Social search

Social search is a behavior of retrieving and searching on a social searching engine that mainly searches user-generated content such as news, videos and images related search queries on social media like Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram and Flickr. It is an enhanced version of web search that combines traditional algorithms. The idea behind social search is that instead of ranking search results purely based on semantic relevance between a query and the results, a social search system also takes into account social relationships between the results and the searcher. The social relationships could be in various forms. For example, in LinkedIn people search engine, the social relationships include social connections between searcher and each result, whether or not they are in the same industries, work for the same companies, belong the same social groups, and go the same schools, etc. Social search may not be demonstrably better than algorithm-driven search. In the algorithmic ranking model that search engines used in the past, relevance of a site is determined after analyzing the text and content on the page and link structure of the document. In contrast, search results with social search highlight content that was created or touched by other users who are in the Social Graph of the person conducting a search. It is a personalized search technology with online community filtering to produce highly personalized results. Social search takes many forms, ranging from simple shared bookmarks or tagging of content with descriptive labels to more sophisticated approaches that combine human intelligence with computer algorithms. Depending on the feature-set of a particular search engine, these results may then be saved and added to community search results, further improving the relevance of results for future searches of that keyword. The principle behind social search is that human network oriented results would be more meaningful and relevant for the user, instead of computer algorithms deciding the results for specific queries. == Research and implementations == Over the years, there have been different studies, researches and some implementations of Social Search. In 2008, there were a few startup companies that focused on ranking search results according to one's social graph on social networks. Companies in the social search space include Sproose, Mahalo, Jumper 2.0, Scour, Wink, Eurekster, and Delver. Former efforts include Wikia Search. In 2008, a story on TechCrunch showed Google potentially adding in a voting mechanism to search results similar to Digg's methodology. This suggests growing interest in how social groups can influence and potentially enhance the ability of algorithms to find meaningful data for end users. There are also other services like Sentiment that turn search personal by searching within the users' social circles. In 2009, a startup project called HeyStaks (www.heystaks.com) developed a web browser plugin "HayStaks". HeyStaks applies social search through collaboration in web search as a way that leads to better search results. The main motivation for HeyStaks to work on this idea is to provide the user with features that search engines didn't provide at that time. For instance, different searches have indicated that about 70% of the time when user search for something, a friend or a coworker have found it already. Also, studies have shown that approximately, 30% of people who use online search, search for something that they have found before. The startup believe that they help avoid these kind of issues by providing a shared and rich search experience through a list of recommendations that get generated based on search results. In October 2009, Google rolled out its "Social Search"; after a time in beta, the feature was expanded to multiple languages in May 2011. Before the expansion however in 2010 Bing and Google were already taking into account re-tweets and Likes when providing search results. However, after a search deal with Twitter ended without renewal, Google began to retool its Social Search. In January 2012, Google released "Search plus Your World", a further development of Social Search. The feature, which is integrated into Google's regular search as an opt-out feature, pulls references to results from Google+ profiles. The goal was to deliver better, more relevant and personalized search results with this integration. This integration however had some problems in which Google+ still is not wildly adopted or has much usage among many users. Later on, Google was criticized by Twitter for the perceived potential impact of "Search plus Your World" upon web publishers, describing the feature's release to the public as a "bad day for the web", while Google replied that Twitter refused to allow deep search crawling by