In quantum computing, quantum finite automata (QFA) or quantum state machines are a quantum analog of probabilistic automata or a Markov decision process. They provide a mathematical abstraction of real-world quantum computers. Several types of automata may be defined, including measure-once and measure-many automata. Quantum finite automata can also be understood as the quantization of subshifts of finite type, or as a quantization of Markov chains. QFAs are, in turn, special cases of geometric finite automata or topological finite automata. The automata work by receiving a finite-length string σ = ( σ 0 , σ 1 , … , σ k ) {\displaystyle \sigma =(\sigma _{0},\sigma _{1},\dots ,\sigma _{k})} of letters σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}} from a finite alphabet Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } , and assigning to each such string a probability Pr ( σ ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Pr} (\sigma )} indicating the probability of the automaton being in an accept state; that is, indicating whether the automaton accepted or rejected the string. The languages accepted by QFAs are not the regular languages of deterministic finite automata, nor are they the stochastic languages of probabilistic finite automata. Study of these quantum languages remains an active area of research. == Informal description == There is a simple, intuitive way of understanding quantum finite automata. One begins with a graph-theoretic interpretation of deterministic finite automata (DFA). A DFA can be represented as a labelled directed graph, with states as nodes in the graph, and arrows representing state transitions. Each arrow is labelled with a possible input symbol, so that, given a specific state and an input symbol, the arrow points at the next state. One way of representing such a graph is by means of a set of adjacency matrices, with one matrix for each input symbol. In this case, a list of possible DFA states is written as a column vector. For a given input symbol, the adjacency matrix indicates how any given state (row in the state vector) will transition to the next state; a state transition is given by matrix multiplication. One needs a distinct adjacency matrix for each possible input symbol, since each input symbol can result in a different transition. The entries in the adjacency matrix must be zero's and one's. For any given column in the matrix, only one entry can be non-zero: this is the entry that indicates the next (unique) state transition. Similarly, the state of the system is a column vector, in which only one entry is non-zero: this entry corresponds to the current state of the system. Let Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } denote the set of input symbols. For a given input symbol α ∈ Σ {\displaystyle \alpha \in \Sigma } , write U α {\displaystyle U_{\alpha }} as the adjacency matrix that describes the evolution of the DFA to its next state. The set { U α | α ∈ Σ } {\displaystyle \{U_{\alpha }|\alpha \in \Sigma \}} then completely describes the state transition function of the DFA. Let Q represent the set of possible states of the DFA. If there are N states in Q, then each matrix U α {\displaystyle U_{\alpha }} is N by N-dimensional. The initial state q 0 ∈ Q {\displaystyle q_{0}\in Q} corresponds to a column vector with a one in the q0'th row. A general state q is then a column vector with a one in the q'th row. By abuse of notation, let q0 and q also denote these two vectors. Then, after reading input symbols α β γ ⋯ {\displaystyle \alpha \beta \gamma \cdots } from the input tape, the state of the DFA will be given by q = ⋯ U γ U β U α q 0 . {\displaystyle q=\cdots U_{\gamma }U_{\beta }U_{\alpha }q_{0}.} The state transitions are given by ordinary matrix multiplication (that is, multiply q0 by U α {\displaystyle U_{\alpha }} , etc.); the order of application is 'reversed' only because we follow the standard notation of linear algebra. The above description of a DFA, in terms of linear operators and vectors, almost begs for generalization, by replacing the state-vector q by some general vector, and the matrices { U α } {\displaystyle \{U_{\alpha }\}} by some general operators. This is essentially what a QFA does: it replaces q by a unit vector, and the { U α } {\displaystyle \{U_{\alpha }\}} by unitary matrices. Other, similar generalizations also become obvious: the vector q can be some distribution on a manifold; the set of transition matrices become automorphisms of the manifold; this defines a topological finite automaton. Similarly, the matrices could be taken as automorphisms of a homogeneous space; this defines a geometric finite automaton. Before moving on to the formal description of a QFA, there are two noteworthy generalizations that should be mentioned and understood. The first is the non-deterministic finite automaton (NFA). In this case, the vector q is replaced by a vector that can have more