Archetype Definition Language (ADL) and Archetype Object Model (AOM); widely implemented in health IT domain; 'ADL 2': modern release of Archetype Definition Language (ADL), Archetype Object Model (AOM), Archetype Identification specification and Archetype Technology Overview. The Archetype Technology Overview provides a short technical overview of the archetype formalism useful for new users. The ADL/AOM 1.4 specifications were provided to ISO TC 215 in 2008 by the openEHR Foundation and became the ISO 13606-2 standard, extant until 2019. ISO TC 215 accepted the AOM 2 specification as the basis for a revision of this standard, which was issued in 2019. In late 2015, the Object Management Group (OMG) accepted an RfP entitled 'Archetype Modeling Language (AML)' as a new candidate standard. This specification is a form of ADL re-engineered as a UML profile so as to enable archetype modelling to be supported within UML tools. == Tools == A number of tools area available for working with archetypes. Most are listed on the openEHR modelling tools page. They include: ADL Designer, a modern AOM2-based web editing application Archetype Editor, an original desktop clinical modelling tool Template Designer, an original desktop clinical templating tool LinkEHR, an archetype and data integration tool ADL Workbench, reference compiler and visualiser tool == Example ==
Weak artificial intelligence
Weak artificial intelligence (weak AI) is artificial intelligence that implements a limited part of the mind, or, as narrow AI, artificial narrow intelligence (ANI), is focused on one narrow task. Weak AI is contrasted with strong AI, which can be interpreted in various ways: Artificial general intelligence (AGI): a machine with the ability to apply intelligence to any problem, rather than just one specific problem. Artificial superintelligence (ASI): a machine with a vastly superior intelligence to the average human being. Artificial consciousness: a machine that has consciousness, sentience and mind (John Searle uses "strong AI" in this sense). Narrow AI can be classified as being "limited to a single, narrowly defined task. Most modern AI systems would be classified in this category." Artificial general intelligence is conversely the opposite. == Applications and risks == Some examples of narrow AI are AlphaGo, self-driving cars, robot systems used in the medical field, and diagnostic doctors. Narrow AI systems are sometimes dangerous if unreliable. And the behavior that it follows can become inconsistent. It could be difficult for the AI to grasp complex patterns and get to a solution that works reliably in various environments. This "brittleness" can cause it to fail in unpredictable ways. Narrow AI failures can sometimes have significant consequences. It could for example cause disruptions in the electric grid, damage nuclear power plants, cause global economic problems, and misdirect autonomous vehicles. Medicines could be incorrectly sorted and distributed. Also, medical diagnoses can ultimately have serious and sometimes deadly consequences if the AI is faulty or biased. Simple AI programs have already worked their way into society, oftentimes unnoticed by the public. Autocorrection for typing, speech recognition for speech-to-text programs, and vast expansions in the data science fields are examples. Narrow AI has also been the subject of some controversy, including resulting in unfair prison sentences, discrimination against women in the workplace for hiring, resulting in death via autonomous driving, among other cases. Despite being "narrow" AI, recommender systems are efficient at predicting user reactions based on their posts, patterns, or trends. For instance, TikTok's "For You" algorithm can determine a user's interests or preferences in less than an hour. Some other social media AI systems are used to detect bots that may be involved in propaganda or other potentially malicious activities. == Weak AI versus strong AI == John Searle contests the possibility of strong AI (by which he means conscious AI). He further believes that the Turing test (created by Alan Turing and originally called the "imitation game", used to assess whether a machine can converse indistinguishably from a human) is not accurate or appropriate for testing whether an AI is "strong". Scholars such as Antonio Lieto have argued that the current research on both AI and cognitive modelling are perfectly aligned with the weak-AI hypothesis (that should not be confused with the "general" vs "narrow" AI distinction) and that the popular assumption that cognitively inspired AI systems espouse the strong AI hypothesis is ill-posed and problematic since "artificial models of brain and mind can be used to understand mental phenomena without pretending that that they are the real phenomena that they are modelling" (as, on the other hand, implied by the strong AI assumption).