Google of Twitter's content. By Google integrating Google+, the company was encouraging users to switch to Google's social networking site in order to improve search results. One famous example occurred when Google showed a link to Mark Zuckerberg's dormant Google+ account rather than the active Facebook profile. In November 2014 these accusations started to die down because Google's Knowledge Graph started to finally show links to Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites. In December 2008, Twitter had re-introduced their people search feature. While the interface had since changed significantly, it allows you to search either full names or usernames in a straight-forward search engine. In January 2013, Facebook announced a new search engine called Graph Search still in the beta stages. The goal was to allow users to prioritize results that were popular with their social circle over the general internet. Facebook's Graph search utilized Facebook's user generated content to target users. Although there have been different researches and studies in social search, social media networks have not vested enough interest in working with search engines. LinkedIn for example has taken steps to improve its own individual search functions in order to stray users from external search engines. Even Microsoft started working with Twitter in order to integrate some tweets into Bing's search results in November 2013. Yet Twitter has its own search engine which points out how much value their data has and why they would like to keep it in house. In the end though social search will never be truly comprehensive of the subjects that matter to people unless users opt to be completely public with their information. == Social discovery == Social discovery is the use of social preferences and personal information to predict what content will be desirable to the user. Technology is used to discover new people and sometimes new experiences shopping, meeting friends or even traveling. The discovery of new people is often in real-time, enabled by mobile apps. However, social discovery is not limited to meeting people in real-time, it also leads to sales and revenue for companies via social media. An example of retail would be the addition of social sharing with music, through the iTunes music store. There is a social component to discovering new music Social discovery is at the basis of Facebook's profitability, generating ad revenue by targeting the ads to users using the social connections to enhance the commercial appeal. == Social search engines == A social search engine in an aspect can be thought of as a search engine that provides an answer for a question from another answer by identifying a person in the answer. That can happen by retrieving a user submitted query and determining that the query is related to the question; and provides an answer, including the link to the resource, as part of search results that are responsive to the query. Few social search engines depend only on online communities. Depending on the feature-set of a particular search engine, these results may then be saved and added to community search results, further improving the relevance of results for future searches of that keyword. Social search engines are considered a part of Web 2.0 because they use the collective filtering of online communities to elevate particularly interesting or relevant content using tagging. These descriptive tags add to the meta data embedded in Web pages, theoretically improving the results for particular keywords over time. A user will generally see suggested tags for a particular search term, indicating tags that have previously been added. An implementation of a social search engine is Aardvark. Aardvark is a social search engine that is based on the "village paradigm" which is about connecting the user who has a question with friends or friends of friends whom can answer his or her question. In Aadvark, a user ask a question in different ways that mostly involves online ways such as instant messaging, email, web input or other non-online ways such as text message or voice. The Aar

Evolvability (computer science)