than one entry that is non-zero. Such a vector then represents an element of the power set of Q; it’s just an indicator function on Q. Likewise, the state transition matrices { U α } {\displaystyle \{U_{\alpha }\}} are defined in such a way that a given column can have several non-zero entries in it. Equivalently, the multiply-add operations performed during component-wise matrix multiplication should be replaced by Boolean and-or operations so that the semantics are kept intact. A well-known theorem states that, for each DFA, there is an equivalent NFA, and vice versa. This implies that the set of languages that can be recognized by DFA's and NFA's are the same; these are the regular languages. In the generalization to QFAs, the set of recognized languages will be different to the regular languages. Describing that set is one of the outstanding research problems in QFA theory. Another generalization that should be immediately apparent is to use a stochastic matrix for the transition matrices, and a probability vector for the state; this gives a probabilistic finite automaton. The entries in the state vector must be real numbers, positive, and sum to one, in order for the state vector to be interpreted as a probability. The transition matrices must preserve this property: this is why they must be stochastic. Each state vector should be imagined as specifying a point in a simplex; thus, this is a topological automaton, with the simplex being the manifold, and the stochastic matrices being linear automorphisms of the simplex onto itself. Since each transition is (essentially) independent of the previous (if we disregard the distinction between accepted and rejected languages), the PFA essentially becomes a kind of Markov chain. By contrast, in a QFA, the manifold is complex projective space C P N {\displaystyle \mathbb {C} P^{N}} , and the transition matrices are unitary matrices. Each point in C P N {\displaystyle \mathbb {C} P^{N}} corresponds to a (pure) quantum-mechanical state; the unitary matrices can be thought of as governing the time evolution of the system (viz in the Schrödinger picture). The generalization from pure states to mixed states should be straightforward: A mixed state is simply a measure-theoretic probability distribution on C P N {\displaystyle \mathbb {C} P^{N}} . A worthy point to contemplate is the distributions that result on the manifold during the input of a language. In order for an automaton to be 'efficient' in recognizing a language, that distribution should be 'as uniform as possible'. This need for uniformity is the underlying principle behind maximum entropy methods: these simply guarantee crisp, compact operation of the automaton. Put in other words, the machine learning methods used to train hidden Markov models generalize to QFAs as well: the Viterbi algorithm and the forward–backward algorithm generalize readily to the QFA. Although the study of QFA was popularized in the work of Kondacs and Watrous in 1997 and later by Moore and Crutchfeld, they were described as early as 1971, by Ion Baianu. == Measure-once automata == Measure-once automata were introduced by Cris Moore and James P. Crutchfield. They may be defined formally as follows. As with an ordinary finite automaton, the quantum automaton is considered to have N {\displaystyle N} possible internal states, represented in this case by an N {\displaystyle N} -level qudit | ψ ⟩ {\displaystyle |\psi \rangle } . More precisely, the N {\displaystyle N} -level qudit | ψ ⟩ ∈ P ( C N ) {\displaystyle |\psi \rangle \in P(\mathbb {C} ^{N})} is an element of ( N − 1 ) {\displaystyle (N-1)} -dimensional complex projective space, carrying an inner product ‖ ⋅ ‖ {\displaystyle \Vert \cdot \Vert } that is the Fubini–Study metric. The state transitions, transition matrices or de Bruijn graphs are represented by a collection of N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} unitary matrices U α {\displaystyle U_{\alpha }} , with one unitary matrix for each letter α ∈ Σ {\displaystyle \alpha \in \Sigma } . That is, given an input letter α {\displaystyle \alpha } , the unitary matrix describe
Kernel density estimation
In statistics, kernel density estimation (KDE) is the application of kernel smoothing for probability density estimation, i.e., a non-parametric method to estimate the probability density function of a random variable based on kernels as weights. KDE answers a fundamental data smoothing problem where inferences about the population are made based on a finite data sample. In some fields such as signal processing and econometrics it is also termed the Parzen–Rosenblatt window method, after Emanuel Parzen and Murray Rosenblatt, who are usually credited with independently creating it in its current form. One of the famous applications of kernel density estimation is in estimating the class-conditional marginal densities of data when using a naive Bayes classifier, which can improve its prediction accuracy. == Definition == Let x = ( x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , . . . ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} =\left(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},...\right)} be independent and identically distributed samples drawn from some univariate distribution with an unknown density f at any given point x. We are interested in estimating the shape of this function f. Its kernel density estimator is f ^ h ( x ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n K h ( x − x i ) = 1 n h ∑ i = 1 n K ( x − x i h ) , {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}_{h}(x)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}K_{h}(x-x_{i})={\frac {1}{nh}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}K{\left({\frac {x-x_{i}}{h}}\right)},} where K is the kernel — a non-negative function — and h > 0 is a smoothing parameter called the bandwidth or simply width. A kernel with subscript h is called the scaled kernel and defined as Kh(x) = 1/h K(x/h). Intuitively one wants to choose h as small as the data will allow; however, there is always a trade-off between the bias of the estimator and its variance. The choice of bandwidth is discussed in more detail below. A range of kernel functions are commonly used: uniform, triangular, biweight, triweight, Epanechnikov (parabolic), normal, and others. The Epanechnikov kernel is optimal in a mean square error sense, though the loss of efficiency is small for the kernels listed previously. Due to its convenient mathematical properties, the normal kernel is often used, which means K(x) = ϕ(x), where ϕ is the standard normal density function. The kernel density estimator then becomes f ^ h ( x ) = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n 1 h 2 π exp ( − ( x − x i ) 2 2 h 2 ) , {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}_{h}(x)={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\frac {1}{h{\sqrt {2\pi }}}}\exp \left({\frac {-(x-x_{i})^{2}}{2h^{2}}}\right),} where h {\displaystyle h} is the standard deviation of the sample x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } . The construction of a kernel density estimate finds interpretations in fields outside of density estimation. For example, in thermodynamics, this is equivalent to the amount of heat generated when heat kernels (the fundamental solution to the heat equation) are placed at each data point locations xi. Similar methods are used to construct discrete Laplace operators on point clouds for manifold learning (e.g. diffusion map). == Example == Kernel density estimates are closely related to histograms, but can be endowed with properties such as smoothness or continuity by using a suitable kernel. The diagram below based on these 6 data points illustrates this relationship: For the histogram, first, the horizontal axis is divided into sub-intervals or bins which cover the range of the data: In this case, six bins each of width 2. Whenever a data point falls inside this interval, a box of height 1/12 is placed there. If more than one data point falls inside the same bin, the boxes are stacked on top of each other. For the kernel density estimate, normal kernels with a standard deviation of 1.5 (indicated by the red dashed lines) are placed on each of the data points xi. The kernels are summed to make the kernel density estimate (solid blue curve). The smoothness of the kernel density estimate (compared to the discreteness of the histogram) illustrates how kernel density estimates converge faster to the true underlying density for continuous random variables. == Bandwidth selection == The bandwidth of the kernel is a free parameter which exhibits a strong influence on the resulting estimate. To illustrate its effect, we take a simulated random sample from the standard normal distribution (plotted at the blue spikes in the rug plot on the horizontal axis). The grey curve is the true density (a normal density with mean 0 and variance 1). In comparison, the red curve is undersmoothed since it contains too many spurious data artifacts arising from using a bandwidth h = 0.05, which is too small. The green curve is oversmoothed since using the bandwidth h = 2 obscures much of the underlying structure. The black curve with a bandwidth of h = 0.337 is considered to be optimally smoothed since its density estimate is close to the true density. An extreme situation is encountered in the limit h → 0 {\displaystyle h\to 0} (no smoothing), where the estimate is a sum of n delta functions centered at the coordinates of analyzed samples. In the other extreme limit h → ∞ {\displaystyle h\to \infty } the estimate retains the shape of the used kernel, centered on the mean of the samples (completely smooth). The most common optimality criterion used to select this parameter is the expected L2 risk function, also termed the mean integrated squared error: MISE ( h ) = E [ ∫ ( f ^ h ( x ) − f ( x ) ) 2 d x ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {MISE} (h)=\operatorname {E} \!