Tail latency is a term used to describe the high-percentile response times seen in a system. This is usually measured at the 95th, 99th, or 99.9th percentile, not the average latency. In distributed systems, cloud computing, and large-scale web services, even a small number of slow requests can make the user experience and system performance much worse. Tail latency often happens because of things like resource contention, network variability, garbage collection pauses, and hardware heterogeneity. A major problem in system design is managing tail latency, because lowering average latency doesn't always make the worst-case performance better. To lessen its effects, people often use techniques like request hedging, replication, load balancing, and adaptive timeouts. In latency-sensitive applications like search engines, financial systems, and real-time services, where service-level objectives (SLOs) are often based on high-percentile latencies, it is especially important to understand and improve tail latency.
Trustworthy computing
The term trustworthy computing (TwC) has been applied to computing systems that are inherently secure, available, and reliable. It is particularly associated with the Microsoft initiative of the same name, launched in 2002. == History == Until 1995, there were restrictions on commercial traffic over the Internet. On, May 26, 1995, Bill Gates sent the "Internet Tidal Wave" memorandum to Microsoft executives assigning "...the Internet this highest level of importance..." but Microsoft's Windows 95 was released without a web browser as Microsoft had not yet developed one. The success of the web had caught them by surprise but by mid 1995, they were testing their own web server, and on August 24, 1995, launched a major online service, The Microsoft Network (MSN). The National Research Council recognized that the rise of the Internet simultaneously increased societal reliance on computer systems while increasing the vulnerability of such systems to failure and produced an important report in 1999, "Trust in Cyberspace". This report reviews the cost of un-trustworthy systems and identifies actions required for improvement. == Microsoft and Trustworthy Computing == Bill Gates launched Microsoft's "Trustworthy Computing" initiative with a January 15, 2002 memo, referencing an internal whitepaper by Microsoft CTO and Senior Vice President Craig Mundie. The move was reportedly prompted by the fact that they "...had been under fire from some of its larger customers–government agencies, financial companies and others–about the security problems in Windows, issues that were being brought front and center by a series of self-replicating worms and embarrassing attacks." such as Code Red, Nimda, Klez and Slammer. Four areas were identified as the initiative's key areas: Security, Privacy, Reliability, and Business Integrity, and despite some initial scepticism, at its 10-year anniversary it was generally accepted as having "...made a positive impact on the industry...". The Trustworthy Computing campaign was the main reason why Easter eggs disappeared from Windows, Office and other Microsoft products.
Knowledge organization
Knowledge organization (KO), organization of knowledge, organization of information, or information organization is an intellectual discipline concerned with activities such as document description, indexing, and classification that serve to provide systems of representation and order for knowledge and information objects. According to The Organization of Information by Joudrey and Taylor, information organization: examines the activities carried out and tools used by people who work in places that accumulate information resources (e.g., books, maps, documents, datasets, images) for the use of humankind, both immediately and for posterity. It discusses the processes that are in place to make resources findable, whether someone is searching for a single known item or is browsing through hundreds of resources just hoping to discover something useful. Information organization supports a myriad of information-seeking scenarios. Issues related to knowledge sharing can be said to have been an important part of knowledge management for a long time. Knowledge sharing has received a lot of attention in research and business practice both within and outside organizations and its different levels. Sharing knowledge is not only about giving it to others, but it also includes searching, locating, and absorbing knowledge. Unawareness of the employees' work and duties tends to provoke the repetition of mistakes, the waste of resources, and duplication of the same projects. Motivating co-workers to share their knowledge is called knowledge enabling. It leads to trust among individuals and encourages a more open and proactive relationship that grants the exchange of information easily. Knowledge sharing is part of the three-phase knowledge management process which is a continuous process model. The three parts are knowledge creation, knowledge implementation, and knowledge sharing. The process is continuous, which is why the parts cannot be fully separated. Knowledge creation is the consequence of individuals' minds, interactions, and activities. Developing new ideas and arrangements alludes to the process of knowledge creation. Using the knowledge which is present at the company in the most effective manner stands for