EGI (originally an initialism for European Grid Infrastructure) is a federation of computing and storage resource providers that deliver advanced computing and data analytics services for research and innovation. The Federation is governed by its participants represented in the EGI Council and coordinated by the EGI Foundation. As of 2024, the EGI Federation supports 160 scientific communities worldwide and over 95,000 users in their intensive data analysis. The most significant scientific communities supported by EGI in 2022 were Medical and Health Sciences, High Energy Physics, and Engineering and Technology. The EGI Federation provideds services through over 150 data centres, of which 25 are cloud sites, in 43 countries and 64 Research Infrastructures (4 of which are members of the Federation). == Name == Originally, EGI stood for European Grid Infrastructure. This reflected its focus on providing access to high-throughput computing resources across Europe using Grid computing techniques. However, as EGI's service offerings expanded beyond traditional grid computing, particularly with the incorporation of federated cloud services, the original meaning of the acronym became less accurate. To emphasise the broader scope of EGI's services and avoid any confusion associated with the outdated term "grid," it is recommended to refer to EGI simply as EGI. == Structure == === EGI Federation === The EGI Federation delivers a scalable digital research infrastructure (e-infrastructure), empowering tens of thousands of researchers across diverse scientific disciplines. Through the EGI Federation, researchers gain access to advanced computing and data analytics capabilities, including large-scale data analysis, while benefiting from the collaborative efforts of hundreds of service providers from both public and private sectors, consolidating resources from Europe and beyond. Overall, the EGI Federation offers a range of services, encompassing distributed high-throughput computing and cloud computing, storage and data management capabilities, co-development of new solutions, expert support, and comprehensive training opportunities. This ecosystem propels collaboration, scientific progress and innovation. === EGI Foundation === The EGI Foundation is the coordinating body of the EGI Federation. It was established in 2010 with headquarters in Amsterdam, Netherlands. The Foundation coordinates the research and innovation efforts of its members, spanning technical areas critical to data-intensive science, including large-scale data processing and analysis, distributed Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning, federated Identity and access management and the application of digital twins for research. The day-to-day running of the EGI Foundation is supervised by the Executive Board. The board’s members work closely with the EGI Director on operational, technical and financial issues. The Executive Board’s members are appointed by the EGI Council for a two-year term. === EGI Council === The EGI Council is responsible for defining the strategic direction of the EGI Federation. The Council acts as the senior decision-making and supervisory authority of the EGI Foundation, with a mandate to define the strategic direction of the entire EGI ecosystem. === EGI Services === EGI offers a suite of services to support data-intensive research. These services include compute resources, orchestration tools, storage and data management solutions, training programmes, security and identity services, and applications. Compute resources encompass cloud compute, cloud container compute, high-throughput compute, and software distribution. Orchestration tools include the Workload Manager and infrastructure manager. Storage and data management solutions include online storage, data transfer, and DataHub. Training programmes cover FitSM, ISO 27001, and general training infrastructure. EGI Check-in and Secrets Store are key security and identity services, while applications such as Notebooks and Replay enhance research productivity. In addition to services for Research, EGI also provides services for Federation and Business. Services for Federation are designed to help resource providers and user communities collaborate and share resources. EGI also offers a range of services to support businesses in their digital transformation. Through the EGI Digital Innovation Hub (EGI DIH), companies can access advanced computing resources, networking, funding and training opportunities, collaborate with research institutions, and test solutions before investing. == History == In 2002, the first large-scale experimental facility was successfully demonstrated by the DataGrid project under the lead of CERN with tens of technical architects from the major High Energy Physics institutes in the world. For the first time, distributed computing was applied to data-intensive processing. It aimed at developing a large-scale computational grid to facilitate distributed data-intensive scientific computing across High Energy Physics, Earth Observation, and Biology science applications. On 28 February 2003, the first software release of LCG-MW was published. gLite, the Lightweight Middleware for Grid Computing and LCG, Large Hadron Collider Computing Grid, are the cornerstone of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid, which expanded over time towards the EGI Federation. 