\left[\int \!{\left({\hat {f}}\!_{h}(x)-f(x)\right)}^{2}dx\right]} Under weak assumptions on f and K, (f is the, generally unknown, real density function), MISE ( h ) = AMISE ( h ) + o ( ( n h ) − 1 + h 4 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {MISE} (h)=\operatorname {AMISE} (h)+{\mathcal {o}}{\left((nh)^{-1}+h^{4}\right)}} where o is the little o notation, and n the sample size (as above). The AMISE is the asymptotic MISE, i. e. the two leading terms, AMISE ( h ) = R ( K ) n h + 1 4 m 2 ( K ) 2 h 4 R ( f ″ ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {AMISE} (h)={\frac {R(K)}{nh}}+{\frac {1}{4}}m_{2}(K)^{2}h^{4}R(f'')} where R ( g ) = ∫ g ( x ) 2 d x {\textstyle R(g)=\int g(x)^{2}\,dx} for a function g, m 2 ( K ) = ∫ x 2 K ( x ) d x {\textstyle m_{2}(K)=\int x^{2}K(x)\,dx} and f ″ {\displaystyle f''} is the second derivative of f {\displaystyle f} and K {\displaystyle K} is the kernel. The minimum of this AMISE is the solution to this differential equation ∂ ∂ h AMISE ( h ) = − R ( K ) n h 2 + m 2 ( K ) 2 h 3 R ( f ″ ) = 0 {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial }{\partial h}}\operatorname {AMISE} (h)=-{\frac {R(K)}{nh^{2}}}+m_{2}(K)^{2}h^{3}R(f'')=0} or h AMISE = R ( K ) 1 / 5 m 2 ( K ) 2 / 5 R ( f ″ ) 1 / 5 n − 1 / 5 = C n − 1 / 5 {\displaystyle h_{\operatorname {AMISE} }={\frac {R(K)^{1/5}}{m_{2}(K)^{2/5}R(f'')^{1/5}}}n^{-1/5}=Cn^{-1/5}} Neither the AMISE nor the hAMISE formulas can be used directly since they involve the unknown density function f {\displaystyle f} or its second derivative f ″ {\displaystyle f''} . To overcome that difficulty, a variety of automatic, data-based methods have been developed to select the bandwidth. Several review studies have been undertaken to compare their efficacies, with the general consensus that the plug-in selectors and cross validation selectors are the most useful over a wide range of data sets. Substituting any bandwidth h which has the same asymptotic order n−1/5 as hAMISE into the AMISE gives that AMISE(h) = O(n−4/5), where O is the big O notation. It can be shown that, under weak assumptions, there cannot exist a non-parametric estimator that converges at a faster rate than the kernel estimator. Note that the n−4/5 rate is slower than the typical n−1 convergence rate of parametric methods. If the bandwidth is not held fixed, but is varied depending upon the location of either the estimate (balloon estimator) or the samples (pointwise estimator), this produces a particularly powerful method termed adaptive or variable bandwidth kernel density estimation. Bandwidth selection for kernel density estimation of heavy-tailed distributions is relatively difficult. === A rule-of-thumb bandwidth estimator === If Gaussian basis functions are used to approximate univariate data, and the underlying density being estimated is Gaussian, the optimal choice for h (that is, the bandwidth that minimises the mean integrated squared error) is: h = ( 4 σ ^ 5 3 n ) 1 / 5 ≈ 1.06 σ ^ n − 1 / 5 , {\displaystyle h={\left({\frac {4{\hat {\sigma }}^{5}}{3n}}\right)}^{1/5}\approx 1.06\,{\hat {\sigma }}\,n^{-1/5},} An h {\displaystyle h} value is considered more robust when it improves the fit for long-tailed and skewed distributions or for bimodal mixture distributions. This is often done empirically by replacing the standard deviation σ ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\sigma }}} by the parameter A {\displaystyle A} below: A = min ( σ ^ , I Q R 1.34 ) {\displaystyle A=\min \left({\hat {\sigma }},{\frac {\mathrm {IQR} }{1.34}}\right)} where IQR is the
Suggested Upper Merged Ontology
The Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO) is an upper ontology intended as a foundation ontology for a variety of computer information processing systems. SUMO defines a hierarchy of classes and related rules and relationships. These are expressed in a version of the language SUO-KIF, a higher-order logic that has a LISP-like syntax, as well as the TPTP family of languages. A mapping from WordNet synsets to SUMO has been defined. Initially, SUMO was focused on meta-level concepts (general entities that do not belong to a specific problem domain), and thereby would lead naturally to a categorization scheme for encyclopedias. It has now been considerably expanded to include a mid-level ontology and dozens of domain ontologies. SUMO is organized for interoperability of automated reasoning engines. To maximize compatibility, schema designers can try to assure that their naming conventions use the same meanings as SUMO for identical words (for example, "agent" or "process"). SUMO has an associated open source Sigma knowledge engineering environment. Initially, Sumo was developed by the Teknowledge Corporation and now is maintained by Articulate Software. SUMO is open source. The first release was in December 2000.