the implementation of knowledge. Knowledge sharing, the most essential part of the process for our topic, takes place when two or more people benefit by learning from each other. Traditional human-based approaches performed by librarians, archivists, and subject specialists are increasingly challenged by computational (big data) algorithmic techniques. KO as a field of study is concerned with the nature and quality of such knowledge-organizing processes (KOP) (such as taxonomy and ontology) as well as the resulting knowledge organizing systems (KOS). == Theoretical approaches == === Traditional approaches === Among the major figures in the history of KO are Melvil Dewey (1851–1931) and Henry Bliss (1870–1955). Dewey's goal was an efficient way to manage library collections; not an optimal system to support users of libraries. His system was meant to be used in many libraries as a standardized way to manage collections. The first version of this system was created in 1876. An important characteristic in Henry Bliss' (and many contemporary thinkers of KO) was that the sciences tend to reflect the order of Nature and that library classification should reflect the order of knowledge as uncovered by science: The implication is that librarians, in order to classify books, should know about scientific developments. This should also be reflected in their education: Again from the standpoint of the higher education of librarians, the teaching of systems of classification ... would be perhaps better conducted by including courses in the systematic encyclopedia and methodology of all the sciences, that is to say, outlines which try to summarize the most recent results in the relation to one another in which they are now studied together. ... (Ernest Cushing Richardson, quoted from Bliss, 1935, p. 2) Among the other principles, which may be attributed to the traditional approach to KO are: Principle of controlled vocabulary Cutter's rule about specificity Hulme's principle of literary warrant (1911) Principle of organizing from the general to the specific Today, after more than 100 years of research and development in LIS, the "traditional" approach still has a strong position in KO and in many ways its principles still dominate. === Facet analytic approaches === The date of the foundation of this approach may be chosen as the publication of S. R. Ranganathan's colon classification in 1933. The approach has been further developed by, in particular, the British Classification Research Group. The best way to explain this approach is probably to explain its analytico-synthetic methodology. The meaning of the term "analysis" is: breaking down each subject into its basic concepts. The meaning of the term synthesis is: combining the relevant units and concepts to describe the subject matter of the information package in hand. Given subjects (as they appear in, for example, book titles) are first analyzed into a few common categories, which are termed "facets". Ranganathan proposed his PMEST formula: Personality, Matter, Energy, Space and Time: Personality is the distinguishing characteristic of a subject. Matter is the physical material of which a subject may be composed. Energy is any action that occurs with respect to the subject. Space is the geographic component of the location of a subject. Time is the period associated with a subject. === The information retrieval tradition (IR) === Important in the IR-tradition have been, among others, the Cranfield experiments, which were founded in the 1950s, and the TREC experiments (Text Retrieval Conferences) starting in 1992. It was the Cranfield experiments, which introduced the measures "recall" and "precision" as evaluation criteria for systems efficiency. The Cranfield experiments found that classification systems like UDC and facet-analytic systems were less efficient compared to free-text searches or low level indexing systems ("UNITERM"). The Cranfield I test found, according to Ellis (1996, 3–6) the following results: Although these results have been criticized and questioned, the IR-tradition became much more influential while library classification research lost influence. The dominant trend has been to regard only statistical averages. What has largely been neglected is to ask: Are there certain kinds of questions in relation to which other kinds of representation, for example, controlled vocabularies, may improve recall and precision? === User-oriented and cognitive views === The best way to define this approach is probably by method: Systems based upon user-oriented approaches must specify how the design of a system is made on the basis of empirical studies of users. User studies demonstrated very early that users prefer verbal search systems as opposed to systems based on classification notations. This is one example of a principle derived from empirical studies of users. Adherents of classification notations may, of course, still have an argument: That notations are well-defined and that users may miss important information by not considering them. Folksonomies is a recent kind of KO based on users' rather than on librarians' or subject specialists' indexing. === Bibliometric approaches === These approaches are primarily based on using bibliographical references to organize networks of papers, mainly by bibliographic coupling (introduced by Kessler 1963) or co-citation analysis ( independently