IruSoft (Arabic: آيروسوفت) is an insurance regulatory platform designated for licensing, supervision and inspection of the insurance sector within a country. The platform introduced unique supervision-technology (suptech), insurance-technology (insurtech) and regulatory-technology (regtech) automated modules by which a regulator requires less resources to ensure fairness, transparency and competition and to prevent conflicts of interest in the sector. IruSoft was founded by Abdullah Al-Salloum and owned by the Insurance Regulatory Unit in Kuwait. The Insurance Regulatory Unit optimized processing insurance-sector's customer complaints by issuing Resolution No. (1) of 2022 that introduced IruSoft's complaints public module; an automated resolution center, by which the process of receiving submitted complaints, passing them on to the platforms of licensed insurance companies, tracking matter-related discussions and updates and getting them escalated if unresolved to be discussed by a committee assigned by the unit is integrally automated and analyzed for better key performance indicators.
Super-resolution optical fluctuation imaging
Super-resolution optical fluctuation imaging (SOFI) is a post-processing method for the calculation of super-resolved images from recorded image time series that is based on the temporal correlations of independently fluctuating fluorescent emitters. SOFI has been developed for super-resolution of biological specimen that are labelled with independently fluctuating fluorescent emitters (organic dyes, fluorescent proteins). In comparison to other super-resolution microscopy techniques such as STORM or PALM that rely on single-molecule localization and hence only allow one active molecule per diffraction-limited area (DLA) and timepoint, SOFI does not necessitate a controlled photoswitching and/ or photoactivation as well as long imaging times. Nevertheless, it still requires fluorophores that are cycling through two distinguishable states, either real on-/off-states or states with different fluorescence intensities. In mathematical terms SOFI-imaging relies on the calculation of cumulants, for what two distinguishable ways exist. For one thing an image can be calculated via auto-cumulants that by definition only rely on the information of each pixel itself, and for another thing an improved method utilizes the information of different pixels via the calculation of cross-cumulants. Both methods can increase the final image resolution significantly although the cumulant calculation has its limitations. Actually SOFI is able to increase the resolution in all three dimensions. == Principle == Likewise to other super-resolution methods SOFI is based on recording an image time series on a CCD- or CMOS camera. In contrary to other methods the recorded time series can be substantially shorter, since a precise localization of emitters is not required and therefore a larger quantity of activated fluorophores per diffraction-limited area is allowed. The pixel values of a SOFI-image of the n-th order are calculated from the values of the pixel time series in the form of a n-th order cumulant, whereas the final value assigned to a pixel can be imagined as the integral over a correlation function. The finally assigned pixel value intensities are a measure of the brightness and correlation of the fluorescence signal. Mathematically, the n-th order cumulant is related to the n-th order correlation function, but exhibits some advantages concerning the resulting resolution of the image. Since in SOFI several emitters per DLA are allowed, the photon count at each pixel results from the superposition of the signals of all activated nearby emitters. The cumulant calculation now filters the signal and leaves only highly correlated fluctuations. This provides a contrast enhancement and therefore a background reduction for good measure. As it is implied in the figure on the left the fluorescence source distribution: ∑ k = 1 N δ ( r → − r → k ) ⋅ ε k ⋅ s k ( t ) {\displaystyle \sum _{k=1}^{N}\delta ({\vec {r}}-{\vec {r}}_{k})\cdot \varepsilon _{k}\cdot s_{k}(t)} is convolved with the system's point spread function (PSF) U(r). Hence the fluorescence signal at time t and position r → {\displaystyle {\vec {r}}} is given by F ( r → , t ) = ∑ k = 1 N U ( r → − r → k ) ⋅ ε k ⋅ s k ( t ) . {\displaystyle F({\vec {r}},t)=\sum _{k=1}^{N}U({\vec {r}}-{\vec {r}}_{k})\cdot \varepsilon _{k}\cdot s_{k}(t).} Within the above equations N is the amount of emitters, located at the positions r → k {\displaystyle {\vec {r}}_{k}} with a time-dependent molecular brightness ε k ⋅ s k {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{k}\cdot s_{k}} where ε k {\displaystyle \varepsilon _{k}} is a variable for the constant molecular brightness and s k ( t ) {\displaystyle s_{k}(t)} is a time-dependent fluctuation function. The molecular brightness is just the average fluorescence count-rate divided by the number of molecules within a specific region. For simplification it has to be assumed that the sample is in a stationary equilibrium and therefore the fluorescence signal can be expressed as a zero-mean fluctuation: δ F ( r → , t ) = F ( r → , t ) − ⟨ F ( r → , t ) ⟩ t {\displaystyle \delta