Electronic business (also known as online business or e-business) is any kind of business or commercial activity that includes sharing information across the internet. Commerce constitutes the exchange of products and services between businesses, groups, and individuals; and can be seen as one of the essential activities of any business. E-commerce focuses on the use of ICT to enable the external activities and relationships of the business with individuals, groups, and other organizations, while e-business does not only deal with online commercial operations of enterprises, but also deals with their other organizational matters such as human resource management and production. The term "e-business" was coined by IBM's marketing and Internet team in 1996. == Market participants == Electronic business can take place between a very large number of market participants; it can be between business and consumer, private individuals, public administrations, or any other organizations such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These various market participants can be divided into three main groups: Business (B) Consumer (C) Administration (A) All of them can be either buyers or service providers within the market. There are nine possible combinations for electronic business relationships. B2C and B2B belong to E-commerce, while A2B and A2A belong to the E-government sector which is also a part of the electronic business. == History == One of the founding pillars of electronic business was the development of the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) electronic data interchange. This system replaced traditional mailing and faxing of documents with a digital transfer of data from one computer to another, without any human intervention. Michael Aldrich is considered the developer of the predecessor to online shopping. In 1979, the entrepreneur connected a television set to a transaction processing computer with a telephone line and called it "teleshopping", meaning shopping at distance. From the mid-nineties, major advancements were made in the commercial use of the Internet. Amazon, which launched in 1995, started as an online bookstore and grew to become nowadays the largest online retailer worldwide, selling food, toys, electronics, apparel and more. Other successful stories of online marketplaces include eBay or Etsy. In 1994, IBM, with its agency Ogilvy & Mather, began to use its foundation in IT solutions and expertise to market itself as a leader of conducting business on the Internet through the term "e-business." Then CEO Louis V. Gerstner, Jr. was prepared to invest $1 billion to market this new brand. After conducting worldwide market research in October 1997, IBM began with an eight-page piece in The Wall Street Journal that would introduce the concept of "e-business" and advertise IBM's expertise in the new field. IBM decided not to trademark the term "e-business" in the hopes that other companies would use the term and create an entirely new industry. However, this proved to be too successful and by 2000, to differentiate itself, IBM launched a $300 million campaign about its "e-business infrastructure" capabilities. Since that time, the terms, "e-business" and "e-commerce" have been loosely interchangeable and have become a part of the common vernacular. According to the U.S. Department Of Commerce, the estimated retail e-commerce sales in Q1 2020 were representing almost 12% of total U.S. retail sales, against 4% for Q1 2010. == Business model == The transformation toward e-business is complex and in order for it to succeed, there is a need to balance between strategy, an adapted business model (e-intermediary, marketplaces), right processes (sales, marketing) and technology (Supply Chain Management, Customer Relationship Management). When organizations go online, they have to decide which e-business models best suit their goals. A business model is defined as the organization of product, service and information flows, and the source of revenues and benefits for suppliers and customers. The concept of the e-business model is the same but used in online presence. === Revenue model === A key component of the business model is the revenue model or profit model, which is a framework for generating revenues. It identifies which revenue source to pursue, what value to offer, how to price the value, and who pays for the value. It is a key component of a company's business model. It primarily identifies what product or service will be created in order to generate revenues and the ways in which the product or service will be sold. Without a well-defined revenue model, that is, a clear plan of how to generate revenues, new businesses will more likely struggle due to costs that they will not be able to sustain. By having a revenue model, a business can focus on a target audience, fund development plans for a product or service, establish marketing plans, begin a line of credit and raise capital. ==== E-commerce ==== E-commerce (short for "electronic commerce") is trading in products or services using computer networks, such as the Internet. Electronic commerce draws on technologies such as mobile commerce, electronic funds transfer, supply chain management, Internet marketing, online transaction processing, electronic data interchange (EDI), inventory management systems, and automated data collection. Modern electronic commerce typically uses the World Wide Web for at least one part of the transaction's life cycle, although it may also use other technologies