2004 marks the year of the first pilot infrastructure, seeing the participation of CERN and data centres in the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Canada, Russia, Bulgaria, the Asia-Pacific region and Switzerland. Over the years, the infrastructure has grown into a federation of 128 data centres and 25 cloud providers serving more than 95,000 users worldwide. In 2004, the first data processing tasks started being formally recorded in a central accounting system. The EGI Accounting Portal provides the accounting data for Compute, Storage and Data services gathered from the data centres of the EGI Federation. A few years later, in 2010, EGI was established as the coordinating body of the EGI Federation to build an integrated pan-European infrastructure to support European research communities primarily. In the same year, EGI launched the flagship project EGI Inspire. That project brought together European organisations to establish a sustainable European Grid Infrastructure for large-scale data analysis. The success of the project was due to the adoption of a distributed computing model to solve big data problems. Moreover, EGI-Inspire harmonised operational policies across its federation of affiliated data centres and cloud service providers worldwide, integrating e-infrastructures from 57 countries. The EGI Federation was the first to apply federation to cloud provisioning, opening a new avenue in large-scale interactive data analysis. In 2015, within EGI Engage, opening a new avenue in large-scale interactive data analysis. The EGI Federated Cloud is an IaaS-type cloud, incorporating academic and private clouds and virtualised resources built using open standards. Its development is driven by the needs of the scientific community, resulting in a novel research e-infrastructure that relies on well-established federated operational services, making EGI a dependable resource for scientific endeavours. In 2015, EGI, EUDAT, GÉANT, LIBER and OpenAIRE published a position paper on a 'European Open Science Cloud for Research'. With the EOSC-hub project in 2016, EGI started contributing in practice to shaping the services for the EOSC. The work continued with a series of projects, like EOSC Enhance, EOSC Life and EOSC Synergy. With EGI-ACE and its contribution to EOSC Future, EGI has continued developing the EOSC Core. In early 2024, EGI started providing services to the EOSC EU Node, and with EOSC Beyond it will provide new EOSC Core capabilities and pilot additional national and thematic nodes. In October 2024, EUDAT, GÉANT, OpenAIRE, PRACE and EGI signed a Memorandum of Understanding establishing the European e-Infrastructures Assembly. This collaboration will bolster the position and promote the services of e-Infrastructures, empowering researchers across Europe to drive innovation and advance scientific discovery.
Verbal overshadowing
Verbal overshadowing is a phenomenon where giving a verbal description of sensory input impairs formation of memories of that input. This was first reported by Schooler and Engstler-Schooler (1990) where it was shown that the effects can be observed across multiple domains of cognition which are known to rely on non-verbal knowledge and perceptual expertise. One example of this is memory, which has been known to be influenced by language. Seminal work by Carmichael and collaborators (1932) demonstrated that when verbal labels are connected to non-verbal forms during an individual's encoding process, it could potentially bias the way those forms are reproduced. Because of this, memory performance relying on reportable aspects of memory that encode visual forms should be vulnerable to the effects of verbalization. == Initial findings == Schooler and Engstler-Schooler (1990) were the first to report findings of verbal overshadowing. In their study, participants watched a video of a simulated robbery and were instructed to either verbally describe the robber or engage in a control task. Those who engaged in giving a verbal description were less likely to correctly identify the robber from a test lineup, compared to those who engaged in the control task. A larger effect was detected when the verbal description was provided 20, rather than 5, minutes after the video, and immediately before the test lineup. A meta-analysis by Meissner and Brigham (2001) supported the effects of verbal overshadowing, showing a small but reliably negative effect. == General effects of verbal overshadowing == The effects of verbal overshadowing have been generalized across multiple domains of cognition that are known to rely on non-verbal knowledge and perceptual expertise, such as memory. Memory has been known to be influenced by language. Seminal work by Carmichael and collaborators (1932) demonstrated that labels attached to, or associated with, non-verbal forms during memory encoding can affect the way the forms were subsequently reproduced. Because of this, memory performance that relies on reportable aspects of memory that encode visual forms should be vulnerable to the effects of verbalization. Pelizzon, Brandimonte, and Luccio (2002) found that visual memory representations appear to incorporate visual, spatial, and temporal characteristics. It is explained as follows: With the temporal code (where the only information available is the sequence of the stimuli), performance levels remain high, unless participants are required to retrieve the stimuli in a different order from that used at encoding (visual cue). In this case, performance is significantly impaired, even in the presence of a visual cue. The study showed that order information acts as a link between the two separate representations of figure and background, hence preventing verbal overshadowing at encoding (temporal component) or attenuating its influence at retrieval (spatial component).