F({\vec {r}},t)=F({\vec {r}},t)-\langle F({\vec {r}},t)\rangle _{t}} where ⟨ ⋯ ⟩ t {\displaystyle \langle \cdots \rangle _{t}} denotes time-averaging. The auto-correlation here e.g. the second-order can then be described deductively as follows for a certain time-lag τ {\displaystyle \tau } : δ F ( r → , t ) = ⟨ δ F ( r → , t + τ ) ⋅ δ F ( r → , t ) ⟩ t {\displaystyle \delta F({\vec {r}},t)=\langle \delta F({\vec {r}},t+\tau )\cdot \delta F({\vec {r}},t)\rangle _{t}} From these equations it follows that the PSF of the optical system has to be taken to the power of the order of the correlation. Thus in a second-order correlation the PSF would be reduced along all dimensions by a factor of 2 {\displaystyle {\sqrt {2}}} . As a result, the resolution of the SOFI-images increases according to this factor. === Cumulants versus correlations === Using only the simple correlation function for a reassignment of pixel values, would ascribe to the independency of fluctuations of the emitters in time in a way that no cross-correlation terms would contribute to the new pixel value. Calculations of higher-order correlation functions would suffer from lower-order correlations for what reason it is superior to calculate cumulants, since all lower-order correlation terms vanish. == Cumulant-calculation == === Auto-cumulants === For computational reasons it is convenient to set all time-lags in higher-order cumulants to zero so that a general expression for the n-th order auto-cumulant can be found: A C n ( r → , τ 1 … n − 1 = 0 ) = ∑ k = 1 N U n ( r → − r → k ) ε k n w k ( 0 ) {\displaystyle AC_{n}({\vec {r}},\tau _{1\ldots n-1}=0)=\sum _{k=1}^{N}U^{n}({\vec {r}}-{\vec {r}}_{k})\varepsilon _{k}^{n}w_{k}(0)} w k {\displaystyle w_{k}} is a specific correlation based weighting function influenced by the order of the cumulant and mainly depending on the fluctuation properties of the emitters. Albeit there is no fundamental limitation in calculating very high orders of cumulants and thereby shrinking the FWHM of the PSF there are practical limitations according to the weighting of the values assigned to the final image. Emitters with a higher molecular brightness will show a strong increase in terms of the pixel cumulant value assigned at higher-orders as well as this performance can be expected from a diverse appearance of fluctuations of different emitters. A wide intensity range of the resulting image can therefore be expected and as a result dim emitters can get masked by bright emitters in higher-order images:. The calculation of auto-cumulants can be realized in a very attractive way in a mathematical sense. The n-th order cumulant can be calculated with a basic recursion from moments K n ( r → ) = μ n ( r → ) − ∑ i = 1 n − 1 ( n − 1 i ) K n − i ( r → ) μ i ( r → ) {\displaystyle K_{n}({\vec {r}})=\mu _{n}({\vec {r}})-\sum _{i=1}^{n-1}{\begin{pmatrix}n-1\\i\end{pmatrix}}K_{n-i}({\vec {r}})\mu _{i}({\vec {r}})} where K is a cumulant of the index's order, likewise μ {\displaystyle \mu } represents the moments. The term within the brackets indicates a binomial coefficient. This way of computation is straightforward in comparison with calculating cumulants with standard formulas. It allows for the calculation of cumulants with only little time of computing and is, as it is well implemented, even suitable for the calculation of high-order cumulants on large images. === Cross-cumulants === In a more advanced approach cross-cumulants are calculated by taking the information of several pixels into account. Cross-cumulants can be described as follows: C C n ( r → , τ 1 … n − 1 = 0 ) = ∏ j < l n U ( r → j − r → l n ) ⋅ ∑ i = 1 N U n ( r → i − ∑ k n r → k n ) ε i n w i ( 0 ) {\displaystyle CC_{n}({\vec {r}},\tau _{1\ldots n-1}=0)=\prod _{j Web Intents was an experimental framework for web-based inter-application communication and service discovery. Web Intents consists of a discovery mechanism and a very light-weight RPC system between web applications, modelled after the Intents system in Android. In the context of the framework an Intent equals an action to be performed by a provider. Web Intents allow two web applications to communicate with each other, without either of them having to actually know what the other one is. == Support == === Client === Google Chrome versions 18 to 23 natively supported Web Intents. This support was disabled in version 24, citing the existence of a "number of areas for development in both the API and specific user experience in Chrome". There is a JavaScript shim with support for IE 8, IE 9, Opera, Safari, Firefox 3+ and Chrome 3+. === Server === There are some Web Intents proxy pages that make available some real services that don't yet support intents. AddThis supports Web Intents by their sharing tools regardless of browser support. == History == Paul Kinlan of Google announced the Web Intents project in December 2010. He soon released a prototype API to GitHub. In August 2011 Google announced that Chrome would support Web Intents. Google and Mozilla have started co-operating to unify Web Intents and Mozilla's Web Activities (which tries to solve the same problem) into one proposal. In November 2012, Greg Billock of Google announced that experimental support of Web Intents