such as e-mail. == Concerns == While much has been written of the economic advantages of Internet-enabled commerce, there is also evidence that some aspects of the internet such as maps and location-aware services may serve to reinforce economic inequality and the digital divide. Electronic commerce may be responsible for consolidation and the decline of mom-and-pop, brick and mortar businesses resulting in increases in income inequality. === Security === E-business systems naturally have greater security risks than traditional business systems, therefore it is important for e-business systems to be fully protected against these risks. A far greater number of people have access to e-businesses through the internet than would have access to a traditional business. Customers, suppliers, employees, and numerous other people use any particular e-business system daily and expect their confidential information to stay secure. Hackers are one of the great threats to the security of e-businesses. Some common security concerns for e-Businesses include keeping business and customer information private and confidential, the authenticity of data, and data integrity. Some of the methods of protecting e-business security and keeping information secure include physical security measures as well as data storage, data transmission, anti-virus software, firewalls, and encryption to list a few. ==== Privacy and confidentiality ==== Confidentiality is the extent to which businesses makes personal information available to other businesses and individuals. With any business, confidential information must remain secure and only be accessible to the intended recipient. However, this becomes even more difficult when dealing with e-businesses specifically. To keep such information secure means protecting any electronic records and files from unauthorized access, as well as ensuring safe transmission and data storage of such information. Tools such as encryption and firewalls manage this specific concern within e-business. ==== Authenticity ==== E-business transactions pose greater challenges for establishing authenticity due to the ease with which electronic information may be altered and copied. Both parties in an e-business transaction want to have the assurance that the other party is who they claim to be, especially when a customer places an order and then submits a payment electronically. One common way to ensure this is to limit access to a network or trusted parties by using a virtual private network (VPN) technology. The establishment of authenticity is even greater when a combination of techniques are used, and such techniques involve checking "something you know" (i.e. password or PIN), "something you need" (i.e. credit card), or "something you are" (i.e. digital signatures or voice recognition methods). Many times in e-business, however, "something you are" is pretty strongly verified by checking the purchaser's "something you have" (i.e. credit card) and "something you know" (i.e. card number). ==== Data integrity ==== Data integrity answers the question "Can the information be changed or corrupted in any way?" This leads to the assurance that the message received is identical to the message sent. A business needs to be confident that data is not changed in transit, whether deliberately or by accident. To help with data integrity, firewalls protect stored data against unauthorized access, while
Commitment ordering
Commitment ordering (CO) is a class of interoperable serializability techniques in concurrency control of databases, transaction processing, and related applications. It allows optimistic (non-blocking) implementations. With the proliferation of multi-core processors, CO has also been increasingly utilized in concurrent programming, transactional memory, and software transactional memory (STM) to achieve serializability optimistically. CO is also the name of the resulting transaction schedule (history) property, defined in 1988 with the name dynamic atomicity. In a CO compliant schedule, the chronological order of commitment events of transactions is compatible with the precedence order of the respective transactions. CO is a broad special case of conflict serializability and effective means (reliable, high-performance, distributed, and scalable) to achieve global serializability (modular serializability) across any collection of database systems that possibly use different concurrency control mechanisms (CO also makes each system serializability compliant, if not already). Each not-CO-compliant database system is augmented with a CO component (the commitment order coordinator—COCO) which orders the commitment events for CO compliance, with neither data-access nor any other transaction operation interference. As such, CO provides a low overhead, general solution for global serializability (and distributed serializability), instrumental for global concurrency control (and distributed concurrency control) of multi-database systems and other transactional objects, possibly highly distributed (e.g., within cloud computing, grid computing, and networks of smartphones). An atomic commitment protocol (ACP; of any type) is a fundamental part of the solution, utilized to break global cycles in the conflict (precedence, serializability) graph. CO is the most general property (a necessary condition) that guarantees global serializability, if the database systems involved do not share concurrency control information beyond atomic commitment protocol (unmodified) messages and have no knowledge of