suggested by Marshakova 1973 and Small 1973). In recent years it has become a popular activity to construe bibliometric maps as structures of research fields. Two considerations are important in considering bibliometric approaches to KO: The level of indexing depth is partly determined by the number of terms assigned to each document. In citation indexing this corresponds to the number of references in a given paper. On the average, scientific papers contain 10–15 references, which provide quite a high level of depth. The references, which function as access points, are provided by the highest subject-expertise: The experts writing in the leading journals. This expertise is much higher than that which library catalogs or bibliographical databases typically are able to draw on. === The domain analytic approach === Domain analysis is a sociological-epistemological standpoint that advocates that the indexing of a given document should reflect the needs of a given group of users or a given ideal purpose. In other words, any description or representation of a given document is more or less suited to the fulfillment of certain tasks. A description is never objective or neutral, and the goal is not to standardize descriptions or make one description once and for all for different target groups. The develo
Kinodynamic planning
In robotics and motion planning, kinodynamic planning is a class of problems for which velocity, acceleration, and force/torque bounds must be satisfied, together with kinematic constraints such as avoiding obstacles. The term was coined by Bruce Donald, Pat Xavier, John Canny, and John Reif. Donald et al. developed the first polynomial-time approximation schemes (PTAS) for the problem. By providing a provably polynomial-time ε-approximation algorithm, they resolved a long-standing open problem in optimal control. Their first paper considered time-optimal control ("fastest path") of a point mass under Newtonian dynamics, amidst polygonal (2D) or polyhedral (3D) obstacles, subject to state bounds on position, velocity, and acceleration. Later they extended the technique to many other cases, for example, to 3D open-chain kinematic robots under full Lagrangian dynamics. == Modern approaches == Since the foundational theoretical work of the 1990s, the field has evolved significantly with new algorithmic approaches that address the computational and practical limitations of early methods. === Sampling-based methods === Many practical heuristic algorithms based on stochastic optimization and iterative sampling have been developed by a wide range of authors to address the kinodynamic planning problem. Popular approaches include extensions of RRT algorithms such as RRT for kinodynamic systems, and sampling-based methods like Model Predictive Path Integral (MPPI) control. These stochastic techniques have been shown to work well in practice and can handle complex, high-dimensional state spaces more efficiently than deterministic methods. However, all motion planning methods are subject to the PSPACE-hardnesss of classical motion planning even without dynamics, which means (assuming the usual structural complexity conjectures) they all can be worst-case exponential-time in the state-space dimension (the number of degrees of freedom). On the other hand, the deterministic methods have provable guarantees of completeness, accuracy, and complexity (for fixed dimension, they are polynomial-time not only in the geometric complexity, but also in ( 1 / ε ) {\displaystyle (1/\varepsilon )} , the closeness of the desired approximation), whereas most of the recent heuristic/stochastic methods sacrifice at least one of these criteria. === Mixed-integer optimization approaches === Recent advances in mixed-integer programming have enabled new deterministic approaches to kinodynamic planning. These methods formulate the planning problem as an optimization task that simultaneously determines the spatial path and control sequence while respecting all kinodynamic constraints. By using techniques such as McCormick envelopes to handle bilinear constraints, these approaches can provide globally optimal solutions with mathematical guarantees while achieving significant computational speedups over traditional methods. === Genetic algorithm approaches === Genetic algorithms have also been adapted for kinodynamic planning, particularly for gradient-free optimization in challenging terrain. These methods use evolutionary computation to optimize trajectories over receding horizons, with specialized mutation operators that ensure vehicle controls remain within operational limits. This approach is particularly useful when dealing with non-differentiable cost functions or when gradient information is unavailable or unreliable. === Three-dimensional terrain planning === The foundational theoretical work of the 1990s was extended to higher degrees of freedom, and even to n {\displaystyle n} -link, 3D open-chain kinematic robots under full Lagrangian dynamics. However, many of the subsequent heuristic techniques (typically employing stochastic optimization) were confined to planar environments. More recent kinodynamic planning has extended beyond these planar environments to handle complex 3D terrains represented as simplicial complexes or triangular meshes. This advancement is particularly important for applications such as autonomous vehicle navigation in