had been removed from Chrome. Endomondo is a health and wellness website. It allows users to track their health statistics and provides insights on fitness trends. Originally launched in 2007, Endomondo was acquired by Under Armour in 2015. Under Armour shut down Endomondo in 2020, but, by 2024, Endomondo re-launched as its own entity. == History == Endomondo started in Denmark in 2007 by Mette Lykke, Christian Birk and Jakob Nordenhof Jønck. In 2011, the company opened an office in Silicon Valley, USA, but kept its research and development department in Denmark. In 2013, Endomondo LLC was listed in Red Herring as a European finalists for promising start-ups. The same year, Christian Birk and Jakob Nordenhof Jønck left the daily operation of the company, but kept co-ownership. In February 2015, Endomondo LLC was acquired by athletic apparel maker Under Armour for $85 million. Endomondo, at that time, had over 20 million users. In October 2020, Under Armour announced that Endomondo would be shutting down and selling off MyFitnessPal to the private equity firm Francisco Partners for $345 million. Service stopped on 31 December 2020, giving customers until 15 February 2021 to download an archive of their historic data. In 2024, Endomondo.com was brought back online as a professional fitness guidance website. == Features == Endomondo provides numerous workouts, guidance on exercises, performance-enhancing nutrition, and tips. Previously, Endomondo was able to track numerous fitness attributes such as running routes, distance, duration, and calories. The software helped analyze performance and recommend improvements. There was a free and a paid version available of Endomondo. The free version had advertisements. The paid Premium version was free of advertisements and included additional features such as the possibility to create one's own training plan. The offering of additional features was different between the Android, IOS and Windows platforms, and had significantly better features for tracking performance over time than UnderArmours suggested replacement. Endomondo offered challenges of various types to the user and allowed users to create their own challenges. Cloud management refers to the administration and oversight of cloud computing products and services. Public clouds are managed by cloud service providers, which operate the underlying infrastructure such as servers, storage, networking, and data center facilities. Users may also opt to manage their public cloud services with a third-party cloud management tool. Users of public cloud services can generally select from three basic cloud provisioning categories: User self-provisioning: Customers purchase cloud services directly from the provider, typically through a web form or console interface. The customer pays on a per-transaction basis. Advanced provisioning: Customers contract in advance a predetermined amount of resources, which are prepared in advance of service. The customer pays a flat fee or a monthly fee. Dynamic provisioning: The provider allocates resources when the customer needs them, then decommissions them when they are no longer needed. The customer is charged on a pay-per-use basis. Managing a private cloud requires software tools to help create a virtualized pool of compute resources, provide a self-service portal for end users and handle security, resource allocation, tracking and billing. Management tools for private clouds tend to be service driven, as opposed to resource driven, because cloud environments are typically highly virtualized and organized in terms of portable workloads. In hybrid cloud environments, compute, network and storage resources must be managed across multiple domains, so a good management strategy should start by defining what needs to be managed, and where and how to do it. Policies to help govern these domains should include configuration and installation of images, access control, and budgeting and reporting. Access control often includes the use of Single sign-on (SSO), in which a user logs in once and gains access to all systems without being prompted to log in again at each of them. == Characteristics of Cloud Management == Cloud management combines software and technologies in a design for managing cloud environments. Software developers have responded to the management challenges of cloud computing with a variety of cloud management platforms and tools. These tools include native tools offered by public cloud providers as well as third-party tools designed to provide consistent functionality across multiple cloud providers. Administrators must balance the competing requirements of efficient consistency across different cloud platforms with access to different native functionality within individual cloud platforms. The growing acceptance of public cloud and increased multicloud usage is driving the need for consistent cross-platform management. Rapid adoption of cloud services is introducing a new set of management challenges for those technical professionals responsible for managing IT systems and services. Cloud-management platforms and tools should have the ability to provide minimum functionality in the following categories. Functionality can be both natively