Mira Murati
Ermira "Mira" Murati (born 16 December 1988) is an Albanian-American business executive. She launched an AI startup called Thinking Machines Lab in February 2025. Previously she was the chief technology officer of OpenAI, and a senior product manager at Tesla. == Early life and education == Murati was born on 16 December 1988 in Vlorë, Albania. She is fluent in Italian. At age 16, she won a United World Colleges (UWC) scholarship to study at Pearson College on Vancouver Island in Canada, from which she graduated in 2007 with an International Baccalaureate. After Pearson, she went to the United States to pursue further studies through a dual-degree program, earning a Bachelor of Arts from Colby College in 2011, and a Bachelor of Engineering degree from Dartmouth College's Thayer School of Engineering in 2012. == Career == === Early career === Murati interned in 2011 as a summer analyst at Goldman Sachs in Tokyo, Japan. She then briefly worked for Zodiac Aerospace as an intern before joining the electric car company Tesla in 2013 as a product manager on the Model X. From 2016 to 2018, she worked for the augmented reality start-up Leap Motion (now Ultraleap). === OpenAI === In 2018, she joined OpenAI as the VP of Applied AI and partnerships. She became chief technology officer (CTO) in May 2022. She led OpenAI's work on ChatGPT, Dall-E, Codex and Sora, while overseeing its research, product and safety teams. She oversaw technical advancements and direction of OpenAI's various projects, including the development of advanced AI models and tools. Murati worked on several of OpenAI's notable products, such as the Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT) series of language models. Commenting about the potential loss of creative jobs to AI, Murati said that "maybe [the jobs] shouldn’t have been there in the first place". In October 2023, Murati was ranked 57th on Fortune's list of "The 100 Most Powerful Women in Business of 2023". In November 2023, Murati became interim chief executive officer of OpenAI following the removal of Sam Altman from the job. She had collaborated with Ilya Sutskever, whose 52-page memo outlining concerns about Altman relied heavily on screenshots and information she provided, which contributed to the board's decision to oust him. Murati was replaced by Emmett Shear three days later, who left when Altman was reinstated five days later. Following these events, Murati returned to her role as CTO. In June 2024, Dartmouth College awarded Murati an honorary Doctor of Science for having "democratized technology and advanced a better, safer world for us all". In September 2024, Murati announced that she was stepping down as CTO to allow her the opportunity to "do my own exploration". This move came amid a wider executive exodus as OpenAI chief research officer Bob McGrew and a vice president of research, Barret Zoph, also announced their departures soon after. === Thinking Machines Lab === In February 2025, Murati launched Thinking Machines Lab, a new public benefit corporation aiming "to make AI systems more widely understood, customizable, and generally capable". She was reported to have hired "a team of about 30 leading researchers and engineers from competitors including Meta, Mistral, and OpenAI." People involved with the startup include OpenAI cofounder John Schulman, and advisors Alec Radford and Bob McGrew. The following month, Bloomberg reported that the company had reached an estimated valuation of $9 billion, with an "average founder stake value" of $1.4 billion. In April 2025, Thinking Machines Lab reportedly aimed for a $2 billion seed round (requiring a minimum investment of $50 million). The round was led by Andreessen Horowitz and included participation from the government of Albania, valuing the company at $12 billion. Thinking Machines Lab follows a governance structure wherein Mira Murati holds a deciding vote on board matters, weighted to provide her with a majority decision-making capability. In October 2025, Thinking Machines Lab announced its first product, Tinker, a tool used to create custom frontier AI models. == Publications == Murati, Ermira (Spring 2022). "Language & Coding Creativity". Daedalus. 151 (2). Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS): 156–167. doi:10.1162/daed_a_01907. Retrieved 25 September 2024.