(p. 960) Hatano, Ueno, Kitagami, and Kawaguchi found that verbal overshadowing is likely to occur when participants verbally described targets in detail. Detailed verbal descriptions resulted in more frequently inaccurate descriptions that in turn created inaccurate representations in the memories of participants. Inaccuracies are also likely to occur when face recognition comes immediately after verbalization. Other forms of non-verbal knowledge affected by verbal overshadowing include the following: [Verbal overshadowing] has also been observed when participants attempt to generate descriptions of other 'difficult-to-describe' stimuli such as colors (Schooler and Engstler-Schooler, 1990) or abstract figures (Brandimonte et al., 1997), or other non-visual tasks such as wine tasting (Melcher and Schooler, 1996), decision making (Wilson and Schooler, 1991), and insight problem-solving. (p. 871) (Schooler et al., 1993) Verbalization of stimuli leads to the disruption of non-reportable processes that are necessary for achieving insight solutions, which are distinct from language processes. Schooler, Ohlsson, and Brooks (1993) found that face recognition requires information that cannot be adequately verbalized, giving rise to difficulty in describing factors in recognition judgments. Subjects were less effective in solving insight problems when compelled to put their thoughts in words, which suggests that language may interfere with thought. The verbal overshadowing effect was not seen when participants engaged in articulatory suppression. Performance was reduced in both the verbal and non-verbal description conditions. This is evidence that verbal encoding plays a role in face recognition. By testing with distracting faces presented between study and test, Lloyd-Jones and Brown (2008) suggested a dual-process approach to recognition memory took place, that verbalization influenced familiarity-based processes at first, but its effects were later seen on recollection, when discrimination between items became more difficult. == Verbal overshadowing in facial recognition == The verbal overshadowing effect can be found for facial recognition because faces are predominately processed in a holistic or configurable manner. (Tanaka & Farah, 1993; Tanaka & Sengco, 1997) Verbalizing one's memory for a face is done using a featural or analytic strategy, leading to a drift from the configurable information about the face and to impaired recognition performance. However, Fallshore & Schooler (1995) found that the verbal overshadowing effect was not found when participants described faces of races different from their own. A study by Brown and Lloyd-Jones (2003) found that there was no verbal overshadowing effect found in car descriptions; it was only seen in facial descriptions. The authors noted that descriptions were no different on any measure including accuracy. It is suggested that less expertise in verbalizing faces rather than cars invokes a stronger shift in verbal and featural processing. This supports the concept of a transfer inappropriate retrieval framework and addresses some limitations of the effect. Wickham and Swift (2006) suggested that the verbal overshadowing effect is not seen in describing all faces, and one aspect that determines this is distinctiveness. Results showed that typical faces produce verbal overshadowing, while distinctive faces did not. In studies of eyewitness reports, variation in response criteria given by participants influenced the quality of the descriptions generated and accuracy on identification task, known as the retrieval-based effect. Face recognition was also impaired when subjects described a familiar face, such as a parent, or when describing a previously seen but novel face. Dodson, Johnson, and Schooler (1997) found that recognition was also impaired when participants were provided with a description of a previously seen face, and they were able to ignore provided versus self-generated descriptions more easily. This finding of verbal overshadowing suggested that eyewitness recognition is not only affected by their own descriptions, but of descriptions heard from others, such other eyewitness testimonies. == Voice recognition == The verbal overshadowing effect has also been found to affect voice identification. Research shows that describing a non-verbal stimuli leads to a decrease in recognition accuracy. In an unpublished study by Schooler, Fiore, Melcher, and Ambadar (1996), participants listened to a tape-recorded voice, after which they were asked either to verbally describe it or to not do so, and then asked to distinguish the voice from 3 similar distractor voices. The results showed that verbal overshadowing impaired accuracy of recognition based on gut feeling, suggesting an overall verbal overshadowing for voice recognition. Due to the forensic relevance of voices heard over the telephone and harassing phone calls that are often a problem for police, Perfect, Hunt, and Harris (2002) examined the influence of three factors on accuracy and confidence in voice recognition from a line-up. They expected to find an effect, because voice represents a class of stimuli that is difficult to describe verbally. This meets Schooler et al.'s (1997) modality mismatch criterion, meaning that describing the speakers age, gender, or accent is difficult, making voice recognition susceptible to the verbal overshadowing phenomenon. It was found that the method of memory encoding had no impact on performance, and that hearing a telephone voice reduced confidence but did not affect accuracy. They also found that providing a verbal description impaired accuracy but had no effect on confidence. The data showed an effect of verbal overshadowing in voice recognition and provided yet another disassociation between confidence and performance. Although there was a difference in confidence level, witnesses were able to identify voices over the telephone as accurately as voices heard direc