provided or orchestrated via third-party integration. Provisioning and orchestration: create, modify, and delete resources as well as orchestrate workflows and management of workloads Automation: Enable cloud consumption and deployment of app services via infrastructure-as-code and other DevOps concepts Security and compliance: manage role-based access of cloud services and enforce security configurations Service request: collect and fulfill requests from users to access and deploy cloud resources. Monitoring and logging: collect performance and availability metrics as well as automate incident management and log aggregation Inventory and classification: discover and maintain pre-existing brownfield cloud resources plus monitor and manage changes Cost management and optimization: track and rightsize cloud spend and align capacity and performance to actual demand Migration, backup, and DR: enable data protection, disaster recovery, and data mobility via snapshots and/or data replication Organizations may group these criteria into key use cases including Cloud Brokerage, DevOps Automation, Governance, and Day-2 Life Cycle Operations. Enterprises with large-scale cloud implementations may require more robust cloud management tools which include specific characteristics, such as the ability to manage multiple platforms from a single point of reference, or intelligent analytics to automate processes like application lifecycle management. High-end cloud management tools should also have the ability to handle system failures automatically with capabilities such as self-monitoring, an explicit notification mechanism, and include failover and self-healing capabilities. == Multi-Cloud and Hybrid Cloud Management Challenges == Legacy management infrastructures, which are based on the concept of dedicated system relationships and architecture constructs, are not well suited to cloud environments where instances are continually launched and decommissioned. Instead, the dynamic nature of cloud computing requires monitoring and management tools that are adaptable, extensible and customizable. Cloud computing presents a number of management challenges. Companies using public clouds do not have ownership of the equipment hosting the cloud environment, and because the environment is not contained within their own networks, public cloud customers do not have full visibility or control. Users of public cloud services must also integrate with an architecture defined by the cloud provider, using its specific parameters for working with cloud components. Integration includes tying into the cloud APIs for configuring IP addresses, subnets, firewalls and data service functions for storage. Because control of these functions is based on the cloud provider’s infrastructure and services, public cloud users must integrate with the cloud infrastructure management. Capacity management is a challenge for both public and private cloud environments because end users have the ability to deploy applications using self-service portals. Applications of all sizes may appear in the environment, consume an unpredictable amount of resources, then disappear at any time. A possible solution is profiling the applications impact on computational resources. As result, the performance models allow the prediction of how resource utilization changes according to application patterns. Thus, resources can be dynamically scaled to meet the expected demand. This is critical to cloud providers that need to provision resources quickly to meet a growing demand by their applications. Charge-back—or, pricing resource use on a granular basis—is a challenge for both public and private cloud environments. Charge-back is a challenge for public cloud service providers because they must price their services competitively while still creating profit. Users of public cloud services may find charge-back challenging because it is difficult for IT groups to assess actual resource costs on a granular basis due to overlapping resources within an organization that may be paid for by an individual business unit, such as electrical power. For private cloud operators, charge-back is fairly straightforward, but the challenge lies in guessing how to allocate resources as closely as possible to actual resource usage to achieve the greatest operational efficiency. Exceeding budgets can be a risk. Hybrid cloud environments, which combine public and private cloud services, sometimes with traditional infrastructure elements, present their own set of management challenges. These include security concerns if sensitive data lands on public cloud servers, budget concerns around overuse of storage or bandwidth and proliferation of mismanaged images. Managing the information flow in a hybrid cloud environment is also a significant challenge. On-premises clouds must share information with applications hosted off-premises by public cloud providers, and this information may change constantly. Hybrid cloud environments also typically include a complex mix of policies, permissions and limits that must be managed consistently across both public and private clouds. == Cloud Management Platforms (CMP) == CMPs provide a means for a cloud service customer to manage the