whether transactions are global or local (the database systems are autonomous). Thus CO (with its variants) is the only general technique that does not require the typically costly distribution of local concurrency control information (e.g., local precedence relations, locks, timestamps, or tickets). It generalizes the popular strong strict two-phase locking (SS2PL) property, which in conjunction with the two-phase commit protocol (2PC), is the de facto standard to achieve global serializability across (SS2PL based) database systems. As a result, CO compliant database systems (with any different concurrency control types) can transparently join such SS2PL based solutions for global serializability. In addition, locking based global deadlocks are resolved automatically in a CO based multi-database environment, a vital side-benefit (including the special case of a completely SS2PL based environment; a previously unnoticed fact for SS2PL). Furthermore, strict commitment ordering (SCO; Raz 1991c), the intersection of Strictness and CO, provides better performance (shorter average transaction completion time and resulting in better transaction throughput) than SS2PL whenever read-write conflicts are present (identical blocking behavior for write-read and write-write conflicts; comparable locking overhead). The advantage of SCO is especially during lock contention. Strictness allows both SS2PL and SCO to use the same effective database recovery mechanisms. Two major generalizing variants of CO exist, extended CO (ECO; Raz 1993a) and multi-version CO (MVCO; Raz 1993b). They also provide global serializability without local concurrency control information distribution, can be combined with any relevant concurrency control, and allow optimistic (non-blocking) implementations. Both use additional information for relaxing CO constraints and achieving better concurrency and performance. Vote ordering (VO or Generalized CO (GCO); Raz 2009) is a container schedule set (property) and technique for CO and all its variants. Local VO is necessary for guaranteeing global serializability if the atomic commitment protocol (ACP) participants do not share concurrency control information (have the generalized autonomy property). CO and its variants inter-operate transparently, guaranteeing global serializability and automatic global deadlock resolution together in a mixed, heterogeneous environment with different variants. == Overview == The Commitment ordering (CO; Raz 1990, 1992, 1994, 2009) schedule property has been referred to also as Dynamic atomicity (since 1988), commit ordering, commit order serializability, and strong recoverability (since 1991). The latter is a misleading name since CO is incomparable with recoverability, and the term "strong" implies a special case. This means that a substantial recoverability property does not necessarily have the CO property and vice versa. In 2009 CO has been characterized as a major concurrency control method, together with the previously known (since the 1980s) three major methods: Locking, Time-stamp ordering, and Serialization graph testing, and as an enabler for the interoperability of systems using different concurrency control mechanisms. In a federated database system or any other more loosely defined multidatabase system, which are typically distributed in a communication network, transactions span multiple and possibly Distributed databases. Enforcing global serializability in such system is problematic. Even if every local schedule of a single database is still serializable, the global schedule of a whole system is not necessarily serializable. The massive communication exchanges of conflict information needed between databases to reach conflict serializability would lead to unacceptable performance, primarily due to computer and communication latency. The problem of achieving global serializability effectively had been characterized as open until the public disclosure of CO in 1991 by its inventor Yoav Raz (Raz 1991a; see also Global serializability). Enforcing CO is an effective way to enforce conflict serializability globally in a distributed system since enforcing CO locally in each database (or other transactional objects) also enforces it globally. Each database may use any, possibly different, type of concurrency control mechanism. With a local mechanism that already provides conflict serializability, enforcing CO locally does not cause any other aborts, since enforcing CO locally does not affect the data access scheduling strategy of the mechanism (this scheduling determines the serializability related aborts; such a mechanism typically does not consider the commitment events or their order). The CO solution requires no communication overhead since it uses (unmodified) atomic commitment protocol messages only, already needed by each distributed transaction to reach atomicity. An atomic commitment protocol plays a central role in the distributed CO algorithm, which enforces CO globally by breaking global cycles (cycles that span two or more databases) in the global conflict graph. CO, its special cases, and its generalizations are interoperable and achieve global serializability while transparently being utilized together in a single heterogeneous distributed environment comprising objects with possibly different concurrency control mechanisms. As such, Commitment ordering, including its special cases, and together with its generalizations (see CO variants below), provides a general, high performance, fully distributed solution (no central