The term evolvability is a framework of computational learning introduced by Leslie Valiant in his paper of the same name. The aim of this theory is to model biological evolution and categorize which types of mechanisms are evolvable. Evolution is an extension of PAC learning and learning from statistical queries. == General framework == Let F n {\displaystyle F_{n}\,} and R n {\displaystyle R_{n}\,} be collections of functions on n {\displaystyle n\,} variables. Given an ideal function f ∈ F n {\displaystyle f\in F_{n}} , the goal is to find by local search a representation r ∈ R n {\displaystyle r\in R_{n}} that closely approximates f {\displaystyle f\,} . This closeness is measured by the performance Perf ⁡ ( f , r ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r)} of r {\displaystyle r\,} with respect to f {\displaystyle f\,} . As is the case in the biological world, there is a difference between genotype and phenotype. In general, there can be multiple representations (genotypes) that correspond to the same function (phenotype). That is, for some r , r ′ ∈ R n {\displaystyle r,r'\in R_{n}} , with r ≠ r ′ {\displaystyle r\neq r'\,} , still r ( x ) = r ′ ( x ) {\displaystyle r(x)=r'(x)\,} for all x ∈ X n {\displaystyle x\in X_{n}} . However, this need not be the case. The goal then, is to find a representation that closely matches the phenotype of the ideal function, and the spirit of the local search is to allow only small changes in the genotype. Let the neighborhood N ( r ) {\displaystyle N(r)\,} of a representation r {\displaystyle r\,} be the set of possible mutations of r {\displaystyle r\,} . For simplicity, consider Boolean functions on X n = { − 1 , 1 } n {\displaystyle X_{n}=\{-1,1\}^{n}\,} , and let D n {\displaystyle D_{n}\,} be a probability distribution on X n {\displaystyle X_{n}\,} . Define the performance in terms of this. Specifically, Perf ⁡ ( f , r ) = ∑ x ∈ X n f ( x ) r ( x ) D n ( x ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r)=\sum _{x\in X_{n}}f(x)r(x)D_{n}(x).} Note that Perf ⁡ ( f , r ) = Prob ⁡ ( f ( x ) = r ( x ) ) − Prob ⁡ ( f ( x ) ≠ r ( x ) ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r)=\operatorname {Prob} (f(x)=r(x))-\operatorname {Prob} (f(x)\neq r(x)).} In general, for non-Boolean functions, the performance will not correspond directly to the probability that the functions agree, although it will have some relationship. Throughout an organism's life, it will only experience a limited number of environments, so its performance cannot be determined exactly. The empirical performance is defined by Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ) = 1 s ∑ x ∈ S f ( x ) r ( x ) , {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r)={\frac {1}{s}}\sum _{x\in S}f(x)r(x),} where S {\displaystyle S\,} is a multiset of s {\displaystyle s\,} independent selections from X n {\displaystyle X_{n}\,} according to D n {\displaystyle D_{n}\,} . If s {\displaystyle s\,} is large enough, evidently Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r)} will be close to the actual performance Perf ⁡ ( f , r ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r)} . Given an ideal function f ∈ F n {\displaystyle f\in F_{n}} , initial representation r ∈ R n {\displaystyle r\in R_{n}} , sample size s {\displaystyle s\,} , and tolerance t {\displaystyle t\,} , the mutator Mut ⁡ ( f , r , s , t ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Mut} (f,r,s,t)} is a random variable defined as follows. Each r ′ ∈ N ( r ) {\displaystyle r'\in N(r)} is classified as beneficial, neutral, or deleterious, depending on its empirical performance. Specifically, r ′ {\displaystyle r'\,} is a beneficial mutation if Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ′ ) − Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ) ≥ t {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r')-\operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r)\geq t} ; r ′ {\displaystyle r'\,} is a neutral mutation if − t < Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ′ ) − Perf s ⁡ ( f , r ) < t {\displaystyle -t<\operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r')-\operatorname {Perf} _{s}(f,r) 0 {\displaystyle \epsilon >0\,} , for all ideal functions f ∈ F n {\displaystyle f\in F_{n}} and representations r 0 ∈ R n {\displaystyle r_{0}\in R_{n}} , with probability at least 1 − ϵ {\displaystyle 1-\epsilon \,} , Perf ⁡ ( f , r g ( n , 1 / ϵ ) ) ≥ 1 − ϵ , {\displaystyle \operatorname {Perf} (f,r_{g(n,1/\epsilon )})\geq 1-\epsilon ,} where the sizes of neighborhoods N ( r ) {\displaystyle N(r)\,} for r ∈ R n {\displaystyle r\in R_{n}\,} are at most p ( n , 1 / ϵ ) {\displaystyle p(n,1/\epsilon )\,} , the sample size is s ( n , 1 / ϵ ) {\displaystyle s(n,1/\epsilon )\,} , the tolerance is t ( 1 / n , ϵ ) {\displaystyle t(1/n,\epsilon )\,} , and the generation size is g ( n , 1 / ϵ ) {\displaystyle g(n,1/\epsilon )\,} . F {\displaystyle F\,} is evolvable over D {\displaystyle D\,} if it is evolvable by some R {\displaystyle R\,} over D {\displaystyle D\,} . F {\displaystyle F\,} is evolvable if it is evolvable over all distributions D {\displaystyle D\,} . == Results == The class of conjunctions and the class of disjunctions are evolvable over the uniform distribution for short conjunctions and disjunctions, respectively. The class of parity functions (which evaluate to the parity of the number of true literals in a given subset of literals) are not evolvable, even for the uniform distribution. Evolvability implies PAC learnability.