Sayre's paradox
Sayre's paradox is a dilemma encountered in the design of automated handwriting recognition systems. A standard statement of the paradox is that a cursively written word cannot be recognized without being segmented and cannot be segmented without being recognized. The paradox was first articulated in a 1973 publication by Kenneth M. Sayre, after whom it was named. == Nature of the problem == It is relatively easy to design automated systems capable of recognizing words inscribed in a printed format. Such words are segmented into letters by the very act of writing them on the page. Given templates matching typical letter shapes in a given language, individual letters can be identified with a high degree of probability. In cases of ambiguity, probable letter sequences can be compared with a selection of properly spelled words in that language (called a lexicon). If necessary, syntactic features of the language can be applied to render a generally accurate identification of the words in question. Printed-character recognition systems of this sort are commonly used in processing standardized government forms, in sorting mail by zip code, and so forth. In cursive writing, however, letters comprising a given word typically flow sequentially without gaps between them. Unlike a sequence of printed letters, cursively connected letters are not segmented in advance. Here is where Sayre's Paradox comes into play. Unless the word is already segmented into letters, template-matching techniques like those described above cannot be applied. That is, segmentation is a prerequisite for word recognition. But there are no reliable techniques for segmenting a word into letters unless the word itself has been identified. Word recognition requires letter segmentation, and letter segmentation requires word recognition. There is no way a cursive writing recognition system employing standard template-matching techniques can do both simultaneously. Advantages to be gained by use of automated cursive writing recognition systems include routing mail with handwritten addresses, reading handwritten bank checks, and automated digitalization of hand-written documents. These are practical incentives for finding ways of circumventing Sayre's Paradox. == Avoiding the paradox == One way of ameliorating the adverse effects of the paradox is to normalize the word inscriptions to be recognized. Normalization amounts to eliminating idiosyncrasies in the penmanship of the writer, such as unusual slope of the letters and unusual slant of the cursive line. This procedure can increase the probability of a correct match with a letter template, resulting in an incremental improvement in the success rate of the system. Since improvement of this sort still depends on accurate segmentation, however, it remains subject to the limitations of Sayre's Paradox. Researchers have come to realize that the only way to circumvent the paradox is by use of procedures that do not rely on accurate segmentation. == Directions of current research == Segmentation is accurate to the extent that it matches distinctions among letters in the actual inscriptions presented to the system for recognition (the input data). This is sometimes referred to as “explicit segmentation”. “Implicit segmentation,” by contrast, is division of the cursive line into more parts than the number of actual letters in the cursive line itself. Processing these “implicit parts” to achieve eventual word identification requires specific statistical procedures involving hidden Markov models (HMM). A Markov model is a statistical representation of a random process, which is to say a process in which future states are independent of states occurring before the present. In such a process, a given state is dependent only on the conditional probability of its following the state immediately before it. An example is a series of outcomes from successive casts of a die. An HMM is a Markov model, individual states of which are not fully known. Conditional probabilities between states are still determinate, but the identities of individual states are not fully disclosed. Recognition proceeds by matching HMMs of words to be recognized with previously prepared HMMs of words in the lexicon. The best match in a given case is taken to indicate the identity of the handwritten word in question. As with systems based on explicit segmentation, automated recognition systems based on implicit segmentation are judged more or less successful according to the percentage of correct identifications they accomplish. Instead of explicit segmentation techniques, most automated handwriting recognition systems today employ implicit segmentation in conjunction with HMM-based matching procedures. The constraints epitomized by Sayre's Paradox are largely responsible for this shift in approach.