Noam Shazeer
Noam Shazeer (born 1975 or 1976) is an American computer scientist and entrepreneur known for his contributions to the field of artificial intelligence and deep learning, particularly in the development of transformer models and natural language processing. He lives in Palo Alto, California. == Career == Noam Shazeer joined Google in 2000. One of his first major achievements was improving the spelling corrector of Google's search engine. In 2017, Shazeer was one of the lead authors of the seminal paper "Attention Is All You Need", which introduced the transformer architecture. At Google, Shazeer and his colleague Daniel de Freitas built a chatbot named Meena. Following the refusal of Google to release the chatbot to the public, Shazeer and Freitas left the company in 2021 to found Character.AI. In September 2023, Time Magazine chose Shazeer as one of the 100 most influential people in the AI world. In August 2024, it was reported that Shazeer would be returning to Google to co-lead the Gemini AI project. Shazeer was appointed as technical lead on Gemini, along with Jeff Dean and Oriol Vinyals. It was part of a $2.7 billion deal for Google to license Character's technology. Since he owns 30-40% of the company, it is estimated he netted $750 million-$1 billion. In 2026, he was elected a member of the National Academy of Engineering. == Views == Shazeer said about artificial general intelligence that he doesn't "particularly care about AGI in the sense of wanting something that can do absolutely everything a person can do”. When asked in 2023 if he is afraid that AGI will destroy the world, he said: "No. Not yet. [...] We’re going to work on it as the technology improves". When asked why do large language models work he answered: "My best guess is divine benevolence [...] Nobody really understands what’s going on. This is a very experimental science [...] It’s more like alchemy or whatever chemistry was in the Middle Ages.” Shazeer has stated, "I do not believe that humans have an attribute called gender... I do not believe that G-d puts people in the wrong bodies. I do not believe that it is okay to sterilize children." == Personal life == Shazeer is an orthodox Jew. His grandparents escaped the Holocaust into the Soviet Union and later lived some time in Israel before emigrating to the USA. His father, Dov Shazeer, was a math teacher who became an engineer and his mother was a homemaker. His sister was ordained as a rabbi by Hebrew College. Shazeer was born in Philadelphia, attended grade school at Cohen Hillel Academy in Marblehead, Massachusetts, and attended Swampscott High School in Swampscott, Massachusetts. He won a gold medal with perfect score at International Mathematical Olympiad 1994 as a member of the USA team. He went on to study math and computer science at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina from 1994 to 1998. At Duke he was a recipient of the Angier B. Duke Memorial Scholarship, and, as part of the Duke math team, won prizes in several math tournaments. He started studying in a graduate program in Berkeley but did not finish it. He is a father of three and is married to Yael Shacham Shazeer
2024 National Public Data breach
In August 2024, three class-action lawsuits were filed against National Public Data along with over 14 complaints filed in federal court, claiming that the company permitted hackers to steal sensitive private information covering millions of individuals. The theft was alleged to have occurred in April 2024. One of the lawsuits specifically claims that in April, a hacker going by the moniker "USDoD" posted a notice on the dark web, offering the data for sale at the price of US$3.5 million. The information stolen is alleged to include 2.9 billion records containing full names, current and past addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and telephone numbers. The stolen data contains records for people in the US, UK, and Canada. National Public Data confirmed on August 16, 2024, there was a breach originating from someone trying to breach their systems since December 2023, with the breach occurring from April 2024 and over the next few months. The company also confirmed that 2.9 billion records were obtained, though they were still working to determine how many people were affected by the breach, and were working with law enforcement to identify the hacker. == Jerico Pictures == Jerico Pictures, Inc., doing business as National Public Data, was a data broker company that performed employee background checks. Their primary service was collecting information from public data sources, including criminal records, addresses, and employment history, and offering that information for sale. On October 2, 2024, Jerico Pictures filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy as it currently faces over a dozen lawsuits over the breach, and is potentially liable "for credit monitoring for hundreds of millions of potentially impacted individuals." In December 2024, National Public Data shut down, showing a closure notice on its website.