Weka (software)

Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis (Weka) is a collection of machine learning and data analysis free software licensed under the GNU General Public License. It was developed at the University of Waikato, New Zealand, and is the companion software to the book "Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques". == Description == Weka contains a collection of visualization tools and algorithms for data analysis and predictive modeling, together with graphical user interfaces for easy access to these functions. The original non-Java version of Weka was a Tcl/Tk front-end to (mostly third-party) modeling algorithms implemented in other programming languages, plus data preprocessing utilities in C, and a makefile-based system for running machine learning experiments. This original version was primarily designed as a tool for analyzing data from agricultural domains, but the more recent fully Java-based version (Weka 3), for which development started in 1997, is now used in many different application areas, in particular for educational purposes and research. Advantages of Weka include: Free availability under the GNU General Public License. Portability, since it is fully implemented in the Java programming language and thus runs on almost any modern computing platform. A comprehensive collection of data preprocessing and modeling techniques. Ease of use due to its graphical user interfaces. Weka supports several standard data mining tasks, more specifically, data preprocessing, clustering, classification, regression, visualization, and feature selection. Input to Weka is expected to be formatted according the Attribute-Relational File Format and with the filename bearing the .arff extension. All of Weka's techniques are predicated on the assumption that the data is available as one flat file or relation, where each data point is described by a fixed number of attributes (normally, numeric or nominal attributes, but some other attribute types are also supported). Weka provides access to SQL databases using Java Database Connectivity and can process the result returned by a database query. Weka provides access to deep learning with Deeplearning4j. It is not capable of multi-relational data mining, but there is separate software for converting a collection of linked database tables into a single table that is suitable for processing using Weka. Another important area that is currently not covered by the algorithms included in the Weka distribution is sequence modeling. == Extension packages == In version 3.7.2, a package manager was added to allow the easier installation of extension packages. Some functionality that used to be included with Weka prior to this version has since been moved into such extension packages, but this change also makes it easier for others to contribute extensions to Weka and to maintain the software, as this modular architecture allows independent updates of the Weka core and individual extensions. == History == In 1993, the University of Waikato in New Zealand began development of the original version of Weka, which became a mix of Tcl/Tk, C, and makefiles. In 1997, the decision was made to redevelop Weka from scratch in Java, including implementations of modeling algorithms. In 2005, Weka received the SIGKDD Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Service Award. In 2006, Pentaho Corporation acquired an exclusive licence to use Weka for business intelligence. It forms the data mining and predictive analytics component of the Pentaho business intelligence suite. Pentaho has since been acquired by Hitachi Vantara, and Weka now underpins the PMI (Plugin for Machine Intelligence) open source component. == Related tools == Auto-WEKA is an automated machine learning system for Weka. Environment for DeveLoping KDD-Applications Supported by Index-Structures (ELKI) is a similar project to Weka with a focus on cluster analysis, i.e., unsupervised methods. H2O.ai is an open-source data science and machine learning platform KNIME is a machine learning and data mining software implemented in Java. Massive Online Analysis (MOA) is an open-source project for large scale mining of data streams, also developed at the University of Waikato in New Zealand. Neural Designer is a data mining software based on deep learning techniques written in C++. Orange is a similar open-source project for data mining, machine learning and visualization based on scikit-learn. RapidMiner is a commercial machine learning framework implemented in Java which integrates Weka. scikit-learn is a popular machine learning library in Python.