deployment and operation of applications and associated datasets across multiple cloud service infrastructures, including both on-premises cloud infrastructure and public cloud service provider infrastructure. In other words, CMPs provide management capabilities for hybrid cloud and multi-cloud environments. A cloud management platform (CMP) provides broad cloud management functionality atop both public cloud provider platforms and private cloud platforms. CMPs manage cloud services and resources that are distributed across multiple cloud platforms. The value of CMPs stands in delivering the maximum level of consistency between platforms without comp Stability, also known as algorithmic stability, is a notion in computational learning theory of how a machine learning algorithm output is changed with small perturbations to its inputs. A stable learning algorithm is one for which the prediction does not change much when the training data is modified slightly. For instance, consider a machine learning algorithm that is being trained to recognize handwritten letters of the alphabet, using 1000 examples of handwritten letters and their labels ("A" to "Z") as a training set. One way to modify this training set is to leave out an example, so that only 999 examples of handwritten letters and their labels are available. A stable learning algorithm would produce a similar classifier with both the 1000-element and 999-element training sets. Stability can be studied for many types of learning problems, from language learning to inverse problems in physics and engineering, as it is a property of the learning process rather than the type of information being learned. The study of stability gained importance in computational learning theory in the 2000s when it was shown to have a connection with generalization. It was shown that for large classes of learning algorithms, notably empirical risk minimization algorithms, certain types of stability ensure good generalization. == History == A central goal in designing a machine learning system is to guarantee that the learning algorithm will generalize, or perform accurately on new examples after being trained on a finite number of them. In the 1990s, milestones were reached in obtaining generalization bounds for supervised learning algorithms. The technique historically used to prove generalization was to show that an algorithm was consistent, using the uniform convergence properties of empirical quantities to their means. This technique was used to obtain generalization bounds for the large class of empirical risk minimization (ERM) algorithms. An ERM algorithm is one that selects a solution from a hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} in such a way to minimize the empirical error on a training set S {\displaystyle S} . A general result, proved by Vladimir Vapnik for an ERM binary classification algorithms, is that for any target function and input distribution, any hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} with VC-dimension d {\displaystyle d} , and n {\displaystyle n} training examples, the algorithm is consistent and will produce a training error that is at most O ( d n ) {\displaystyle O\left({\sqrt {\frac {d}{n}}}\right)} (plus logarithmic factors) from the true error. The result was later extended to almost-ERM algorithms with function classes that do not have unique minimizers. Vapnik's work, using what became known as VC theory, established a relationship between generalization of a learning algorithm and properties of the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} of functions being learned. However, these results could not be applied to algorithms with hypothesis spaces of unbounded VC-dimension. Put another way, these results could not be applied when the information being learned had a complexity that was too large to measure. Some of the simplest machine learning algorithms—for instance, for regression—have hypothesis spaces with unbounded VC-dimension. Another example is language learning algorithms that can produce sentences of arbitrary length. Stability analysis was developed in the 2000s for computational learning theory and is an alternative method for obtaining generalization bounds. The stability of an algorithm is a property of the learning process, rather than a direct property of the hypothesis space H {\displaystyle H} , and it can be assessed in algorithms that have hypothesis spaces with unbounded or undefined VC-dimension such as nearest neighbor. A stable learning algorithm is one for which the learned function does not change much when the training set is slightly modified, for instance by leaving out an example. A measure of Leave one out error is used in a Cross Validation Leave One Out (CVloo) algorithm to evaluate a learning algorithm's stability with respect to the loss function. As such, stability analysis is the application of sensitivity analysis to machine learning. == Summary of classic results == Early 1900s - Stability in learning theory was earliest described in terms of continuity of the learning map L {\displaystyle L} , traced to Andrey Nikolayevich Tikhonov. 1979 - Devroye and Wagner observed that the leave-one-out behavior of an algorithm is related to its sensitivity to small changes in the sample. 