John F. Sowa
John Florian Sowa (born 1940) is an American computer scientist, an expert in artificial intelligence and computer design, and the inventor of conceptual graphs. == Biography == Sowa received a BS in mathematics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1962, an MA in applied mathematics from Harvard University in 1966, and a PhD in computer science from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel in 1999 with a dissertation titled "Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations". Sowa spent most of his professional career at IBM, starting in 1962 at IBM's applied mathematics group. Over the decades he has researched and developed emerging fields of computer science from compilers, programming languages, and system architecture to artificial intelligence and knowledge representation. In the 1990s Sowa was associated with the IBM Educational Center in New York. Over the years he taught courses at the IBM Systems Research Institute, Binghamton University, Stanford University, the Linguistic Society of America and the Université du Québec à Montréal. He is a fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. After early retirement at IBM, Sowa in 2001 cofounded VivoMind Intelligence, Inc. with Arun K. Majumdar. With this company he was developing data-mining and database technology, more specifically high-level "ontologies" for artificial intelligence and automated natural language understanding. Currently Sowa is working with Kyndi Inc., also founded by Majumdar. John Sowa is married to the philologist Cora Angier Sowa, and they live in Croton-on-Hudson, New York. == Work == Sowa's research interests since the 1970s were in the field of artificial intelligence, expert systems and database query linked to natural languages. In his work he combines ideas from numerous disciplines and eras modern and ancient, for example, applying ideas from Aristotle, the medieval scholastics to Alfred North Whitehead and including database schema theory, and incorporating the model of analogy of Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyyah in his works. === Conceptual graph === Sowa invented conceptual graphs, a graphic notation for logic and natural language, based on the structures in semantic networks and on the existential graphs of Charles S. Peirce. He introduced the concept in the 1976 article "Conceptual graphs for a data base interface" in the IBM Journal of Research and Development. He elaborated upon it in the 1983 book Conceptual structures: information processing in mind and machine. In the 1980s, this theory had "been adopted by a number of research and development groups throughout the world. International conferences on conceptual structures (ICCS) have been held since 1993, following a series of conceptual graph workshops that began in 1986. === Sowa's law of standards === In 1991, Sowa first stated his Law of Standards: "Whenever a major organization develops a new system as an official standard for X, the primary result is the widespread adoption of some simpler system as a de facto standard for X." Like Gall's law, The Law of Standards is essentially an argument in favour of underspecification. Examples include: The introduction of PL/I resulting in COBOL and FORTRAN becoming the de facto standards for business and scientific programming respectively The introduction of Algol-68 resulting in Pascal becoming the de facto standard for academic programming The introduction of the Ada language resulting in C becoming the de facto standard for US Department of Defense programming The introduction of OS/2 resulting in Windows becoming the de facto standard for desktop OS The introduction of X.400 resulting in SMTP becoming the de facto standard for electronic mail The introduction of X.500 resulting in LDAP becoming the de facto standard for directory services == Publications == 1984. Conceptual Structures - Information Processing in Mind and Machine. The Systems Programming Series, Addison-Wesley 1991. Principles of Semantic Networks. Morgan Kaufmann. Mineau, Guy W; Moulin, Bernard; Sowa, John F, eds. (1993). Conceptual Graphs for Knowledge Representation. LNCS. Vol. 699. doi:10.1007/3-540-56979-0. ISBN 978-3-540-56979-4. S2CID 32275791. 1994. International Conference on Conceptual Structures (2nd : 1994 : College Park, Md.) Conceptual structures, current practices : Second International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS'94, College Park, Maryland, USA, August 16–20, 1994 : proceedings. William M. Tepfenhart, Judith P. Dick, John F. Sowa, eds. Ellis, Gerard; Levinson, Robert; Rich, William; Sowa, John F, eds. (1995). Conceptual Structures: Applications, Implementation and Theory. LNCS. Vol. 954. doi:10.1007/3-540-60161-9. ISBN 978-3-540-60161-6. S2CID 27300281. Lukose, Dickson; Delugach, Harry; Keeler, Mary; Searle, Leroy; Sowa, John, eds. (1997). Conceptual Structures: Fulfilling Peirce's Dream. LNCS. Vol. 1257. doi:10.1007/BFb0027865. ISBN 3-540-63308-1. S2CID 1934069. 2000. Knowledge representation : logical, philosophical, and computational foundations, Brooks Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove Articles, a selection Sowa, J. F. (July 1976). "Conceptual Graphs for a Data Base Interface". IBM Journal of Research and Development. 20 (4): 336–357. doi:10.1147/rd.204.0336. Sowa, J. F.; Zachman, J. A. (1992). "Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architecture". IBM Systems Journal. 31 (3): 590–616. doi:10.1147/sj.313.0590. 1992. "Conceptual Graph Summary"; In: T.E. Nagle et al. (Eds.). Conceptual Structures: Current Research and Practice. Chichester: Ellis Horwood. 1995. "Top-level ontological categories." in: International journal of human-computer studies. Vol. 43, Iss. 5–6, Nov. 1995, pp. 669–685 2006. "Semantic Networks". In: Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science.. John Wiley & Sons.