Word2vec

Word2vec is a technique in natural language processing for obtaining vector representations of words. These vectors capture information about the meaning of the word based on the surrounding words. The word2vec algorithm estimates these representations by modeling text in a large corpus. Once trained, such a model can detect synonymous words or suggest additional words for a partial sentence. Word2vec was developed by Tomáš Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, Ilya Sutskever and Jeff Dean at Google, and published in 2013. Word2vec represents a word as a high-dimension vector of numbers which capture relationships between words. In particular, words which appear in similar contexts are mapped to vectors which are nearby as measured by cosine similarity. This indicates the level of semantic similarity between the words, so for example the vectors for walk and ran are nearby, as are those for "but" and "however", and "Berlin" and "Germany". == Approach == Word2vec is a group of related models that are used to produce word embeddings. These models are shallow, two-layer neural networks that are trained to reconstruct linguistic contexts of words. Word2vec takes as its input a large corpus of text and produces a mapping of the set of words to a vector space, typically of several hundred dimensions, with each unique word in the corpus being assigned a vector in the space. Word2vec can use either of two model architectures to produce these distributed representations of words: continuous bag of words (CBOW) or continuously sliding skip-gram. In both architectures, word2vec considers both individual words and a sliding context window as it iterates over the corpus. The CBOW can be viewed as a 'fill in the blank' task, where the word embedding represents the way the word influences the relative probabilities of other words in the context window. Words which are semantically similar should influence these probabilities in similar ways, because semantically similar words should be used in similar contexts. The order of context words does not influence prediction (bag of words assumption). In the continuous skip-gram architecture, the model uses the current word to predict the surrounding window of context words. The skip-gram architecture weighs nearby context words more heavily than more distant context words. According to the authors' note, CBOW is faster while skip-gram does a better job for infrequent words. After the model is trained, the learned word embeddings are positioned in the vector space such that words that share common contexts in the corpus — that is, words that are semantically and syntactically similar — are located close to one another in the space. More dissimilar words are located farther from one another in the space. == Mathematical details == This section is based on expositions. A corpus is a sequence of words. Both CBOW and skip-gram are methods to learn one vector per word appearing in the corpus. Let V {\displaystyle V} ("vocabulary") be the set of all words appearing in the corpus C {\displaystyle C} . Our goal is to learn one vector v w ∈ R d {\displaystyle v_{w}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} for each word w ∈ V {\displaystyle w\in V} . The idea of skip-gram is that the vector of a word should be close to the vector of each of its neighbors. The idea of CBOW is that the vector-sum of a word's neighbors should be close to the vector of the word. === Continuous bag-of-words (CBOW) === The idea of CBOW is to represent each word with a vector, such that it is possible to predict a word using the sum of the vectors of its neighbors. Specifically, for each word w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} in the corpus, the one-hot encoding of the word is used as the input to the neural network. The output of the neural network is a probability distribution over the dictionary, representing a prediction of individual words in the neighborhood of w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} . The objective of training is to maximize ∑ i ln ⁡ Pr ( w i ∣ w i + j : j ∈ N ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i}\ln \Pr(w_{i}\mid w_{i+j}\colon j\in N)} where N {\displaystyle N} is a set of (non-zero) indices representing the relative locations of nearby words considered to be in w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} 's neighborhood. For example, if we want each word in the corpus to be predicted by every other word in a small span of 4 words. The set of relative indexes of neighbor words will be: N = { − 2 , − 1 , + 1 , + 2 } {\displaystyle N=\{-2,-1,+1,+2\}} , and the objective is to maximize ∑ i ln ⁡ Pr ( w i ∣ w i − 2 , w i − 1 , w i + 1 , w i + 2 ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i}\ln \Pr(w_{i}\mid w_{i-2},w_{i-1},w_{i+1},w_{i+2})} . In standard bag-of-words, a word's context is represented by a word-count (aka a word histogram) of its neighboring words. For example, the "sat" in "the cat sat on the mat" is represented as {"the": 2, "cat": 1, "on": 1}. Note that the last word "mat" is not used to represent "sat", because it is outside the neighborhood N = { − 2 , − 1 , + 1 , + 2 } {\displaystyle N=\{-2,-1,+1,+2\}} . In continuous bag-of-words, the histogram is multiplied by a matrix V {\displaystyle V} to obtain a continuous representation of the word's context. The matrix V {\displaystyle V} is also called a dictionary. Its columns are the word vectors. It has D {\displaystyle D} columns, where D {\displaystyle D} is the size of the dictionary. Let d {\displaystyle d} be the length of each word vector. We have V ∈ R d × D {\displaystyle V\in \mathbb {R} ^{d\times D}} . For example, multiplying the word histogram {"the": 2, "cat": 1, "on": 1} with V {\displaystyle V} , we obtain 2 v the + v cat + v on {\displaystyle 2v_{\text{the}}+v_{\text{cat}}+v_{\text{on}}} . This is then multiplied with another matrix V ′ {\displaystyle V'} of shape R D × d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{D\times d}} . Each row of it is a word vector v ′ {\displaystyle v'} . This results in a vector of length D {\displaystyle D} , one entry per dictionary entry. Then, apply the softmax to obtain a probability distribution over the dictionary. This system can be visualized as a neural network, similar in spirit to an autoencoder, of architecture linear-linear-softmax, as depicted in the diagram. The system is trained by gradient descent to minimize the cross-entropy loss. In full formula, the cross-entropy loss is: − ∑ i ln ⁡ e v w i ′ ⋅ ( ∑ j ∈ N v w j + i ) ∑ w ′ e v w ′ ′ ⋅ ( ∑ j ∈ N v w j + i ) {\displaystyle -\sum _{i}\ln {\frac {e^{v_{w_{i}}'\cdot (\sum _{j\in N}v_{w_{j+i}})}}{\sum _{w'}e^{v_{w'}'\cdot (\sum _{j\in N}v_{w_{j+i}})}}}} where the outer summation ∑ i {\displaystyle \sum _{i}} is over the words in a corpus, the quantity ∑ j ∈ N v w j + i {\displaystyle \sum _{j\in N}v_{w_{j+i}}} is the sum of a word's neighbors' vectors, etc. Once such a system is trained, we have two trained matrices V , V ′ {\displaystyle V,V'} . Either the column vectors of V {\displaystyle V} or the row vectors of V ′ {\displaystyle V'} can serve as the dictionary. For example, the word "sat" can be represented as either the "sat"-th column of V {\displaystyle V} or the "sat"-th row of V ′ {\displaystyle V'} . It is also possible to simply define V ′ = V ⊤ {\displaystyle V'=V^{\top }} , in which case there would no longer be a choice. === Skip-gram === The idea of skip-gram is to represent each word with a vector, such that it is possible to predict the vectors of its neighbors using the vector of a word. The architecture is still linear-linear-softmax, the same as CBOW, but the input and the output are switched. Specifically, for each word w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} in the corpus, the one-hot encoding of the word is used as the input to the neural network. The output of the neural network is a probability distribution over the dictionary, representing a prediction of individual words in the neighborhood of w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} . The objective of training is to maximize ∑ i ∑ j ∈ N ln ⁡ Pr ( w j + i ∣ w i ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i}\sum _{j\in N}\ln \Pr(w_{j+i}\mid w_{i})} . In full formula, the loss function is − ∑ i ∑ j ∈ N ln ⁡ e v w j + i ′ ⋅ v w i ∑ w ′ e v w ′ ′ ⋅ v w i {\displaystyle -\sum _{i}\sum _{j\in N}\ln {\frac {e^{v_{w_{j+i}}'\cdot v_{w_{i}}}}{\sum _{w'}e^{v_{w'}'\cdot v_{w_{i}}}}}} Same as CBOW, once such a system is trained, we have two trained matrices V , V ′ {\displaystyle V,V'} . Either the column vectors of V {\displaystyle V} or the row vectors of V ′ {\displaystyle V'} can serve as the dictionary. It is also possible to simply define V ′ = V ⊤ {\displaystyle V'=V^{\top }} , in which case there would no longer be a choice. Essentially, skip-gram and CBOW are exactly the same in architecture. They only differ in the objective function during training. == History == During the 1980s, there were some early attempts at using neural networks to represent words and concepts as vectors. In 2010, Tomáš Mikolov (then at Brno University of Technology) with co-authors applied a simple recurrent neural network with a single hidden

VIGRA

VIGRA is the abbreviation for "Vision with Generic Algorithms". It is a free open-source computer vision library which focuses on customizable algorithms and data structures. VIGRA component can be easily adapted to specific needs of target application without compromising execution speed, by using template techniques similar to those in the C++ Standard Template Library. == Features == VIGRA is cross-platform, with working builds on Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, and OpenBSD. Since version 1.7.1, VIGRA provides Python bindings based on numpy framework. == History == VIGRA was originally designed and implemented by scientists at University of Hamburg faculty of computer science; its core maintainers are now working at Heidelberg Collaboratory for Image Processing (HCI) University of Heidelberg. In the meantime, many developers have contributed to the project. == Application == CellCognition and ilastik uses VIGRA computer vision library. OpenOffice.org uses VIGRA as part of its headless software rendering backend; LibreOffice does so until version 5.2.