processing component or central data structure are needed) for guaranteeing global serializability in heterogeneous environments of multidatabase systems and other multiple transactional objects (objects with states accessed and modified only by transactions; e.g., in the framework of transactional processes, and within Cloud computing and Grid computing). The CO solution scales up with network size and the number of databases without any negative impact on performance (assuming the statistics of a single distributed transaction, e.g., the average number of databases involved with a single transaction, are unchanged). With the proliferation of Multi-core processors, Optimistic CO (OCO) has also been increasingly utilized to achieve serializability in software transactional memory, and numerous STM articles and patents utilizing "commit order" have already been published (e.g., Zhang et al. 2006). == The commitment ordering solution for global serializability == === General characterization of CO === Commitment ordering (CO) is a special case of conflict serializability. CO can be enforced with non-blocking mechanisms (each transaction can complete its task without having its data-access blocked, which allows optimistic concurrency control; however, commitment could be blo
Algorithmic amplification
Algorithmic amplification is the process by which automated ranking and recommendation systems on digital platforms increase the visibility of certain content beyond its initial audience. Major platforms including Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter) use such systems to determine what appears in users' feeds and search results. The term is used in research on social media and digital media regulation to describe how platform design choices influence the distribution of online information. Unlike chronological feeds, algorithmic systems evaluate content using signals such as engagement rates, viewing duration, and predicted relevance to individual users. Content that performs strongly on these metrics may be promoted to progressively larger audiences through feeds, search rankings, or autoplay systems. The process is distinct from content moderation, which involves removing, labelling, or restricting content under platform rules, although the two can interact in practice. The concept is closely connected to the attention economy. Research has linked algorithmic amplification to the spread of misinformation and the circulation of political content, as well as to effects on young users' mental health. The scale and direction of those effects remain debated, in part because independent researchers have limited access to the internal workings of platform recommendation systems. Governments in the European Union, United Kingdom, United States, and China have pursued differing regulatory approaches to recommendation algorithms. The EU's Digital Services Act and the UK's Online Safety Act 2023 impose obligations on large platforms related to recommendation system transparency and risk, while China became the first country to enact binding legislation specifically targeting such systems. Internal documents and whistleblower testimony reported by the BBC in 2026 described how competitive pressure between Meta and TikTok led to trade-offs between engagement and user safety in the design of their recommendation systems. == Terminology == The term algorithmic amplification is used in media studies, platform governance scholarship and regulatory literature to describe how automated systems influence the distribution of content beyond what organic user sharing alone would produce. It is distinct from viral spread, which refers primarily to user-driven sharing behaviour, and from algorithmic bias, which describes systematic errors or unfairness in algorithmic outputs. The related term algorithmic curation is used for the broader process of selecting and ordering content, of which amplification is one possible outcome. The phrase also appears in regulatory and legislative discussion of recommendation systems. The European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) identifies recommendation systems as a potential source of systemic risk, and the term appears frequently in academic and policy commentary on the regulation. In the United States, proposals including the Filter Bubble Transparency Act and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) have used it to frame requirements around recommendation system transparency. In the United Kingdom, the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee used the term in a 2025 report on how recommendation algorithms contributed to the spread of misinformation during the 2024 Southport riots. A Joint Declaration on AI and Freedom of Expression adopted in October 2025 by four international freedom of expression mandate holders, including the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, stated that recommender systems and other AI-powered curation tools exert "a large hidden influence and gatekeeper role" over what information people access and consume. == Background == Early internet platforms typically displayed content in reverse-chronological order or through keyword-based search systems. Although the term is most often applied to social media, the underlying logic predates social media itself. A 2021 overview traced the origins of modern recommendation systems to the early 1990s, when they were first used experimentally for personal email and information filtering. The 1992 Tapestry mail system and the 1994 GroupLens