Video imprint (computer vision)
Proposed as an extension of image epitomes in the field of video content analysis, video imprint is obtained by recasting video contents into a fixed-sized tensor representation regardless of video resolution or duration. Specifically, statistical characteristics are retained to some degrees so that common video recognition tasks can be carried out directly on such imprints, e.g., event retrieval, temporal action localization. It is claimed that both spatio-temporal interdependences are accounted for and redundancies are mitigated during the computation of video imprints. The option of computing video imprints exploiting the epitome model has the advantage of more flexible input feature formats and more efficient training stage for video content analysis.
Application enablement
Application enablement is an approach which brings telecommunications network providers and developers together to combine their network and web abilities in creating and delivering high demand advanced services and new intelligent applications. Network providers, in addition to bandwidth, provide abilities such as billing, location, presence, and security, which have allowed them to establish long-term relationships with end-users. By offering these select abilities as application programming interfaces (APIs), providers give developers access to a set of tools to create (mashup) new applications and services to run on provider networks. Unifying the strengths of providers and developers facilitates the creation of mash-up applications, and in turn, a better end user quality of experience (QoE) for improved profit margins. Apple's iOS with App Store, and Google's Android with Android Market exemplify this approach. Both have introduced mobile platforms that are supported by a comprehensive ecosystem in order to perpetuate innovation in product design, content and service offerings, and overall consumer behavior. By the end of April 2010, downloadable applications numbered over 200,000 for iPhone and over 50,000 for Android. == Background == Historically, telecommunication providers primarily based their business models on network performance, emphasizing connectivity, availability, and quality of service (QoS) as key sources of revenue and customer value. With the increasing demand for bandwidth-intensive data and video applications, maintaining service continuity has required substantial infrastructure investments. To address rising operational costs and declining average revenue per user (ARPU), providers have increasingly adopted customer-oriented strategies and diversified business models to expand their roles within the telecommunications value chain. Application enablement supports providers in making this transition by providing an environment, or ecosystem, where providers and developers can collaborate to build, test, manage, and distribute applications across networks including television, broadband, Internet, and mobile. This cooperative effort produces mutually beneficial results for all parties, opening up new revenue streams while enhancing value and rate of return (ROI). The following are some examples of key network abilities which function as application enablers in the telecommunications market: Billing systems Security for private transactions Network-based storage of digital content End-to-end bandwidth for high-quality transmissions Scoring abilities to identify end-user preferences and behaviors Subscriber data to customize the end-user experience Context information, such as location and presence, to localize services. == New business models == As network providers work toward effective collaboration with application and content developers, several new business models are emerging to help facilitate the business relationships: === Vendor-led === A type of business model driven by telecommunications vendors, who assist network providers in building relationships with application and content developers to lower the cost and complexity of managing third parties. Examples of this model include: Forum Nokia IBM Technology Partner Ecosystem Ng Connect Huawei Intouch program === Operator-led === Characterized by network providers who want to maintain a high degree of flexibility and control over applications created for their end-consumers, this model lets them create and manage their own developer program, development platform, and application store. Under this arrangement, independent developers provide their own branding, marketing communications, pricing and customer care. Network providers pursuing this model will often seek to partner with a large number of third parties using standardized on-boarding processes. Examples of this model include: o2 Litmus Orange Partner Joint Innovation Lab === Aggregator === Network providers who choose not to create/manage their own developer relationships will partner with one or multiple aggregators, to administer a portion of or their entire application strategy. Examples of this model include: Ovi Operator Partnership Blackberry Operator Partnership Cellmania Buongiorno === Mass wholesale === Select network providers also participate in wholesale models that exist primarily for applications (BT's Ribbit- an Internet Protocol (IP) based calling and messaging platform) and devices (Verizon's Open Device initiative). This business-to-business approach reduces a large portion of the potential costs of third party application enablement (marketing, acquisition and support). Examples of this model include: BT's Ribbit Verizon Wireless ODI AT&T Synaptic Hosting === The enterprise customer === Some network providers are focusing on enabling applications in the enterprise space. In this model, the network provider establishes a platform for