COVID-19 apps

COVID-19 apps include mobile-software applications for digital contact-tracing—i.e. the process of identifying persons ("contacts") who may have been in contact with an infected individual—deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Numerous tracing applications have been developed or proposed, with official government support in some territories and jurisdictions. Several frameworks for building contact-tracing apps have been developed. Privacy concerns have been raised, especially about systems that are based on tracking the geographical location of app users. Less overtly intrusive alternatives include the co-option of Bluetooth signals to log a user's proximity to other cellphones. (Bluetooth technology has form in tracking cell-phones' locations.)) On 10 April 2020, Google and Apple jointly announced that they would integrate functionality to support such Bluetooth-based apps directly into their Android and iOS operating systems. India's COVID-19 tracking app Aarogya Setu became the world's fastest growing application—beating Pokémon Go—with 50 million users in the first 13 days of its release. == Rationale == Contact tracing is an important tool in infectious disease control, but as the number of cases rises time constraints make it more challenging to effectively control transmission. Digital contact tracing, especially if widely deployed, may be more effective than traditional methods of contact tracing. In a March 2020 model by the University of Oxford Big Data Institute's Christophe Fraser's team, a coronavirus outbreak in a city of one million people is halted if 80% of all smartphone users take part in a tracking system; in the model, the elderly are still expected to self-isolate en masse, but individuals who are neither symptomatic nor elderly are exempt from isolation unless they receive an alert that they are at risk of carrying the disease. Some proponents advocate for legislation exempting certain COVID-19 apps from general privacy restrictions. == Issues == === Uptake === Ross Anderson, professor of security engineering at Cambridge University, listed a number of potential practical problems with app-based systems, including false positives and the potential lack of effectiveness if takeup of the app is limited to only a small fraction of the population. In Singapore, only one person in three had downloaded the TraceTogether app by the end of June 2020, despite legal requirements for most workers; the app was also underused, as it required users to keep it open at all times on iOS. A team at the University of Oxford simulated the effect of a contact tracing app on a city of 1 million. They estimated that if the app was used in conjunction with the shielding of over-70s, then 56% of the population would have to be using the app for it to suppress the virus. This would be equivalent to 80% of smartphone users in the United Kingdom. They found that the app could still slow the spread of the virus if fewer people downloaded it, with one infection being prevented for every one or two users. In August 2020, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued that there were disparities in smartphone use between demographics and minority groups, and that "even the most comprehensive, all-seeing contact tracing system is of little use without social and medical systems in place to help those who may have the virus — including access to medical care, testing, and support for those who are quarantined." === App store restrictions === Addressing concerns about the spread of misleading or harmful apps, Apple, Google and Amazon set limits on which types of organizations could add coronavirus-related apps to its App Store, limiting them to only "official" or otherwise reputable organizations. === Ethical principles of mass surveillance using COVID-19 contact tracing apps === The advent of COVID-19 contact tracing apps has led to concerns around privacy, the rights of app users, and governmental authority. The European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the United Nations and the Siracusa Principles have outlined 4 principles to consider when looking at the ethical principles of mass surveillance with COVID-19 contact tracing apps. These are necessity, proportionality, scientific validity, and time boundedness. Necessity is defined as the idea that governments should only interfere with a person's rights when deemed essential for public health interests. The potential risks associated with infringements of personal privacy must be outweighed by the possibility of reducing significant harm to others. Potential benefits of contact-tracing apps that may be considered include allowing for blanket population-level quarantine measures to be lifted sooner and the minimization of people under quarantine. Hence, some contend that contact-tracing apps are justified as they may be less intrusive than blanket quarantine measures. Furthermore, the delay of an effective contact-tracing app with significant health and economic benefits may be considered unethical. Proportionality refers to the concept that a contact tracing app's potential negative impact on a person's rights should be justifiable by the severity of the health risks that are being addressed. Apps must use the most privacy-preserving options available to achieve their goals, and the selected option should not only be a logical option for achieving the goal but also an effective one. Scientific validity evaluates whether an app is effective, timely and accurate. Traditional manual contact-tracing procedures