news filtering system were early milestones before recommendation systems spread into e-commerce and other online services. As user bases and content volumes grew during the 2000s, major platforms including Google, YouTube, and Facebook developed machine-learning systems to personalise content delivery and prioritise material predicted to generate engagement. Facebook introduced its News Feed in 2006, which gradually shifted from chronological presentation towards algorithmically ranked content. YouTube altered its recommendation system in 2012 to prioritise watch time rather than clicks, a change the platform said was prompted by concerns that click-based metrics encouraged misleading thumbnails and low-quality videos. TikTok, launched internationally in 2018, adopted a model in which its primary content surface, the For You feed, is driven almost entirely by algorithmic recommendation rather than by a user's social graph. An internal document obtained by The New York Times in 2021 showed that the platform's algorithm optimised for retention and time spent, using signals such as watch duration, replays, likes, and comments to score and rank videos. Algorithmic recommendation also became central to platforms outside social media. Spotify's personalised features, including Discover Weekly, Release Radar, and Home recommendations, use behavioural signals and inferred "taste profiles" to surface tracks and artists beyond a listener's existing library. An ethnographic study of music curators at streaming platforms described this blend of algorithmic and human editorial selection as an "algo-torial" model of gatekeeping. Amazon adopted item-based collaborative filtering for product recommendations in 1998, and its recommendation engine has been described as one of the earliest large-scale deployments of recommendation technology in e-commerce. The same dynamics operate on adult content platforms. Law professor Amy Adler has argued that from 2007 onwards the pornography industry migrated to algorithm-driven streaming platforms, most of which are controlled by a single near-monopoly company, Aylo (formerly MindGeek). These platforms use algorithmic search engines, suggestions, rigid categorisation of content, and AI-driven search term optimisation in ways that produce the same distorting effects found on mainstream speech platforms, including filter bubbles, feedback loops, and the tendency of algorithmic recommendations to alter individual preferences. == Mechanisms == Recommendation systems commonly combine collaborative filtering, which predicts a user's preferences from the behaviour of similar users, with machine-learning models that predict which content a user is likely to engage with from their prior activity. In a common two-stage design, a platform first generates a set of candidate items from a large content pool and then ranks them using a scoring model with objectives such as predicted engagement or user satisfaction. Small changes in ranking criteria can shift exposure at scale, particularly when applied repeatedly across multiple browsing sessions. These systems typically rely on signals including engagement rates, viewing duration, click-through rates, and network relationships between users. Modern recommendation pipelines continuously update predictions as new behavioural data arrives, allowing platforms to adjust rankings in near real time. Users' revealed preferences, expressed through behaviour such as clicks and viewing time, do not always align with their stated preferences, expressed through explicit feedback such as surveys or content controls. Popularity signals can create feedback dynamics in which early engagement increases the likelihood that content will be shown to additional users. Experimental research on online cultural markets has demonstrated how such feedback processes can produce unequal visibility outcomes even when initial differences in content quality are small. == Beneficial and public-interest uses == Recommendation systems can help users navigate large volumes of content by surfacing material predicted to match their interests or needs, which can improve discoverability on platforms with large content libraries. In public health communication, platforms can help health authorities distribute timely information at scale, though the same recommendation systems also risk amplifying misinformation alongside official guidance. Sociologist Zeynep Tufekci has argued that the shift from independent blogs to large centralised platforms transferred gatekeeping power from traditional media to corporate algorithms. In the case of the Egyptian uprising of 2011, she noted that ordinary users
Mean opinion score
Mean opinion score (MOS) is a measure used in the domain of Quality of Experience and telecommunications engineering, representing overall quality of a stimulus or system. It is the arithmetic mean over all individual "values on a predefined scale that a subject assigns to his opinion of the performance of a system quality". Such ratings are usually gathered in a subjective quality evaluation test, but they can also be algorithmically estimated. MOS is a commonly used measure for video, audio, and audiovisual quality evaluation, but not restricted to those modalities. ITU-T has defined several ways of referring to a MOS in Recommendation ITU-T P.800.1, depending on whether the score was obtained from audiovisual, conversational, listening, talking, or video quality tests. == Rating scales and mathematical definition == The MOS is expressed as a single