their large enterprise customers who want to blend custom software with enhanced abilities, and will provide standardized processes around mobilizing enterprise applications, and exposing core back-office abilities to allow for dynamic customer interaction. Examples of this model include: Vodafone Applications Service Verizon Private Network Sprint Solution Launchpad === Trusted partner === In this model, the network provider builds one-on-one relationships with trusted third-party developers by exposing customized network abilities, bringing a greater variety of brands to the network provider's portfolio. Network providers using this model tend to only have a few partners (in contrast to the operator led model). Under this scenario, network providers benefit from a pre-established customer base and the developer's marketing resources. Examples of this model include: 3/Skype Partnership (UK) Virgin Media and BBC iPlayer == Network operator developer resources == Operator led model o2 Litmus Orange Partner Joint Innovations Lab Aggregator model Ovi Operator Partnership Cellmania Buongiorno Mass wholesale model BT Ribbit Verizon Wireless ODI AT&T Synaptic Hosting Enterprise customer model Vodafone Applications Service Verizon Private Network Sprint Solution Launchpad == Rerencesfe ==
DABUS
DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) is an artificial intelligence (AI) system created by Stephen Thaler. It reportedly conceived of two novel products — a food container constructed using fractal geometry, which enables rapid reheating, and a flashing beacon for attracting attention in an emergency. The filing of patent applications designating DABUS as inventor has led to decisions by patent offices and courts on whether a patent can be granted for an invention reportedly made by an AI system. == History in different jurisdictions == === Australia === On 17 September 2019, Thaler filed an application to patent a "Food container and devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention," naming DABUS as the inventor. On 21 September 2020, IP Australia found that section 15(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) is inconsistent with an artificial intelligence machine being treated as an inventor, and Thaler's application had lapsed. Thaler sought judicial review, and on 30 July 2021, the Federal Court set aside IP Australia's decision and ordered IP Australia to reconsider the application. On 13 April 2022, the Full Court of the Federal Court set aside that decision, holding that only a natural person can be an inventor for the purposes of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) and the Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth), and that such an inventor must be identified for any person to be entitled to a grant of a patent. On 11 November 2022, Thaler was refused special leave to appeal to the High Court. === European Patent Office === On 17 October 2018 and 7 November 2018, Thaler filed two European patent applications with the European Patent Office. The first claimed invention was a "Food Container" and the second was "Devices and Methods for Attracting Enhanced Attention." On 27 January 2020, the EPO rejected the applications on the grounds that the application listed an AI system named DABUS, and not a human, as the inventor, based on Article 81 and Rule 19(1) of the European Patent Convention (EPC). On 21 December 2021, the Board of Appeal of the EPO dismissed Thaler's appeal from the EPO's primary decision. The Board of Appeal confirmed that "under the EPC the designated inventor has to be a person with legal capacity. This is not merely an assumption on which the EPC was drafted. It is the ordinary meaning of the term inventor." === United Kingdom === Similar applications were filed by Thaler to the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office on 17 October and 7 November 2018. The Office asked Thaler to file statements of inventorship and of right of grant to a patent (Patent Form 7) in respect of each invention within 16 months of the filing date. Thaler filed those forms naming DABUS as the inventor and explaining in some detail why he believed that machines should be regarded as inventors in the circumstances. His application was rejected on the grounds that: (1) naming a machine as inventor did not meet the requirements of the Patents Act 1977; and (2) the IPO was not satisfied as to the manner in which Thaler had acquired rights that would otherwise vest in the inventor. Thaler was not satisfied with the decision and asked for a hearing before an official known as the "hearing officer". By a decision dated 4 December 2019 the hearing officer rejected Thaler's appeal. Thaler appealed against the hearing officer's decision to the Patents Court (a specialist court within the Chancery Division of the High Court of England and Wales that determines patent disputes). On 21 September 2020, Mr Justice Marcus Smith upheld the decision of the hearing officer. On 21 September 2021, Thaler's further appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed by Arnold LJ and Laing LJ (Birss LJ dissenting). On 20 December 2023, the UK Supreme Court dismissed a further appeal by Thaler. In its judgment, the court held that an "inventor" under the Patents Act 1977 must be a natural person. === United States === The patent applications on the inventions were refused by the USPTO, which held that only natural persons can be named as inventors in a patent application. Thaler first fought this result by filing a complaint under the Administrative Procedure Act alleging that the decision was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with the law; unsupported by substantial evidence, and in excess of Defendants’ statutory