are not efficient enough for the COVID-19 pandemic, and do not consider asymptomatic transmission. Contact-tracing apps, on the other hand, can be effective COVID-19 contact-tracing tools that reduce R value to less than 1, leading to sustained epidemic suppression. However, for apps to be effective, there needs to be a minimum 56-60% uptake in the population. Apps should be continually modified to reflect current knowledge on the diseases being monitored. Some argue that contact-tracing apps should be considered societal experimental trials where results and adverse effects are evaluated according to the stringent guidelines of social experiments. Analyses should be conducted by independent research bodies and published for wide dissemination. Despite the current urgency of our pandemic situation, we should still adhere to the standard rigors of scientific evaluation. Time boundedness describe the need for establishing legal and technical sunset clauses so that they are only allowed to operate as long as necessary to address the pandemic situation. Apps should be withdrawn as soon as possible after the end of the pandemic. If the end of the pandemic cannot be predicted, the use of apps should be regularly reviewed and decisions about continued use should be made at each review. Collected data should only be retained by public health authorities for research purposes with clear stipulations on how long the data will be held for and who will be responsible for security, oversight, and ownership. === Privacy, discrimination and marginalisation concerns === The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has published a set of principles for technology-assisted contact tracing and Amnesty International and over 100 other organizations issued a statement calling for limits on this kind of surveillance. The organisations declared eight conditions on governmental projects: surveillance would have to be "lawful, necessary and proportionate"; extensions of monitoring and surveillance would have to have sunset clauses; the use of data would have to be limited to COVID-19 purposes; data security and anonymity would have to be protected and shown to be protected based on evidence; digital surveillance would have to address the risk of exacerbating discrimination and marginalisation; any sharing of data with third parties would have to be defined in law; there would have to be safeguards against abuse and the rights of citizens to respond to abuses; "meaningful participation" by all "relevant stakeholders" would be required, including that of public health experts and marginalised groups. The German Chaos Computer Club (CCC) and Reporters Without Borders also issued checklists. The Exposure Notification service intends to address the problem of persistent surveillance by removing the tracing mechanism from their device operating systems once it is no longer needed. On 20 April 2020, it was reported that over 300 academics had signed a statement favouring decentralised proximity tracing applications over centralised models, given the difficulty in precluding centralised options being used "to enable unwarranted discrimination and surveillance." In a centralised model, a central database records the ID codes of meetings between users. In a decentralised model, this information is recorded on individual phones, with the role of the central

Liquid state machine

A liquid state machine (LSM) is a type of reservoir computer that uses a spiking neural network. An LSM consists of a large collection of units (called nodes, or neurons). Each node receives time varying input from external sources (the inputs) as well as from other nodes. Nodes are randomly connected to each other. The recurrent nature of the connections turns the time varying input into a spatio-temporal pattern of activations in the network nodes. The spatio-temporal patterns of activation are read out by linear discriminant units. The soup of recurrently connected nodes will end up computing a large variety of nonlinear functions on the input. Given a large enough variety of such nonlinear functions, it is theoretically possible to obtain linear combinations (using the read out units) to perform whatever mathematical operation is needed to perform a certain task, such as speech recognition or computer vision. The word liquid in the name comes from the analogy drawn to dropping a stone into a still body of water or other liquid. The falling stone will generate ripples in the liquid. The input (motion of the falling stone) has been converted into a spatio-temporal pattern of liquid displacement (ripples). LSMs have been put forward as a way to explain the operation of brains. LSMs are argued to be an improvement over the theory of artificial neural networks because: Circuits are not hard coded to perform a specific task. Continuous time inputs are handled "naturally". Computations on various time scales can be done using the same network. The same network can perform multiple computations. Criticisms of LSMs as used in computational neuroscience are that LSMs don't actually explain how the brain functions. At best they can replicate some parts of brain functionality. There is no guaranteed way to dissect a working network and figure out how or what computations are being performed. There is very little control over the process. == Universal function approximation == If a reservoir has fading memory and input separability, with help of a readout, it can be proven the liquid state machine is a universal function approximator using Stone–Weierstrass theorem.