Predictor–corrector method
In numerical analysis, predictor–corrector methods belong to a class of algorithms designed to integrate ordinary differential equations – to find an unknown function that satisfies a given differential equation. All such algorithms proceed in two steps: The initial, "prediction" step, starts from a function fitted to the function-values and derivative-values at a preceding set of points to extrapolate ("anticipate") this function's value at a subsequent, new point. The next, "corrector" step refines the initial approximation by using the predicted value of the function and another method to interpolate that unknown function's value at the same subsequent point. == Predictor–corrector methods for solving ODEs == When considering the numerical solution of ordinary differential equations (ODEs), a predictor–corrector method typically uses an explicit method for the predictor step and an implicit method for the corrector step. === Example: Euler method with the trapezoidal rule === A simple predictor–corrector method (known as Heun's method) can be constructed from the Euler method (an explicit method) and the trapezoidal rule (an implicit method). Consider the differential equation y ′ = f ( t , y ) , y ( t 0 ) = y 0 , {\displaystyle y'=f(t,y),\quad y(t_{0})=y_{0},} and denote the step size by h {\displaystyle h} . First, the predictor step: starting from the current value y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} , calculate an initial guess value y ~ i + 1 {\displaystyle {\tilde {y}}_{i+1}} via the Euler method, y ~ i + 1 = y i + h f ( t i , y i ) . {\displaystyle {\tilde {y}}_{i+1}=y_{i}+hf(t_{i},y_{i}).} Next, the corrector step: improve the initial guess using trapezoidal rule, y i + 1 = y i + 1 2 h ( f ( t i , y i ) + f ( t i + 1 , y ~ i + 1 ) ) . {\displaystyle y_{i+1}=y_{i}+{\tfrac {1}{2}}h{\bigl (}f(t_{i},y_{i})+f(t_{i+1},{\tilde {y}}_{i+1}){\bigr )}.} That value is used as the next step. === PEC mode and PECE mode === There are different variants of a predictor–corrector method, depending on how often the corrector method is applied. The Predict–Evaluate–Correct–Evaluate (PECE) mode refers to the variant in the above example: y ~ i + 1 = y i + h f ( t i , y i ) , y i + 1 = y i + 1 2 h ( f ( t i , y i ) + f ( t i + 1 , y ~ i + 1 ) ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\tilde {y}}_{i+1}&=y_{i}+hf(t_{i},y_{i}),\\y_{i+1}&=y_{i}+{\tfrac {1}{2}}h{\bigl (}f(t_{i},y_{i})+f(t_{i+1},{\tilde {y}}_{i+1}){\bigr )}.\end{aligned}}} It is also possible to evaluate the function f only once per step by using the method in Predict–Evaluate–Correct (PEC) mode: y ~ i + 1 = y i + h f ( t i , y ~ i ) , y i + 1 = y i + 1 2 h ( f ( t i , y ~ i ) + f ( t i + 1 , y ~ i + 1 ) ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\tilde {y}}_{i+1}&=y_{i}+hf(t_{i},{\tilde {y}}_{i}),\\y_{i+1}&=y_{i}+{\tfrac {1}{2}}h{\bigl (}f(t_{i},{\tilde {y}}_{i})+f(t_{i+1},{\tilde {y}}_{i+1}){\bigr )}.\end{aligned}}} Additionally, the corrector step can be repeated in the hope that this achieves an even better approximation to the true solution. If the corrector method is run twice, this yields the PECECE mode: y ~ i + 1 = y i + h f ( t i , y i ) , y ^ i + 1 = y i + 1 2 h ( f ( t i , y i ) + f ( t i + 1 , y ~ i + 1 ) ) , y i + 1 = y i + 1 2 h ( f ( t i , y i ) + f ( t i + 1 , y ^ i + 1 ) ) . {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\tilde {y}}_{i+1}&=y_{i}+hf(t_{i},y_{i}),\\{\hat {y}}_{i+1}&=y_{i}+{\tfrac {1}{2}}h{\bigl (}f(t_{i},y_{i})+f(t_{i+1},{\tilde {y}}_{i+1}){\bigr )},\\y_{i+1}&=y_{i}+{\tfrac {1}{2}}h{\bigl (}f(t_{i},y_{i})+f(t_{i+1},{\hat {y}}_{i+1}){\bigr )}.\end{aligned}}} The PECEC mode has one fewer function evaluation than PECECE mode. More generally, if the corrector is run k times, the method is in P(EC)k or P(EC)kE mode. If the corrector method is iterated until it converges, this could be called PE(CE)∞.