rational number, typically in the range 1–5, where 1 is lowest perceived quality, and 5 is the highest perceived quality. Other MOS ranges are also possible, depending on the rating scale that has been used in the underlying test. The Absolute Category Rating scale is very commonly used, which maps ratings between Bad and Excellent to numbers between 1 and 5, as seen in below table. Other standardized quality rating scales exist in ITU-T Recommendations (such as ITU-T P.800 or ITU-T P.910). For example, one could use a continuous scale ranging between 1–100. Which scale is used depends on the purpose of the test. In certain contexts there are no statistically significant differences between ratings for the same stimuli when they are obtained using different scales. The MOS is calculated as the arithmetic mean over single ratings performed by human subjects for a given stimulus in a subjective quality evaluation test. Thus: M O S = ∑ n = 1 N R n N {\displaystyle MOS={\frac {\sum _{n=1}^{N}{R_{n}}}{N}}} Where R {\displaystyle R} are the individual ratings for a given stimulus by N {\displaystyle N} subjects. == Properties of the MOS == The MOS is subject to certain mathematical properties and biases. In general, there is an ongoing debate on the usefulness of the MOS to quantify Quality of Experience in a single scalar value. When the MOS is acquired using a categorical rating scales, it is based on – similar to Likert scales – an ordinal scale. In this case, the ranking of the scale items is known, but their interval is not. Therefore, it is mathematically incorrect to calculate a mean over individual ratings in order to obtain the central tendency; the median should be used instead. However, in practice and in the definition of MOS, it is considered acceptable to calculate the arithmetic mean. It has been shown that for categorical rating scales (such as ACR), the individual items are not perceived equidistant by subjects. For example, there may be a larger "gap" between Good and Fair than there is between Good and Excellent. The perceived distance may also depend on the language into which the scale is translated. However, there exist studies that could not prove a significant impact of scale translation on the obtained results. Several other biases are present in the way MOS ratings are typically acquired. In addition to the above-mentioned issues with scales that are perceived non-linearly, there is a so-called "range-equalization bias": subjects, over the course of a subjective experiment, tend to give scores that span the entire rating scale. This makes it impossible to compare two different subjective tests if the range of presented quality differs. In other words, the MOS is never an absolute measure of quality, but only relative to the test in which it has been acquired. For the above reasons – and due to several other contextual factors influencing the perceived quality in a subjective test – a MOS value should only be reported if the context in which the values have been collected in is known and reported as well. MOS values gathered from different contexts and test designs therefore should not be directly compared. Recommendation ITU-T P.800.2 prescribes how MOS values should be reported. Specifically, P.800.2 says:it is not meaningful to directly compare MOS values produced from separate experiments, unless those experiments were explicitly designed to be compared, and even then the data should be statistically analysed to ensure that such a comparison is valid. == MOS for speech and audio quality estimation == MOS historically originates from subjective measurements where listeners would sit in a "quiet room" and score a telephone call quality as they perceived it. This kind of test methodology had been in use in the telephony industry for decades and was standardized in Recommendation ITU-T P.800. It specifies that "the talker should be seated in a quiet room with volume between 30 and 120 m³ and a reverberation time less than 500 ms (preferably in the range 200–300 ms). The room noise level must be below 30 dBA with no dominant peaks in the spectrum." Requirements for other modalities were similarly specified in later ITU-T Recommendations. == MOS estimation using quality models == Obtaining MOS ratings may be time-consuming and expensive as it requires the recruitment of human assessors. For various use cases such as codec development or service quality monitoring purposes – where quality should be estimated repeatedly and automatically – MOS scores can also be predicted by objective quality models, which typically have been developed and trained using human MOS ratings. A question that arises from using such models is whether the MOS differences produced are noticeable to the users. For example, when rating images on a five point MOS scale, an image with a MOS equal to 5 is expected to be noticeably better in quality than one with a MOS equal to 1. Contrary to that, it is not evident whether an image with a MOS equal to 3.8 is noticeably better in quality than one with a MOS equal to 3.6. Research conducted on determining the smallest MOS difference that is perceptible to users for digital photographs showed that a MOS difference of approximately 0.46 is required in order for 75% of the users to be able to detect the higher quality image. Nevertheless, image quality expectation, and hence MOS, changes over time with the change of user expectations. As a result, minimum noticeable MOS differences determined using analytical methods such as in may change over time.