off-road environments, where elevation changes and terrain geometry significantly impact vehicle dynamics. These methods must account for pitch angles, surface curvature, and the coupling between terrain geometry and vehicle kinodynamic constraints. == Performance and guarantees == The landscape of performance guarantees in kinodynamic planning has evolved considerably. While early heuristic methods could not guarantee optimality, recent mixed-integer approaches have demonstrated the ability to find globally optimal solutions with proven constraint satisfaction. Experimental comparisons have shown that modern optimization-based planners can achieve execution times several orders of magnitude faster than sampling-based methods while maintaining strict adherence to kinodynamic constraints. However, the choice of method often depends on the specific application requirements. Sampling-based methods remain valuable for their ability to quickly find feasible solutions in high-dimensional spaces and their robustness to modeling uncertainties. Optimization-based methods excel when optimality guarantees and constraint compliance are critical, particularly in safety-critical applications. == Applications == Kinodynamic planning finds applications across numerous domains including: Autonomous vehicles: Path planning for cars, trucks, and other ground vehicles that must respect acceleration, steering, and velocity limits Aerial robotics: Trajectory planning for quadrotors and other unmanned aerial vehicles with dynamic constraints Manipulation: Planning for robotic arms where joint velocities, accelerations, and torques are limited Legged locomotion: Footstep and trajectory planning for walking and running robots Space robotics: Planning under thrust and fuel constraints for spacecraft and rovers
DONE
The Data-based Online Nonlinear Extremumseeker (DONE) algorithm is a black-box optimization algorithm. DONE models the unknown cost function and attempts to find an optimum of the underlying function. The DONE algorithm is suitable for optimizing costly and noisy functions and does not require derivatives. An advantage of DONE over similar algorithms, such as Bayesian optimization, is that the computational cost per iteration is independent of the number of function evaluations. == Methods == The DONE algorithm was first proposed by Hans Verstraete and Sander Wahls in 2015. The algorithm fits a surrogate model based on random Fourier features and then uses a well-known L-BFGS algorithm to find an optimum of the surrogate model. == Applications == DONE was first demonstrated for maximizing the signal in optical coherence tomography measurements, but has since then been applied to various other applications. For example, it was used to help extending the field of view in light sheet fluorescence microscopy.
TAPPS2
TAPPS2 (Technische Alternative Planungs- und Programmier-System) is a tool used for developing the program logic for the universal, heating and solar thermal controllers by Austrian manufacturer Technische Alternative. Its primary usecase is defining the exact reaction of the controller to a certain event. Other than its predecessor, TAPPS, which could only be used to program controllers of type UVR1611, TAPPS2 is mainly used to program the UVR16x2 and RSM610 controllers, as well as several extension modules. == Development == Development in TAPPS2 is done on a vector-based drawing surface using components that can be placed via drag and drop. The components, which can be separated into inputs, functions and outputs are then being connected according to their individual features. Available components vary according to the current solar thermal control unit.
Ontology alignment
Ontology alignment, or ontology matching, is the process of determining correspondences between concepts in ontologies. A set of correspondences is also called an alignment. The phrase takes on a slightly different meaning, in computer science, cognitive science or philosophy. == Computer science == For computer scientists, concepts are expressed as labels for data. Historically, the need for ontology alignment arose out of the need to integrate heterogeneous databases, ones developed independently and thus each having their own data vocabulary. In the Semantic Web context involving many actors providing their own ontologies, ontology matching has taken a critical place for helping heterogeneous resources to interoperate. Ontology alignment tools find classes of data that are semantically equivalent, for example, "truck" and "lorry". The classes are not necessarily logically identical. According to Euzenat and Shvaiko (2007), there are three major dimensions for similarity: syntactic, external, and semantic. Coincidentally, they roughly correspond to the dimensions identified by Cognitive Scientists below. A number of tools and frameworks have been developed for aligning ontologies, some with inspiration from Cognitive Science and some independently. Ontology alignment tools have generally been developed to operate on database schemas, XML schemas, taxonomies, formal languages, entity-relationship models, dictionaries, and other label frameworks. They are usually converted to a graph representation before being matched. Since the emergence of the Semantic Web, such graphs can be represented in the Resource Description Framework line of languages by triples of the form