1999 - Kearns and Ron discovered a connection between finite VC-dimension and stability. 2002 - In a landmark paper, Bousquet and Elisseeff proposed the notion of uniform hypothesis stability of a learning algorithm and showed that it implies low generalization error. Uniform hypothesis stability, however, is a strong condition that does not apply to large classes of algorithms, including ERM algorithms with a hypothesis space of only two functions. 2002 - Kutin and Niyogi extended Bousquet and Elisseeff's results by providing generalization bounds for several weaker forms of stability which they called almost-everywhere stability. Furthermore, they took an initial step in establishing the relationship between stability and consistency in ERM algorithms in the Probably Approximately Correct (PAC) setting. 2004 - Poggio et al. proved a general relationship between stability and ERM consistency. They proposed a statistical form of leave-one-out-stability which they called CVEEEloo stability, and showed that it is a) sufficient for generalization in bounded loss classes, and b) necessary and sufficient for consistency (and thus generalization) of ERM algorithms for certain loss functions such as the square loss, the absolute value and the binary classification loss. 2010 - Shalev Shwartz et al. noticed problems with the original results of Vapnik due to the complex relations between hypothesis space and loss class. They discuss stability notions that capture different loss classes and different types of learning, supervised and unsupervised. 2016 - Moritz Hardt et al. proved stability of gradient descent given certain assumption on the hypothesis and number of times each instance is used to update the model. == Preliminary definitions == We define several terms related to learning algorithms training sets, so that we can then define stability in multiple ways and present theorems from the field. A machine learning algorithm, also known as a learning map L {\displaystyle L} , maps a training data set, which is a set of labeled examples ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} , onto a function f {\displaystyle f} from X {\displaystyle X} to Y {\displaystyle Y} , where X {\displaystyle X} and Y {\displaystyle Y} are in the same space of the training examples. The functions f {\displaystyle f} are selected from a hypothesis space of functions called H {\displaystyle H} . The training set from which an algorithm learns is defined as S = { z 1 = ( x 1 , y 1 ) , . . , z m = ( x m , y m ) } {\displaystyle S=\{z_{1}=(x_{1},\ y_{1})\ ,..,\ z_{m}=(x_{m},\ y_{m})\}} and is of size m {\displaystyle m} in Z = X × Y {\displaystyle Z=X\times Y} drawn i.i.d. from an unknown distribution D. Thus, the learning map L {\displaystyle L} is defined as a mapping from Z m {\displaystyle Z_{m}} into H {\displaystyle H} , mapping a training set S {\displaystyle S} onto a function f S {\displaystyle f_{S}} from X {\displaystyle X} to Y {\displaystyle Y} . Here, we consider only deterministic algorithms where L {\displaystyle L} is symmetric with respect to S {\displaystyle S} , i.e. it does not depend on the order of the elements in the training set. Furthermore, we assume that all functions are measurable and all sets are countable. The loss V {\displaystyle V} of a hypothesis f {\displaystyle f} with respect to an example z = ( x , y ) {\displaystyle z=(x,y)} is then defined as V ( f , z ) = V ( f ( x ) , y ) {\displaystyle V(f,z)=V(f(x),y)} . The empirical error of f {\displaystyle f} is I S [ f ] = 1 n ∑ V ( f , z i ) {\displaystyle I_{S}[f]={\frac {1}{n}}\sum V(f,z_{i})} . The true error of f {\displaystyle f} is I [ f ] = E z V ( f , z ) {\displaystyle I[f]=\mathbb {E} _{z}V(f,z)} Given a training set S of size m, we will build, for all i = 1....,m, modified training sets as follows: By removing the i-th element S | i = { z 1 , . . . , z i − 1 , z i + 1 , . . . , z m } {\displaystyle S^{|i}=\{z_{1},...,\ z_{i-1},\ z_{i+1},...,\ z_{m}\}} By replacing the i-th element S i = { z 1 , . . . , z i − 1 , z i ′ , z i + 1 , . . . , z m } {\displaystyle S^{i}=\{z_{1},...,\ z_{i-1},\ z_{i}',\ z_{i+1},...,\ z_{m}\}} == Definitions of stability == === Hypothesis Stability === An algorithm L {\displaystyle L} has hypothesis stability β with respect to the loss function V if the following holds: ∀ i ∈ { 1 , . . . , m } , E S , z [ | V ( f S , z ) − V ( f S | Clarizen, Inc. is a project management software and collaborative work management company. Clarizen uses a software as a service business model. Clarizen's features include attaching CAD drawings to a project, moving between the project view and design view and an E-mail reporting feature. In May 2014 Clarizen raised $35 million in venture capital investment led by Goldman Sachs. The round brought investment to $90 million. Previous investors, including Benchmark Capital, Carmel Ventures, DAG Ventures, Opus Capital and Vintage Investment Partners participated. In April 2020, Clarizen appointed Matt Zilli as its new CEO, replacing Boaz Chalamish who is appointed as Executive Chairman. In January 2021 Clarizen was acquired by Planview.Web Intents
Endomondo
Cloud management
Stability (learning theory)
Clarizen