Mini-STX
Mini-STX (mSTX, Mini Socket Technology EXtended, originally "Intel 5x5") is a computer motherboard form factor that was released by Intel in 2015 (as "Intel 5x5"). These motherboards measure 147mm by 140mm (5.8" x 5.5"), making them larger than "4x4" NUC (102x102mm / 4.01" x 4.01" inches) and Nano-ITX (120x120mm / 4.7" x 4.7") boards, but notably smaller than the more common Mini-ITX (170x170mm / 6.7" x 6.7") boards. Unlike these standards, which use a square shape, the Mini-STX form factor is 7mm longer from front-to-rear, making it slightly rectangular. == Mini-STX design elements == The Mini-STX design suggests (but does not require) support for: Socketed processors (e.g. LGA or PGA CPUs) Onboard power regulation circuitry, enabling direct DC power input IO ports embedded on the front and rear of the motherboard (akin to NUC, but unlike typical motherboards which often use headers instead to connect built-in ports on enclosures) == Adoption by manufacturers == This motherboard form factor is still not in particularly common use with consumer-PC manufacturers, although there are a few offerings: ASRock offers both DeskMini kits (that use mini-STX boards) and standalone motherboards, Asus offer VivoMini kits (that use mini-STX boards) and standalone motherboards, Gigabyte offers a few motherboards, and industrial PC suppliers (e.g. Kontron, Iesy, ASRock Industrial) also provide some options for mini-STX equipment. == Derivatives == ASRock developed a derivative of mini-STX, dubbed micro-STX, for their 'DeskMini GTX/RX' small form-factor PCs and industrial motherboards. Micro-STX adds an MXM slot which allows the use of special PCI Express expansion cards, including graphics or machine learning accelerators, but increases the width of the board to be extended two inches, resulting in measurements of 147 x 188 mm (5.8" x 7.4")
Word error rate
Word error rate (WER) is a common metric of the performance of a speech recognition or machine translation system. The WER metric typically ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates that the compared pieces of text are exactly identical, and 1 (or larger) indicates that they are completely different with no similarity. This way, a WER of 0.8 means that there is an 80% error rate for compared sentences. The general difficulty of measuring performance lies in the fact that the recognized word sequence can have a different length from the reference word sequence (supposedly the correct one). The WER is derived from the Levenshtein distance, working at the word level instead of the phoneme level. The WER is a valuable tool for comparing different systems as well as for evaluating improvements within one system. This kind of measurement, however, provides no details on the nature of translation errors and further work is therefore required to identify the main source(s) of error and to focus any research effort. This problem is solved by first aligning the recognized word sequence with the reference (spoken) word sequence using dynamic string alignment. Examination of this issue is seen through a theory called the power law that states the correlation between perplexity and word error rate. Word error rate can then be computed as: W E R = S + D + I N = S + D + I S + D + C {\displaystyle {\mathit {WER}}={\frac {S+D+I}{N}}={\frac {S+D+I}{S+D+C}}} where S is the number of substitutions, D is the number of deletions, I is the number of insertions, C is the number of correct words, N is the number of words in the reference (N=S+D+C) The intuition behind 'deletion' and 'insertion' is how to get from the reference to the hypothesis. So if we have the reference "This is wikipedia" and hypothesis "This _ wikipedia", we call it a deletion. Note that since N is the number of words in the reference, the word error rate can be larger than 1.0, namely if the number of insertions I is larger than the number of correct words C. When reporting the performance of a speech recognition system, sometimes word accuracy (WAcc) is used instead: W A c c = 1 − W E R = N − S − D − I N = C − I N {\displaystyle {\mathit {WAcc}}=1-{\mathit {WER}}={\frac {N-S-D-I}{N}}={\frac {C-I}{N}}} Since the WER can be larger than 1.0, the word accuracy can be smaller than 0.0. == Experiments == It is commonly believed that a lower word error rate shows superior accuracy in recognition