authority." A month later on August 19, 2019, Thaler filed a petition with the USPTO as allowed in 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 stating that DABUS should be the inventor. The judge and Thaler agreed in this case that Thaler himself is unable to receive the patent on behalf of DABUS. In their August 5, 2022, Thaler decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that only a natural person could be an inventor, which means that the AI that invents any other type of invention is not addressed by the "who" mentioned in the legislation. === New Zealand === On January 31, 2022, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) decided that a patent application (776029) filed by Stephen Thaler was void, on the basis that no inventor was identified on the patent application. IPONZ determined that DABUS could not be "an actual devisor of the invention" as required by the Patents Act 2013, and that this must be a natural person as held by the previous patent offices above. The High Court of New Zealand confirmed the decision in 2023. === South Africa === On 24 June 2021, the South African Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) accepted Dr Thaler's Patent Cooperation Treaty, for a patent in respect of inventions generated by DABUS. In July 2021, the CIPC released a notice of issuance for the patent. It is the first patent granted for an AI invention. === Switzerland === On June 26, 2025, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court ruled that artificial intelligence systems such as DABUS cannot be listed as inventors in patent applications. The court upheld the existing practice of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI), which requires that only natural persons can be recognized as inventors under Swiss patent law. The case concerned a patent application, which sought to designate DABUS as the sole inventor of a food container designed with a fractal geometry to enhance heat distribution. The IPI had rejected the application, arguing that both the absence of a human inventor and the attribution of inventorship to an AI system were inadmissible. While the court dismissed Thaler's main request, it accepted a subsidiary request: if a human applicant recognizes and files a patent based on an AI-generated invention, that person may be considered the inventor. As a result, the application may proceed with Thaler listed as the inventor. The decision (B-2532/2024) can still be appealed to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
Topological deep learning
Topological deep learning (TDL) is a research field that extends deep learning to handle complex, non-Euclidean data structures. Traditional deep learning models, such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and recurrent neural networks (RNNs), excel in processing data on regular grids and sequences. However, scientific and real-world data often exhibit more intricate data domains encountered in scientific computations, including point clouds, meshes, time series, scalar fields graphs, or general topological spaces like simplicial complexes and CW complexes. TDL addresses this by incorporating topological concepts to process data with higher-order relationships, such as interactions among multiple entities and complex hierarchies. This approach leverages structures like simplicial complexes and hypergraphs to capture global dependencies and qualitative spatial properties, offering a more nuanced representation of data. TDL also encompasses methods from computational and algebraic topology that permit studying properties of neural networks and their training process, such as their predictive performance or generalization properties. The mathematical foundations of TDL are algebraic topology, differential topology, and geometric topology. Therefore, TDL can be generalized for data on differentiable manifolds, knots, links, tangles, curves, etc. == History and motivation == Traditional techniques from deep learning often operate under the assumption that a dataset is residing in a highly-structured space (like images, where convolutional neural networks exhibit outstanding performance over alternative methods) or a Euclidean space. The prevalence of new types of data, in particular graphs, meshes, and molecules, resulted in the development of new techniques, culminating in the field of geometric deep learning, which originally proposed a signal-processing perspective for treating such data types. While originally confined to graphs, where connectivity is defined based on nodes and edges, follow-up work extended concepts to a larger variety of data types, including simplicial complexes and CW complexes, with recent work proposing a unified perspective of message-passing on general combinatorial complexes. An independent perspective on different types of data originated from topological data analysis, which proposed a new framework for describing structural information of data, i.e., their "shape," that is inherently aware of multiple scales in data, ranging from local information to global information. While at first restricted to smaller datasets, subsequent work developed new descriptors that efficiently summarized topological information of datasets to make them available for traditional machine-learning techniques, such as support vector machines or random forests. Such descriptors ranged from new techniques for feature engineering over new ways of providing suitable coordinates for topological descriptors, or the creation of more efficient dissimilarity measures. Contemporary research in this field is largely concerned with either integrating information about the underlying data topology into existing deep-learning models or obtaining novel ways of training on topological domains. == Learning on topological spaces == One of the core concepts in topological deep learning is considering the domain upon which this data is defined and supported. In case of Euclidean data, such as images, this domain is a grid, upon which the pixel value of the image is supported. In a more general setting this domain might be a topological domain. Studying and developing deep learning models that are supported ln topological domains constitute the essence of topological deep learning. Next, we introduce the most common topological domains that are encountered in a deep learning setting. These domains include, but not limited to, graphs, simplicial complexes, cell complexes, combinatorial complexes and hypergraphs. Given a finite set S of abstract entities, a neighborhood function N {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}} on S is an assignment that attach to every point x {\displaystyle x} in S a subset of S or a relation. Such a function can be induced by equipping S with an auxiliary structure. Edges provide one way of defining relations among the entities of S. More specifically, edges in a graph allow one to define the notion of neighborhood using, for instance, the one hop neighborhood notion. Edges however, limited in their modeling capacity as they can only be used to model binary relations among entities of S since every edge is connected typically to two entities. In many applications, it is desirable to permit relations that incorporate more than two entities. The idea of using relations that involve more than two entities is central to topological domains. Such higher-order relations allow for a broader range of neighborhood functions to be defined on S to capture multi-way interactions among entities of S. Next we review the main properties, advantages, and disadvantages of some commonly studied topological domains in the context of deep learning, including (abstract) simplicial complexes, regular cell complexes, hypergraphs, and combinatorial complexes. ==== Comparisons among topological domains ==== Each of the enumerated topological domains has its own characteristics, advantages, and limitations: Simplicial complexes Simplest form of higher-order domains. Extensions of graph-based models. Admit hierarchical structures, making them suitable for various applications. Hodge theory can be naturally defined on simplicial complexes. Require relations to be subsets of larger relations, imposing constraints on the structure. Cell Complexes Generalize simplicial complexes. Provide more flexibility in defining higher-order relations. Each cell in a cell complex is homeomorphic to an open ball, attached together via attaching maps. Boundary cells of each cell in a cell complex are also cells in the complex. Represented combinatorially via incidence matrices. Hypergraphs Allow arbitrary set-type relations among entities. Relations are not imposed by other relations, providing more flexibility. Do not explicitly encode the dimension of cells or relations. Useful when relations in the data do not adhere to constraints imposed by other models like simplicial and cell complexes. Combinatorial Complexes : Generalize and bridge the gaps between simplicial complexes, cell complexes, and hypergraphs. Allow for hierarchical structures and set-type relations. Combine features of other complexes while providing more flexibility in modeling relations. Can be represented combinatorially, similar to cell complexes. ==== Hierarchical structure and set-type relations ==== The properties of simplicial complexes, cell complexes, and hypergraphs give rise to two main features of relations on higher-order domains, namely hierarchies of relations and set-type relations. ===== Rank function ===== A rank function on a higher-order domain X is an order-preserving function rk: X → Z, where rk(x) attaches a non-negative integer value to each relation x in X, preserving set inclusion in X. Cell and simplicial complexes are common examples of higher-order domains equipped with rank functions and therefore with hierarchies of relations. ===== Set-type relations ===== Relations in a higher-order domain are called set-type relations if the existence of a relation is not implied by another relation in the domain. Hypergraphs constitute examples of higher-order domains equipped with set-type relations. Given the modeling limitations of simplicial complexes, cell complexes, and hypergraphs, we develop the combinatorial complex, a higher-order domain that features both hierarchies of relations and set-type relations. The learning tasks in TDL can be broadly classified into three categories: Cell classification: Predict targets for each cell in a complex. Examples include triangular mesh segmentation, where the task is to predict the class of each face or edge in a given mesh. Complex classification: Predict targets for an entire complex. For example, predict the class of each input mesh. Cell prediction: Predict properties of cell-cell interactions in a complex, and in some cases, predict whether a cell exists in the complex. An example is the prediction of linkages among entities in hyperedges of a hypergraph. In practice, to perform the aforementioned tasks, deep learning models designed for specific topological spaces must be constructed and implemented. These models, known as topological neural networks, are tailored to operate effectively within these spaces. === Topological neural networks === Central to TDL are topological neural networks (TNNs), specialized architectures designed to operate on data structured in topological domains. Unlike traditional neural networks tailored for grid-like structures, TNNs are adept at handling more intricate data representations, such as graphs