of speech, compared with a higher word error rate. However, at least one study has shown that this may not be true. In a Microsoft Research experiment, it was shown that, if people were trained under "that matches the optimization objective for understanding", (Wang, Acero and Chelba, 2003) they would show a higher accuracy in understanding of language than other people who demonstrated a lower word error rate, showing that true understanding of spoken language relies on more than just high word recognition accuracy. == Other metrics == One problem with using a generic formula such as the one above, however, is that no account is taken of the effect that different types of error may have on the likelihood of successful outcome, e.g. some errors may be more disruptive than others and some may be corrected more easily than others. These factors are likely to be specific to the syntax being tested. A further problem is that, even with the best alignment, the formula cannot distinguish a substitution error from a combined deletion plus insertion error. Hunt (1990) has proposed the use of a weighted measure of performance accuracy where errors of substitution are weighted at unity but errors of deletion and insertion are both weighted only at 0.5, thus: W E R = S + 0.5 D + 0.5 I N {\displaystyle {\mathit {WER}}={\frac {S+0.5D+0.5I}{N}}} There is some debate, however, as to whether Hunt's formula may properly be used to assess the performance of a single system, as it was developed as a means of comparing more fairly competing candidate systems. A further complication is added by whether a given syntax allows for error correction and, if it does, how easy that process is for the user. There is thus some merit to the argument that performance metrics should be developed to suit the particular system being measured. Whichever metric is used, however, one major theoretical problem in assessing the performance of a system is deciding whether a word has been “mis-pronounced,” i.e. does the fault lie with the user or with the recogniser. This may be particularly relevant in a system which is designed to cope with non-native speakers of a given language or with strong regional accents. The pace at which words should be spoken during the measurement process is also a source of variability between subjects, as is the need for subjects to rest or take a breath. All such factors may need to be controlled in some way. For text dictation it is generally agreed that performance accuracy at a rate below 95% is not acceptable, but this again may be syntax and/or domain specific, e.g. whether there is time pressure on users to complete the task, whether there are alternative methods of completion, and so on. The term "Single Word Error Rate" is sometimes referred to as the percentage of incorrect recognitions for each different word in the system vocabulary. == Edit distance == The word error rate may also be referred to as the length normalized edit distance. The normalized edit distance between X and Y, d( X, Y ) is defined as the minimum of W( P ) / L ( P ), where P is an editing path between X and Y, W ( P ) is the sum of the weights of the elementary edit operations of P, and L(P) is the number of these operations (length of P).
RadioVIS
RadioVIS is a protocol for sideband signalling of images and text messages for a broadcast audio service to provide a richer visual experience. It is an application and sub-project of RadioDNS, which allows radio consumption devices to look up an IP-based service based on the parameters of the currently tuned broadcast station. In January 2015, the functionality of RadioVIS was integrated to Visual Slideshow (ETSI TS 101 499 v3.1.1). The original RVIS01 document is now deprecated. == Details == The protocol enables either Streaming Text Oriented Messaging Protocol (STOMP) or Comet to deliver text and image URLs to a client, with the images being acquired over a HTTP connection. The technology is currently implemented by a number of broadcasters across the world, including Global Radio, Bauer Radio in the UK, RTÉ in the Republic Of Ireland, Südwestrundfunk in Germany and a number of Australian media groups amongst others. A number of software clients exist to show the protocol, as well as hardware devices such as the Pure Sensia from Pure Digital, and the Colourstream from Roberts Radio.